Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Twilight Hue]

Genetics can be very misleading. We share 50% of the same DNA as a Banana.

Geneticists can say there are links but without fossil evidence it is still guessing.

Don't get me wrong- I believe some forms of evolution do happen within a species. Just when you start turning fish into humans without fossil evidence you are really stepping out there into just guessing not science.

Actually gene regression has made some significant in-roads into the very matter.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

What great replies everyone! They are intelligent and well thought out. I wish I had time to reply to all but I have computer eye right now, alas, I look forward to reply to those addressed to my comments ASAP~ I also noticed some very interesting thought provoking comments addressed to other members.

 

[Dante Writer]

What Dawkins actually said was: "Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

The bolded section answers your question. You can stop carrying water into the quote mine.

Which has nothing to do with my question- read for comprehension please:

Does Intelligent Design require a God or Super natural being?

Intelligent Design does not replace evolution and no where did I say that the designer(s) did not use some evolution mechanism in their design.

Front Loaded evolution also relies on that same principle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which has nothing to do with my question- read for comprehension please:

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read for comprehension yourself. They were not responding to your question, but to your quote of Dawkins. Do you or do you not accept that what you wrote was a quote mine?

 

[Dante Writer]

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and read for comprehension yourself. They were not responding to your question, but to your quote of Dawkins. Do you or do you not accept that what you wrote was a quote mine?

Again:

Which has nothing to do with my question- read for comprehension please:

Does Intelligent Design require a God or Super natural being?

Intelligent Design does not replace evolution and no where did I say that the designer(s) did not use some evolution mechanism in their design.

Front Loaded evolution also relies on that same principle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again:

Which has nothing to do with my question- read for comprehension please:

Does Intelligent Design require a God or Super natural being?

Intelligent Design does not replace evolution and no where did I say that the designer(s) did not use some evolution mechanism in their design.

Front Loaded evolution also relies on that same principle.

Repeating your same post is just an attempt to distract from the argument made.

Do you or do you not accept that what you wrote about Dawkins was a quote mine? If you fail to respond to this question, I will interpret it as an admission of your dishonesty.

 

[Dante Writer]

Repeating your same post is just an attempt to distract from the argument made.

Do you or do you not accept that what you wrote about Dawkins was a quote mine? If you fail to respond to this question, I will interpret it as an admission of your dishonesty.

You did not make an argument.

I posted the quote from Dawkins.

Are you claiming that is not his quote if so present you evidence or I will take it you are a liar.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have to look at the possibility of I.D. To not do so, is not mathematically sound logic, nor deduction based logic.
Anyone saying there is no 'evidence' for I.D., should keep their day job.

If there day job, is claiming there is no evidence for I.D., they should get into another line of work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you claiming that is not his quote if so present you evidence or I will take it you are a liar.

Nope. I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I accused you of quote mining. Quote mining is when you take a quote out of context, or edit it in some way, to imply it meaning something other than what was indented. A previous poster already pasted the full quote which shows why yours is a quote mine here:

What Dawkins actually said was: "Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

The bolded section answers your question. You can stop carrying water into the quote mine.

You haven't responded to or refuted this post. So, are you admitting that you have committed a quote mine, or are you going to continue to deny it and out yourself as a liar?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have to look at the possibility of I.D. To not do so, is not mathematically sound logic, nor deduction based logic.

Nobody has asserted that I.D is impossible, just that there is no evidence for it.

Anyone saying there is no 'evidence' for I.D., should keep their day job.

If there day job, is claiming there is no evidence for I.D., they should get into another line of work.

Could you please provide some evidence for I.D then?

 

[Dante Writer]

Nope. I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I accused you of quote mining. Quote mining is when you take a quote out of context, or edit it in some way, to imply it meaning something other than what was indented. A previous poster already pasted the full quote which shows why yours is a quote mine here:



You haven't responded to or refuted this post. So, are you admitting that you have committed a quote mine, or are you going to continue to deny it and out yourself as a liar?

No I took the quote direct from the link I supplied and it is available all over the web. It was not edited or or taken out of context since I quoted it verbatim.

There was no refutation and the poster only added additional statements Hawkin's made and those statements made absolutely no difference in what I presented in my original post.

Here again you do nothing to address the substance of a post and instead want to try and stop discussion because you have obvious control issues.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I took the quote direct from the link I supplied and it is available all over the web. It was not edited or or taken out of context since I quoted it verbatim.

The quote is from an interview conducted for Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" - a movie which has been heavily criticized are refuted throughout the scientific world, and has been accused of dishonestly editing interviews and misinforming the people they were interviewing. The quote provided by the poster above gives the fuller, unedited statement by Dawkins. Do you dispute that?

There was no refutation and the poster only added additional statements Hawkin's made and those statements made absolutely no difference in what I presented in my original post.

Actually, it does, since the addition of the stuff you left out changes the purpose of the statement. Here it is again:

"Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

Here again you do nothing to address the substance of a post and instead want to try and stop discussion because you have obvious control issues.

More personal attacks do not mend the holes in your argument. All you seem to be doing, across multiple threads, is repeating yourself and attacking me personally. You are not forming a very strong case.

 

[Dante Writer]

You have to look at the possibility of I.D. To not do so, is not mathematically sound logic, nor deduction based logic.
Anyone saying there is no 'evidence' for I.D., should keep their day job.

If there day job, is claiming there is no evidence for I.D., they should get into another line of work.

Thanks and I agree!

 

[Dante Writer]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/14/textbook-case-anti-science-245500.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...book-approval-to-ease-tensions-over-evolution
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-creationist-textbook-sabotaged-science/

Are you addressing these to a specific member?

If not please start your own discussion as links with no reference to what they discussing or why they are relevant is just a distraction.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nobody has asserted that I.D is impossible, just that there is no evidence for it.

Could you please provide some evidence for I.D then?

I may not have to. If you are presuming to any sort of liklihood, of an extraterrestrial seeding of the earth, /space goop/, then your argument is suggesting the ''evidence'', for I.D, de facto. //Because of the statistical implications.

Perhaps in a fictional equation, where we ''assume'', a liklihood of /plants etc etc, for earth, then I.D., is not evidenced.

 

[Dante Writer]

The quote is from an interview conducted for Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" - a movie which has been heavily criticized are refuted throughout the scientific world, and has been accused of dishonestly editing interviews and misinforming the people they were interviewing. The quote provided by the poster above gives the fuller, unedited statement by Dawkins. Do you dispute that?


Actually, it does, since the addition of the stuff you left out changes the purpose of the statement. Here it is again:

"Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."


More personal attacks do not mend the holes in your argument. All you seem to be doing, across multiple threads, is repeating yourself and attacking me personally. You are not forming a very strong case.

Whether the movie received rave reviews or criticized is irrelevant.

Adding in the additional comments of Dawkin's did nothing to change my OP as was explained.

As you can see from that additional information it does not change what I premised in my OP because the debate is not between Intelligent Design replacing Evolution.

Here is my original post and so far all you have done is attack without once addressing the question of the OP.

Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

One of the reasons I believe evolutionists and creationists get into heated battles is because religions and specifically the Christian religion has made intelligent design synonymous with a belief in a God or Super Natural Being and that completely ignores the other forms that Intelligent design could take.

I would first point out Dawkin's statements as evidence:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Intelligent Design therefore does not replace the evolution theory and it does not require a God or Super Natural Being and is a logical theory that life on earth was seeded intentionally or accidentally from another planet.

This would explain how evolution could happen at a faster rate and why we do not find the smooth progression in our fossil records as it may be hidden in our DNA to evolve when a condition is present.

Just my thoughts and your opinions are welcome no matter how bizarre!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I may not have to.

You have asserted (or, at least, suggested) that there is evidence of I.D. So yes, you do.

If you are presuming to any sort of liklihood, of an extraterrestrial seeding of the earth, /space goop/, then your argument is suggesting the ''evidence'', for I.D, de facto. //Because of the statistical implications.

Except I'm not presuming any such thing, and have no basis on which to formulate any kind of statistical probability for such a thing occurring.

Perhaps in a fictional equation, where we ''assume'', a liklihood of /plants etc etc, for earth, then I.D., is not evidenced.

Can you present evidence of I.D or not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Whether the movie received rave reviews or criticized is irrelevant.

Indeed. But whether a movie is fraudulent, misrepresentative or dishonestly edited is incredibly relevant when you are using it as a source for a quotation.

Adding in the additional comments of Dawkin's did nothing to change my OP as was explained.

Yes it did, since it explains that Dawkins wasn't saying what you were implying (that he accepts some form of panspermia is possible and that this is a viable explanation as to how intelligent design doesn't evoke a supernatural designer). He clearly states that even if we accept panspermia, we are still left with the problem of where the aliens came from. At some point there will have had to have been either some form of design or abiogensis.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have asserted (or, at least, suggested) that there is evidence of I.D. So yes, you do.


Except I'm not presuming any such thing, and have no basis on which to formulate any kind of statistical probability for such a thing occurring.


Can you present evidence of I.D or not?

It's obvious you have no idea what this subject is.
Anyways, you may not be ''presuming'' any such thing /that's your prerogative/, however, if you are not a Creationist, then you 'should' be, as a logical inference.
As to ''evidence'', I don't think you understand what ''evidence'', in this context means. There is a reason why the 'space goop'' theory is proposed. Guess the reason? Evidence.

 

[Dante Writer]

You have asserted (or, at least, suggested) that there is evidence of I.D. So yes, you do.


Except I'm not presuming any such thing, and have no basis on which to formulate any kind of statistical probability for such a thing occurring.


Can you present evidence of I.D or not?

Yes the evidence for Intelligent Design so far

Top U.S. Astronomers Tell Congress That Extraterrestrial Life Exists Without Question


Two top astronomers from the SETI Institute (Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) recently appeared in front of the congressional House Science and Technology Committee for a hearing regarding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. They told the committee that extraterrestrial life most certainly exists, without question, one of those scientists is Seth Shostak, a well-known senior scientist at the SETI Institute. They said that the chance of discovering life on other planets is inevitable and will most likely occur within the next 20 years.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...xtraterrestrial-life-exists-without-question/


Do you refute that these well trained scientists believe life exists on other planets?

If life exists on other planets then that life may be intelligent and well beyond us in space travel and therefore is evidence that Intelligent design is possible.

Evolution does not address how life came to form on the earth from inorganic materials. Intelligent design theory does.