Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!

[Revoltingest]

Are you desperate for attention?

Never mind - rhetorical question!

Limburger helps avoid attention.

 

[metis]

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms."

I have said in my responses many times that ID does not replace some mechanism of evolution being involved. I believe in some mechanism of evolution and natural selection within a species to produce variations is an accepted science fact.

So, let me ask you this question: How is "intelligent design", as you are using it, any different than basic "science"? If you view the two as the same, why use the term "i.d.", especially since "i.d." is almost always used in theological context, and just use the term "science"?

Also, is your concept of "intelligent design" in any way guided by anything other than the basic laws of physics, and if so, please explain exactly what that "guiding hand" actually is?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"when comparing the definition you have provided, with the OP you write, is that intelligent design isn't talking about the evolution of existing life via cross-breeding or genetic manipulation, but rather the creation of life"

No here is my OP:

"We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.

We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.

Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.

Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms."

I have said in my responses many times that ID does not replace some mechanism of evolution being involved. I believe in some mechanism of evolution and natural selection within a species to produce variations is an accepted science fact.

Your dictionary definition clearly states

1. the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.

Your OP clearly uses a different definition. So, as stated, when comparing the definition YOU PROVIDED, with the OP YOU WROTE, there is a clear difference related to intelligent design. As per the dictionary definition you have provided, your OP doesn't meet the criteria of 'intelligent design'. Me creating a hybrid flower species isn't 'intelligent design'.

 

[Blastcat]

The title is a follow up on my other discussion about Intelligent design and why it is not creationism and required no God or Super Natural power.

There were many in those discussions that were still associating creationism with intelligent design to dismiss the idea so this is their chance to prove that Intelligent Design is not a fact if they can.

Once we establish that Intelligent Design is not creationism then we can look at how that could be applied to the formation of life on earth and other planets.

But we KNOW that ID is creationism, why pretend?

 

[Blastcat]

No you are hijacking the discussion.

If you don't like the topic go start your own discussion.

I am on the side of science and ID is science. Evolution is many theories that has many holes and does not address the origin of life.

Together they might explain how life came to form on this planet or on other planets we may visit in the future.

Unfortunately, scientists don't actually agree that ID is science. The concensus view is that ID is a pseudo-science at best, and creationism thinly disguised at worst.

 

[Blastcat]

"So it's just a word game."

No it the difference between factual and verified science and non factual religiosity and theories of evolution.

"But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading."

Probably would be in your case but like I said it does not require a God or a genius.

"The origin of life isn't part of evolution."

Right- let's just ignore how no life forms could not start through evolution and focus on other stuff.

"As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything."

One of those holes is where did that life originate so it could evolve. Without that your theory falls apart.

You are constructing an argument from ignorance. This is a logical fallacy.
I suggest you look this up:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Using a fallacious argument just fails to prove anything, sorry.

If you are interested, I can help you understand how you have made the error.

 

[Blastcat]

If you want to claim life can evolve from inorganic life then tell us how that happens?[/QUOTE]

"Evolution has superior explanatory power"

Great then explain to everyone here how evolution happens from life that did not exist before?

You DO realize that the theory is properly ONLY a biological one, right?.
We need life to first EXIST in order for TOE to apply. TOE doesn't have anything to SAY about how life actually began. That's why many religious people have no problem believing TOE and a creator god.

But there are experiments and evidence that show how life could POSSIBLY come from non-living matter.

___________________________

It serves no purpose to point to our IGNORANCE as if it proves your point. You should learn to avoid such an argument "ad ignorantiam".
I know you didn't ask, but just in case there are people who are wondering about the fallacy, allow me to explain it a bit in context with your thinking:

FIRST OFF.. it's important to note that saying that someone is building an argument from ignorance IS NOT insulting their person. ( calling them "ignorant" ) I urge those who are not completely aware of the meaning to look it up. Argument from ignorance means an argument BUILT from ignorance. We can be very knowlageable and intellectually honest and STILL use an informal logical fallacy.

OK, on to the explanation:



Just because we know NOTHING ( are ignorant ) about X doesn't mean that Y is true.

To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance", and invalidates any argument.
Now, X and Y can be any two different ideas at all.. this rule applies about any two ideas.

So, we can replace X with "abiogenesis" and Y with "I.D.".
We would get:

Just because we know NOTHING ( are ignorant ) about abiogenesis doesn't mean that I.D is true.



____________________________


Scientists will reject papers that are based on faulty evidence and fallacious reasoning, and that's why the I.D. theory or creationism theory are not considered to be acceptable in science. Apologists aren't so strict, because it's their job to make the Bible seem at least plausibly true in the wake of modern science and thinking. Evidence isn't on their side, so they avoid it or deny it's true. Reason isn't on their side either, so they mangle it and hope believers wont notice very much.
These are pretty good tactics, a lot of people don't understand TOE, but think it's wrong on little or no evidence and on very bad reasoning, such as the argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Acim]

Pigeon Chess, and your not even a good player.

Nonsensical and ad hom. Keep trying!

Noted, but clearly not understood.

I'm sure you'll get it soon.

 

[Acim]

Please scrutinize.

State the same in another thread, tag me in that and I shall.

 

[sayak83]

State the same in another thread, tag me in that and I shall.

There were three distinct points in my reply, each requiring detailed analysis.
1) The status of transitional fossils as evidence for the evolutionary theory as opposed to a creationist model (which you will need to supply)
2) Truth/Falsity of my statement that current models and experiments on the mechanism that causes mutation that shows no evidence of any inbuilt directionality
3) The ancestor descendant relationship between simple prokaryotic unicellular life to complex eukaryotes and multicellular life is supported by fossil or genetic tree/ protein tree analysis or not.

I would would prefer tackling (1) first as it aligns with materials I am reading now. (2) is also do-able. (3) is inconvenient as I would have to get materials that I do not currently have at my home.

 

[Sapiens]

Nonsensical and ad hom. Keep trying.

Yeah, your right, I'll drop the ad hominum and apologize for it.

You are, in fact, a passable Pigeon Chess player.

 

[Acim]

Yeah, your right, I'll drop the ad hominum and apologize for it.

You are, in fact, a passable Pigeon Chess player.

This is addressing the ideas up for discussion and not the personas of the people you are in discussion with?

 

[Sapiens]

This is addressing the ideas up for discussion and not the personas of the people you are in discussion with?

Oh, I thought you were having a problem with being described as a "bad" Pigeon Chess player. "Pigeon Chess player" is, IMHO, an accurate description of your basic approach to debate.

First, let's understand what playing Pigeon Chess is described by Rationalwiki as:

... a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer[1]regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction: “”Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

As such "debating techniques" are not limited to creationists, the phrase has entered the general Internet lexicon,[2] together with the source quotation, which is sometimes cited as an anonymous "Internet law". The reference to creationists is usually replaced with whatever group the user is arguing with.

Andrew Schlafly was similarly described for his contributions to Usenet talk.origins in 2002:[3] "I tried it for a while, but arguing with Andy is like playing chess with a small child who doesn't know the rules."

The 2007 cartoon "King me!" by Rudis Muiznieks[4] uses a similar joke and has achieved some notice in the skepticsphere:[5]

Now it should be rather a simple exercise for you to go back through you posts, look for where you have claimed victory, and consider if, in point of fact, you did anything other than (apocryphally speaking) "knock the pieces over and crap on the board."

 

[Acim]

Oh, I thought you were having a problem with being described as a "bad" Pigeon Chess player. "Pigeon Chess player" is, IMHO, an accurate description of your basic approach to debate.

Nope, just the idea that you chose to make it about me rather than the ideas up for discussion. To me, your characterization of me is entirely on you. Says nothing about me, in reality. Just comes across as a tactic of logic whereby it is seemingly plausible to discredit an assertion by thinking one has made valid claims about the person, due to subjective certainty in the characterization.

 

[Sapiens]

Nope, just the idea that you chose to make it about me rather than the ideas up for discussion. To me, your characterization of me is entirely on you. Says nothing about me, in reality. Just comes across as a tactic of logic whereby it is seemingly plausible to discredit an assertion by thinking one has made valid claims about the person, due to subjective certainty in the characterization.

Do you really want to play, "is not, is too, same to you, sticks like glue," as well?

 

[Acim]

Do you really want to play, "is not, is too, same to you, sticks like glue," as well?

Not really. If I observe it again, I'll just use the report button and let the moderators sort it out.

 

[Sapiens]

Not really. If I observe it again, I'll just use the report button and let the moderators sort it out.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Etritonakin]

It is not a semantic argument and evolutuonists have tried to lump ID into creationism so they can avoid the fact that evolution is not the only way life can be started on a new world.

This opens up the discussion so we can start looking at other methods planets can be made livable and form life without spontaneous life forming from inorganic materials.

Something that evolution does not and can not address.

From another angle...... We have synthesized DNA, so we could potentially create completely new life forms which would HAVE not evolved -but might we create a life form which DOES not evolve -whether internally and/or through reproduction -or even one which is not based on DNA -perhaps using other elements?

Might we create a life form which evolves internally and applies changes without reproduction -essentially a shape-shifter of sorts?
Some believe that cosmic radiation drives mutation -so might we prevent such from mutating a species or use such to cause specific mutations remotely?

just thinking... anyway.... here is some more thinking

evolution as we know it is advantageous in a closed -yet changing -system, for the survival of life -but not necessarily any one species.
It is possible for life to be energized by light alone or some other source rather than species consuming other species -but consumption of other species is advantageous to adaptation and the recycling of material. If we designed solar-powered life forms which did not adapt or reproduce, for example, life would be more vulnerable to circumstance.
If (for the sake of argument -as I believe it did) evolution had a designer, I would imagine the purpose of evolution to be continuation of life without the necessity of constant attention. It would also provide interesting variety and newness.

However... consumption of other species becomes an issue at a certain point.
Things become a consideration when a life form is able to consider them.
The more a life form thinks, feels, etc., the more reluctant we become to harm them -or, rather, to consider what we do to them to be harmful.
When a life form begins to consider its own existence and demise -and that of other species, death itself becomes an issue. We naturally seek to avoid death just as we seek to avoid other harm -and we also consider living forever -avoiding death altogether.

Given the forces and elements which we know to exist.... what sort of configuration might allow for immortality -and how might we transition from a mortal body to an immortal body?

Designing a body which is less vulnerable than our own would likely be easier than finding a way to inhabit it -and choosing the course of our own evolution over time to cause decreased vulnerability and eventual immortality would be of no advantage to those who have passed away -as we have no record of the "person" who inhabited the body. It might even be easier to design immortal life forms than to make ourselves immortal.

That was all over the shop -but it was fun to think about.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Thought that might get your attention so before you rush to post your arguments read:

It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.
.

Breeding organisms involves a form of selection called artificial selection. But in a broader sense, nature can be defined as anything that simply happens, and humans are part of nature. So artificial selection can be argued to be natural selection as well.

See? I can play with words too.