A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

We know that the pyramids are artificial constructions. The same test cannot be used for living organisms. Complexity does not evidence design when discussing natural organisms.

And how do we know that they are artificial constructs? ..


Pretend that we find something that looks like a pyramid in some other planet, what objective method should someone use, to determine if it was designed or not?

 

[leibowde84]

Sure if you can explain the complexity of life by random mutations and natural selection, then ID would be wrong (or at least unnecessary)

Natural selection along with billions of years to work with and enough chaos explains it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No that is not my strategy, these are meant to be separate points,

1 evolution is controvertial in science

2 ID is the best explanation for the complexity of life

I am not implying that proving 1 would automatically prove 2, these are meant to be independent points.

Then why don't you drop #1 since that has been shown to be wrong time after time?

Second since ID is not even a hypothesis how can it be a better explanation than a theory that has been tested and confirmed millions of times?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so can you show that the path described by Dawkins is achievable by the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection?

If you did not understand the video why didn't you ask?

The problem is that you won't allow yourself to understand explanations.

 

[leibowde84]

And how do we know that they are artificial constructs? ..


Pretend that we find something that looks like a pyramid in some other planet, what objective method should someone use, to determine if it was designed or not?

Well, specifically with the pyramids, we can see that they are constructs consisting of many different blocks that are obviously cut from larger rocks and piled on top of each other ... hence the word "constructed".

If we found a mountain on mars, for example, we could not conclude that it was constructed if it was just one piece of rock. It could have been shaped by water, wind, etc.

 

[leroy]

We can. So, what's the problem?

Well I am not aware of the evidence, care to provide some?
Just to be clear, you are suppose to provide evidence that shows that the complexity of life is a consequence of random mutations and natural selection.

You don’t have to prove that random mutations and natural selection occur (we both agree that they do)

You don’t have to prove universal common ancestry, nor that we came from simpler species (we both accept that as true)

What you have to show is that the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations was responsible for evolving simple organisms in to modern organisms

 

[leroy]

If you did not understand the video why didn't you ask?

The problem is that you won't allow yourself to understand explanations.

The problem is that the video doesn’t even attempt to prove what I asked you to prove

 

[leibowde84]

Well I am not aware of the evidence, care to provide some?
Just to be clear, you are suppose to provide evidence that shows that the complexity of life is a consequence of random mutations and natural selection.

You don’t have to prove that random mutations and natural selection occur (we both agree that they do)

You don’t have to prove universal common ancestry, nor that we came from simpler species (we both accept that as true)

What you have to show is that the mechanism of natural selection and random mutations was responsible for evolving simple organisms in to modern organisms

We can see that from the fossil record. But, maybe I don't get your question. If we assume that random mutations and natural selection occur and that we all have a universal common ancestry (at least on this planet), what use is there for design? What is there for design to explain?

 

[leroy]

Well, specifically with the pyramids, we can see that they are constructs consisting of many different blocks that are obviously cut from larger rocks and piled on top of each other ... hence the word "constructed".

If we found a mountain on mars, for example, we could not conclude that it was constructed if it was just one piece of rock. It could have been shaped by water, wind, etc.

how do we know that they where obviously cut from larger rocks?


And if the pyramid n mars is made out of many blocks, could we conclude design?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly you are pathetic, nobody is denying phylogeny, I have told you this docens of times. A bunny in the Precambrian or a chimera would also be inconsistent under my view.

We both accept that humans came from worm-like ancestors, the disagreement is on whether if the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection was mainly responsible for such a change.

Can you prove that your statement uncontrovertibly true? Or would you rather join me and scientists and say that the statement is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Watch the personal attacks. And it has been shown to you time and time again how evolution has been show to be not only possible, but the only explanation out there. You merely refuse to understand the explanations. That is "pathetic" if anything is.

And you have been told by many that science does not "prove" anything. And why do you keep repeating that falsehood that the science is controversial? I refuted your "Dissent from Darwinism" nonsense.

We were going over the basics. Let's get back to them. You had no answer to the fact that ID is not even a hypothesis as laid out in the simple flow chart of the scientific method that I presented to you.

 

[leroy]

We can see that from the fossil record. But, maybe I don't get your question. If we assume that random mutations and natural selection occur and that we all have a universal common ancestry (at least on this planet), what use is there for design? What is there for design to explain?

Proving universal common ancestor doesn’t automatically proves that random mutations and natural selection where responsible for the diversity of life.

 

[leibowde84]

how do we know that they where obviously cut from larger rocks?

See image below. it is very easy to see the smaller pieces making up the pyramid whole.

And if the pyramid n mars is made out of many blocks, could we conclude design?

Yes. Blocks are never cut in this way naturally and piled up to make a larger formation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

how do we know that they where obviously cut from larger rocks?


And if the pyramid n mars is made out of many blocks, could we conclude design?

Still asking poorly thought out questions. Why do you even do this? Do you want everyone to see how weak your position is?

 

[leibowde84]

Proving universal common ancestor doesn’t automatically proves that random mutations and natural selection where responsible for the diversity of life.

Why not? Are you saying that just because something is possible without any verifiable evidence, it somehow competes with the theory of evolution by natural selection? Why should we even consider something without concrete evidence?

 

[leroy]

Watch the personal attacks. And it has been shown to you time and time again how evolution has been show to be not only possible, but the only explanation out there. You merely refuse to understand the explanations. That is "pathetic" if anything is.

Quote a single post where you showed that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is uncontrovertibly true..

And why do you keep repeating that falsehood that the science is controversial? I refuted your "Dissent from Darwinism" nonsense.

It is not a falsehood, as I have shown evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial, other mechanisms are being discussed and some of them have passed the peer review process

We were going over the basics. Let's get back to them. You had no answer to the fact that ID is not even a hypothesis as laid out in the simple flow chart of the scientific method that I presented to you.

Ok my hypothesis is that life is specified and complex……….why wouldn’t you count this as a hypothesis?

 

[leroy]

Why not? Are you saying that just because something is possible without any verifiable evidence, it somehow competes with the theory of evolution by natural selection? Why should we even consider something without concrete evidence?

The point that I am making is that apart from the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection, there are other mechanism that are being discussed in science and some of these mechanism have passed the peer review process.

If there are many possible mechanism, then we shouldn’t assume that evolution by natural selection is uncontrovertibly true

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that the video doesn’t even attempt to prove what I asked you to prove

Actually it did. Or else you were making a rather ridiculous and ignorant demand again. Try not to use improper terms such as "prove". Ideas can be tested in the sciences. Testing shows whether reality supports the theory or hypothesis or refutes it.

Quote a single post where you showed that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is uncontrovertibly true..

Thanks for admitting that you do not understand how science is done. Again.

It is not a falsehood, as I have shown evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial, other mechanisms are being discussed and some of them have passed the peer review process

No you haven't. And no you are merely piling on falsehoods. At best you only demonstrated that you do not understand those "other methods", which would not mean that you were not lying, but an ignorance of reality does not make false claims true.

Ok my hypothesis is that life is specified and complex……….why wouldn’t you count this as a hypothesis?

Sorry, but you are now just using word salad. You would need to have a working definition of "specified" and "complex". That is why it is not a hypothesis. How would you test it? Without a clear way to test it the concept is not a hypothesis. It is at best an ad hoc explanation. That means it is not science and one cannot claim there is evidence supporting it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So @leroy you gonna dodge this again?

Evolutionary scientists are debating the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles, therefore.....................?

 

[Jose Fly]

If there are many possible mechanism, then we shouldn’t assume that evolution by natural selection is uncontrovertibly true

Again, try and keep up Leroy. Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a directly observed fact.

You seem to have a habit of losing track of points from one post to the next. Is there a reason for that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes.


No, that is the assertion.


He also accepts common descent and an old earth and such.

I have met people with far more scientific relevance than him who find his work irrelevant - and truly, what 'work' has he actually done? He actually declared at the Dover trial that it was not up to him to test his ideas.

So what is your point?

"I have met people with far more scientific relevance than him" means they have far more relevance than you, not being a scientist like BEHE, so how do you know who is right? Degree comparison?