Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

Dawkins clearly demonstrates how much of his belief is based on emotion, overt hatred of the alternative, a very personal desire to make God redundant, but when it comes to actual evidence...
"it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history"

Of all the Intelligent Design advocates on this forum I've found you the least dishonest and/or ingnorant. But this is the 4th or 5th time you've tried to pass off that quote completely out of context... What are you doing?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Nazis Nazis Nazis - Eugenics Eugenics Eugenics...

And when did THAT end?
Did you wake up today and find out it was 1939? 1941? 1945?

You're getting closer, but you're still 70 years off...

 

[JM2C]

Yes, and Hiroshima was the end result of e = mc^2 and atomic theory. Which, of course, does not make atomic theory any falser because it allows bombs of mass destruction, does it?


Ciao


- viole

I knew you would join us here, its only a matter of time. I have no idea what E=MC2 is. Can you explain in details on how it works?

 

[JM2C]

And when did THAT end?
Did you wake up today and find out it was 1939? 1941? 1945?

You're getting closer, but you're still 70 years off...

Non sequitur. I have a perfectly clear conscience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I knew you would join us here, its only a matter of time. I have no idea what E=MC2 is. Can you explain in details on how it works?

It doesn't "work". Its just an equation of how mass and energy are related. Much like F=M*a

Here is a wiki on the subject and if you actually care I can describe it to you.
Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[viole]

I knew you would join us here, its only a matter of time. I have no idea what E=MC2 is. Can you explain in details on how it works?

It means that a little bit of mass can generate enormous amounts of energy that can be used, among other things, to make stars or annihilate a large amount of people, with atomic bombs, for instance. Relativity, basically.

Is this fact of nature somehow wrong or not true because it can be leveraged by humans to kill many people at once and cause enormous sufferance?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And what exactly is wrong with his statements? I don't see anything contradictory to science or reason.

And what do you mean by "beliefs for what they are"? Supported by science and in some cases based off inferences. It is a long leap to say that science is just making stuff up. The only reason why we can devise potential tracks of evolution between two different forms in the record is based off of the larger picture that we have.

Have you ever watched a snapshop security footage? Its where it takes a frame or picture every few seconds. If we see someone doing something in these photos we only have a few instances every few seconds to see what they were doing rather than a smooth HD video. It doesn't mean that they are incorrect. If we see a man walking down the street in this kind of footage then we can very reasonably assume that in the times where he was not being photographed he was still walking.

yes though if the man suddenly appears half a mile down the road in different clothes, it's not entirely clear it's the same man, far less if he changed into a dog in the process!

but I take your point, I don't think there is any slam dunk argument either way, it's a little more nuanced.
Obviously there is some interesting natural history in the fossil record, various designs appeared, and appeared quite abruptly, at different stages- and obviously once a superior design appears, it's superiority helps it thrive-- but how those design improvements came to be is the interesting part.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

yes though if the man suddenly appears half a mile down the road in different clothes, it's not entirely clear it's the same man, far less if he changed into a dog in the process!

Turned into a dog? In the 2.2 million years that it took from Lucy to us we have an incredible and specific understanding of exactly how that happened. Human evolution is very well known an documented. I don't know where you are getting this point

but I take your point, I don't think there is any slam dunk argument either way, it's a little more nuanced.
Obviously there is some interesting natural history in the fossil record, various designs appeared, and appeared quite abruptly, at different stages- and obviously once a superior design appears, it's superiority helps it thrive-- but how those design improvements came to be is the interesting part.

This is another strange thing. We know exactly who they "came to be" and mutations are easily observed and documented. The two problems you have are two of the most well understood.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Turned into a dog? In the 2.2 million years that it took from Lucy to us we have an incredible and specific understanding of exactly how that happened. Human evolution is very well known an documented. I don't know where you are getting this point

This is another strange thing. We know exactly who they "came to be" and mutations are easily observed and documented. The two problems you have are two of the most well understood.

that every design improvement from single cell to you and I was the result of accident, chance, that's the essence of the theory that most are skeptical of

 

[Monk Of Reason]

that every design improvement from single cell to you and I was the result of accident, chance, that's the essence of the theory that most are skeptical of

You can doubt all you want but the evidence is in front of your face. You don't like it because we don't have every single change and every single mutation in a card catalog. Tough. The evidence remains the same and it remains solid. Do you have any kind of evidence against it or evidence to the contrary or for ID?

 

[metis]

What do you call a Jew supporting evolution? Would that make Judaism a Hoax?

Most Jews accept the ToE as long as it posits God as the ultimate cause. Judaism is not a "Hoax", nor is Christianity, but your approach to the ToE is certainly a "Hoax". There simply is nothing in the ToE that goes against a belief that God created all., but for some reason you can't see that rather obvious fact.

 

[metis]

Darwin’s Descent of Man argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others.

Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent).

Are you aware of the fact that Darwin was an ordained lay minister in the Anglican Church? With that being the case, shall we lay his racist views on his Christian upbringing?

The fact of the matter is that these are people doing research and putting forth hypotheses, roughly a century and a half ago. For you to use them is pretty much like saying that there's been no advancements in psychology since Freud.

The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.

I was sponsored by the Holocaust Memorial Center to study the Holocaust here, in Poland, and in Israel, and for you to blame that on the ToE is just outrageously nonsensical. There was a batch of aspects that lead to that, including some Christian teachings that Jews were of Satan. Even though some German scientists did indeed believe in eugenics, they weren't calling the shots, plus even they were influenced by the NAZI approach that Jews and some other were "not true Germans" and were inferior for other reasons as well.

 

[outhouse]

Can you explain in details on how it works?

As soon as you can explain grade school biology

 

[outhouse]

the essence of the theory that most are skeptical of

Provide sources.

Who exactly is skeptical besides those embracing religious fanaticism?

 

[outhouse]

Your belief is not relevant. It is evidence for fanaticism and fundamentalism when one refuses academia without the knowledge to do so.



We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[metis]

Jewish Naturalism? Is that the same a spiritual naturalism? Another speculative [compromiser] philosophy..

You wouldn't understand because you have this great propensity to believe in what you want to believe-- facts be damned. Your primary "deity" is you.

If you actually want to know where I'm coming from, then you might read this: Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- or this: Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course you'll likely believe that you know far more than they.

 

[metis]

Are you outhouse? If it does not concern you then it’s not for you to answer. You can tell me anything you want about yourself and believe me it will not change a bit on how I perceive you as a person/ape.

I am fully aware that facts have no influence whatsoever on your opinions and beliefs, so no surprise with the above. I couldn't care less how you perceive me, but I do care a lot when people who are supposed to be intelligent adults pass on fairy tales to be believed as facts to their children. The ToE in no way implies there is no God, but you can't even accept that basic fact.

BTW, I cannot read outhouse's posts, so I thought you were addressing me. Sorry for that error on my part.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can doubt all you want but the evidence is in front of your face. You don't like it because we don't have every single change and every single mutation in a card catalog. Tough. The evidence remains the same and it remains solid. Do you have any kind of evidence against it or evidence to the contrary or for ID?

As Dawkins said, there are very real large gaps, with no direct evidence of smooth changes at all, highly evolved species appearing as if planted with no history, is hardly a minor omission in the catalog

Nothing was considered more solid 'immutable' than classical physics, which had far more direct empirical evidence, measurement, observation, testing and was considered unquestionable among academia for longer than evolution. And as with evolution, it's simplicity, elegance, was very attractive, along with the explicit implications of such a 'complete explanation' making God redundant.

While outside of the academic minority, most people believed the world they observed around them was just too complex, beautiful, functional to be governed by a few simple laws, and they were absolutely right.

I think 'classical' evolution as is, fundamentally fails to account for life for the same reason, in a word- entropy, simple laws produce simple results.

 

[SkepticThinker]

you'd have to read the whole chapter in context, he wasn't debating evolution v creation at all, but Punctuationists v Gradualists - pointing out that they both agreed on the observation

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record,[]. One good reason might be....."

and again goes on to air his speculations about the missing evidence, which is fine, but it doesn't replace the evidence. one good reason might also be that they never existed.

if you have evidence to the contrary to 'crush' this problem i'm sure he'd be very interested!

Even if you can prove your dog ate your homework, this does not earn a passing grade in science, in academia, book sales, TV appearances, awards etc it obviously does

So it's exactly as Monk of Reason just explained:

"This is true. A huge problem is that people think that there is a significant debate because we have a lot of non-scientists on the internet attempting to debate this rather than actually looking at the scientific field. There are no debates about the validity of evolution anymore. Most of these were hammered out in the late 1800's an early 1900's. Debate on evolution now involves the specifics of evolution. Both sides agree it happened but now we get to squabble over exactly how it happened and in what order."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As Dawkins said, there are very real large gaps, with no direct evidence of smooth changes at all, highly evolved species appearing as if planted with no history, is hardly a minor omission in the catalog

Indeed. And yet we do have evidence for these small changes and smooth transitions in other species. Why would it be different for others especially with the understanding that there will be gaps. would it not be most reasonable to assume based upon the evidence at hand? If I have evidence of a smooth transition between two species across millions of years and I have two species that are obviously related but there is a gap between the two forms should I assume god did it or should I assume that it followed the same patters that we already know to exist.

Nothing was considered more solid 'immutable' than classical physics, which had far more direct empirical evidence, measurement, observation, testing and was considered unquestionable among academia for longer than evolution. And as with evolution, it's simplicity, elegance, was very attractive, along with the explicit implications of such a 'complete explanation' making God redundant.

While outside of the academic minority, most people believed the world they observed around them was just too complex, beautiful, functional to be governed by a few simple laws, and they were absolutely right.

I think 'classical' evolution as is, fundamentally fails to account for life for the same reason, in a word- entropy, simple laws produce simple results.

This is just a recurrent fallacy that you keep spouting as if it actually has some sort of meaning. "Oh we might be wrong" is a weak argument that no longer deserves any kind of response. Classical physics was rightly held as immutable until evidence was found against it. No one who studies evolution thinks that it is some immutable truth. Nothing is beyond revision with new evidence. However as the cards lay now and have laid for hundreds of years and continue to be built upon by new eivence, is that it will be here to stay.