Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

Cars evolved, a rocket to the moon evolved, and no intelligent design was involved, that is how evolutionists argue.

Cars and rockets did not "evolve", they were developed by humans. Where did you get that absurd notion? Or am I missing something?

 

[leibowde84]

Intelligent design theory simply means to accept as fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. You can see by that evolutionists fall over each other denying free will of people is real, that they simply have a problem with accepting any freedom is real.

Evolution theory is a scientific dead end, and the field is awash with ideologists producing pseudoscience intended to influence society.

Again, you have fraudulently claimed that "evolutionists" deny that free-will exists. Now I am certain you are just being dishonest, as you refuse to even produce a sliver of supporting evidence for this outlandish claim. Doesn't the Quran demand that one not be dishonest?

 

[Parsimony]

Cars evolved, a rocket to the moon evolved, and no intelligent design was involved, that is how evolutionists argue.

That's a straw-man.

These forums are being overrun with scarecrow armies...

 

[jonathan180iq]

Cars and rockets did not "evolve", they were developed by humans. Where did you get that absurd notion? Or am I missing something?

It's a common go-to argument for creationist logic.

Have you ever seen a building that didn't have a builder?
Have you ever seen a car that didn't have a maker?
Have you ever seen a watch that didn't have a designer?

These kinds of "arguments" are quite common...

 

[leibowde84]

It's a common go-to argument for creationist logic.

Have you ever seen a building that didn't have a builder?
Have you ever seen a car that didn't have a maker?
Have you ever seen a watch that didn't have a designer?

These kinds of "arguments" are quite common...

It is a straw-man argument I guess. No evolutionist is going to claim that human inventions did not have a builder. But, the cosmos is not a "human invention". It is the entirety of existence (for all we know). It seems silly to use logic like that equating a car with the entirety of the universe.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It's a common go-to argument for creationist logic.

Have you ever seen a building that didn't have a builder?
Have you ever seen a car that didn't have a maker?
Have you ever seen a watch that didn't have a designer?

These kinds of "arguments" are quite common...

Has anyone attempted this same logic to discredit ID?

As in, if all this stuff is designed by humans, then which humans designed your system of beliefs?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Has anyone attempted this same logic to discredit ID?

As in, if all this stuff is designed by humans, then which humans designed your system of beliefs?

To discredit something it must first be credible.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's a straw-man.

These forums are being overrun with scarecrow armies...

It just depends on circumstances of how much evolutionists think they can get away with, how far they go with their rejection of freedom.

Cars etc. evolving is a common enough idea now. It is how evolutionists talk about how cars were made.

 

[dust1n]

Cars etc. evolving is a common enough idea now. It is how evolutionists talk about how cars were made.

Never heard of it.

 

[Skwim]

I'm calling

on Mohammad Nur Syamsu.

 

[JayJayDee]

It's a common go-to argument for creationist logic.

Have you ever seen a building that didn't have a builder?
Have you ever seen a car that didn't have a maker?
Have you ever seen a watch that didn't have a designer?

These kinds of "arguments" are quite common...

And please tell me what things you use for a specific purpose in your occupation were not designed by someone familiar with that occupation, for that purpose?

The Bible itself uses this logic......"....the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Heb 3:3, 4)

You cannot prove that statement is false by applying science. Science gives more honor to the house than to the builder. This is nothing new. They say there is no builder...but look at the modifications that the house made to itself! Amazing, undirected chance mutations constructed all you see....? Seriously, you don't see the flaw in this argument?

Evolution uses a lot of imagination, (educated guessing) as has been demonstrated in this and other threads. Can you tell me why clever men making assumptions about fossils is equivalent to "facts" being presented as unalterable truth. A truth isn't truth until it's proven to be a lie. A truth might stand challenged but it is unalterable. An assumption isn't a fact.

It has already been established by scientists themselves that the fossil record is incomplete and relies on environmental circumstances that are also assumed to have taken place.

"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent."

Are these statements false?

 

[FearGod]

Calling it straw man

It's a common go-to argument for creationist logic.

Have you ever seen a building that didn't have a builder?
Have you ever seen a car that didn't have a maker?
Have you ever seen a watch that didn't have a designer?

These kinds of "arguments" are quite common...

And most important are the raw materials.
We should first have the raw materials.

This is logic and not straw man fallacy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And please tell me what things you use for a specific purpose in your occupation were not designed by someone familiar with that occupation, for that purpose?

The Bible itself uses this logic......"....the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." (Heb 3:3, 4)

You cannot prove that statement is false by applying science. Science gives more honor to the house than to the builder. This is nothing new. They say there is no builder...but look at the modifications that the house made to itself! Amazing, undirected chance mutations constructed all you see....? Seriously, you don't see the flaw in this argument?

Evolution uses a lot of imagination, (educated guessing) as has been demonstrated in this and other threads. Can you tell me why clever men making assumptions about fossils is equivalent to "facts" being presented as unalterable truth. A truth isn't truth until it's proven to be a lie. A truth might stand challenged but it is unalterable. An assumption isn't a fact.

It has already been established by scientists themselves that the fossil record is incomplete and relies on environmental circumstances that are also assumed to have taken place.

"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography.

Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent."

Are these statements false?

Provide sources for the blue. The only place I was able to find this copy pasted from was a from a website talking about creationism and evolution as if they were equals. The context of such statements are highly important

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Calling it straw man


And most important are the raw materials.
We should first have the raw materials.

This is logic and not straw man fallacy.

Yes it is. If you are simply saying that without matter we could have the universe as we know it then that is at least in the right direction. But one cannot equate the need for raw materials to make the leap that there must have been a builder for those houses.

 

[outhouse]

We understand.

You hate modern education and knowledge, so I don't think this will change soon.

Why do you still hate all credible education and knowledge?????????????????

 

[Leftimies]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

I don't know about flimsy excuses, but evolution is quite provable. Case in point, vaccinations and immunity development in viruses and bacteria. Darwinian evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive, actually, if you think about it. However, only evolution has been proved of the two at this point.

 

[JayJayDee]

Provide sources for the blue. The only place I was able to find this copy pasted from was a from a website talking about creationism and evolution as if they were equals. The context of such statements are highly important

Was the information in and of itself correct...regardless of the source? You are trying to destroy the credibility of what was said by who said it.....this is a common ploy used by evolutionists to cancel out any conflicting "scientific" evidence that might paint their findings in a bad light. Call the source into question in order to destroy their credibility, regardless of the accuracy of their statements......Nice try.

I notice too that no one has addressed the negative aspects of their beloved science as contributing to most of the world's problems. Chemical pollution of the soil, air and water....artificial fertilisers and pesticides leaching into the biologically dead soils used to produce our food.....heinous weapons used to kill humans in events of mass destruction.....biological weapons......medical interventions that cause side effects worse than the disease it's treating, exacerbating many illnesses and fixing very little. Anything that looks like it might solve the problems of the 21st century are shelved and lost because profits are put before everything else.

Engines have been designed that run beautifully with no fossil fuels, so technically we should have eliminated the pollution caused by automobiles decades ago, but there is no money for the oil companies in that, is there?

Electricity powered by solar panels should be providing all the energy we need, without the need of coal fired power stations or equally polluting and dangerous nuclear plants.....but the cost of installing stand alone electricity supply for our own homes is prohibitive.

We hear about scientific "breakthrough's" that are hailed as a future cure for whatever, only to disappear...never be seen or heard about again.

The legacy of science is not the wonderful achievement that most supporters claim. It hard to ignore the negative side of science when we are the victims of it in some way, every day.
Science can be a destroyer as well as a builder of anything good. Evolution has sought to destroy the inherent spirituality in man. But I guess this seems like a good thing to many......trouble is, it hasn't produced a better world...has it?

 

[JayJayDee]

Why do you still hate all credible education and knowledge?????????????????

Who said its "credible"? You have as much faith in your science teachers as we do in God. Knowledge is one thing...but the implementation of knowledge is what wisdom is. I'll take God's wisdom over man's any day.

 

[David M]

I have been accused of being dishonest on these forums by people who stated categorically that evolution is a fact.

Couldn't pass this one up.

Evolution IS a fact. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequencies in a population over time. It is a verified fact that this occurs therefore evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution explains this fact and other facts such as the fossil record, comparative morphologies, genome similarities and differences etc (e.g. both the great apes and guinea pigs are unable to sythnesize Vitamin C because the gene that does so is non-functional, however it is "broken" in in a different way for the apes than for the guinea pigs).

Although people use the term "Evolution" to cover both instances it is the former when people say the evolution is a fact because a scientific theory is never a fact, its an explanation of facts.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[David M]

Well of course it makes no sense - we did not evolve from chimps. We are apes nevertheless. You want someone to explain why chimps are still here, when both chimps and humans are modern species. You are running out of lies.

The simple analogy is that the question is like asking "I am descended from my Great Grandparents so why do I still have cousins?".