Original research into intelligent design and/or creationism

[fantome profane]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

Hypothetically imagine you had unlimited time and resources to do your research. You could do this in the lab or in the field. You could travel to any place on earth (or space if that helps). You could have a staff of researchers of any number.

So what would you do? What would you like to research? What methodology would you use? What kind of results would you expect to find?

Sky is the limit. I look forward to hearing some interesting ideas.

 

[Alceste]

I suppose I would have to find the garden of Eden and the earthly remains of Adam and Eve. In the garden there should also be the remains of a big snake, and a huge number of different "kinds" of organisms from the whole history of life all, coexisting in a single sedimentary layer. That would also have to be within spitting distance of THE FIRST sedimentary layer: IOW, before the separation of the earth and the water, there could have been no annual deposits of sediment. Once you'd drilled down 6000 layers, there should be no layers any more, and shortly after the first layer there should be a very sudden appearance of the earthly remains of every known living thing.

I'd just be wasting the money, but if somebody wants to pay me to do that, I'll go for it.

 

[Me Myself]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

Hypothetically imagine you had unlimited time and resources to do your research. You could do this in the lab or in the field. You could travel to any place on earth (or space if that helps). You could have a staff of researchers of any number.

So what would you do? What would you like to research? What methodology would you use? What kind of results would you expect to find?

Sky is the limit. I look forward to hearing some interesting ideas.

Do you really?

I prophetize as much success for such as the success on other threads such as the one where I ask for someone to explain the science behind creatonism/intelligent-design and another made about how would a curriculum of a class on intelligent design look like

 

[Ouroboros]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

I would build a "Creation Museum", and scam money of people... No, wait, it's been done already.

 

[Alceste]

I would build a "Creation Museum", and scam money of people... No, wait, it's been done already.

Yeah but didn't that guy somehow manage to end up in jail? Or was that the other guy...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah but didn't that guy somehow manage to end up in jail? Or was that the other guy...

Ken Ham? Not as far as I know. He was sued at one point by the ministry he was originally part of. That was settled, I think.

Australian, and a holder of a Bachelor of Ed.

 

[rusra02]

If you could do research into intelligent design (or creationism) what would you do?

Hypothetically imagine you had unlimited time and resources to do your research. You could do this in the lab or in the field. You could travel to any place on earth (or space if that helps). You could have a staff of researchers of any number.

So what would you do? What would you like to research? What methodology would you use? What kind of results would you expect to find?

Sky is the limit. I look forward to hearing some interesting ideas.

What is only hypothetical for ID is close to reality for those espousing evolution. Yet despite such enormous expenditures of time and money, and ceaseless research spanning many decades, the ToE remains unproven. As to ID, one only needs eyes to see and an open mind to understand what even a child knows: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 13:4) In other words, any complex object, whether living or not ( a house, for example), that cannot be demonstrated to occur by natural forces, requires an intelligent designer. The amazing wisdom and brilliant design evident everywhere we look is proof positive, IMO, of a grand Designer. as Romans 1:20 says; God's invisible qualities are perceived by the things he has made, just as the qualities of an architect are perceived by the things he makes.

 

[rusra02]

I would build a "Creation Museum", and scam money of people... No, wait, it's been done already.

How about creating a working scale model of a single human cell, including the molecular machinery, DNA, and all the rest, such that one could tour through and see how all this works. Maybe a ride like at Disney. Oh wait, no one has the technical skill to build such a model, nor even the complete knowledge of the cells workings.

 

[LuisDantas]

How about creating a working scale model of a single human cell, including the molecular machinery, DNA, and all the rest, such that one could tour through and see how all this works. Maybe a ride like at Disney. Oh wait, no one has the technical skill to build such a model, nor even the complete knowledge of the cells workings.

Do you realize that such a model is neither necessary, nor actually useful as evidence for evolution?

It could make a good educational tool, and something alone those lines will doubtless be built eventually. But it is worthless as evidence (not proof, which is not a scientific concept) of Evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is only hypothetical for ID is close to reality for those espousing evolution.

That being...?

Yet despite such enormous expenditures of time and money, and ceaseless research spanning many decades, the ToE remains unproven.

If you mean to use "unproven" in the vulgar sense, then you are lying outright. The ToE was already "proven" back in the 19th century, and has been used to great benefit and results in various fields since.

That of course does not mean that it is impossible to deny. People are stubborn.

As to ID, one only needs eyes to see and an open mind to understand what even a child knows: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 13:4) In other words, any complex object, whether living or not ( a house, for example), that cannot be demonstrated to occur by natural forces, requires an intelligent designer. The amazing wisdom and brilliant design evident everywhere we look is proof positive, IMO, of a grand Designer. as Romans 1:20 says; God's invisible qualities are perceived by the things he has made, just as the qualities of an architect are perceived by the things he makes.

So are you saying that ID is essentially the desire to state that existence was willed by a higher power? If so, why does it have such a beef with the ToE?

 

[rusra02]

That being...?




If you mean to use "unproven" in the vulgar sense, then you are lying outright. The ToE was already "proven" back in the 19th century, and has been used to great benefit and results in various fields since.

That of course does not mean that it is impossible to deny. People are stubborn.




So are you saying that ID is essentially the desire to state that existence was willed by a higher power? If so, why does it have such a beef with the ToE?

"That being" the ToE having nearly unlimited resources for research.

Of course, if you are speaking of so-called macro-evolution, nothing of the sort has been proven.

As you should know (and I'm persuaded you do know), The ToE claims all the complex life forms on earth were not designed by a Creator, but evolved by natural (and undirected) processes from earlier life forms. Can we keep it real here?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"That being" the ToE having nearly unlimited resources for research.

Of course, if you are speaking of so-called macro-evolution, nothing of the sort has been proven.

As you should know (and I'm persuaded you do know), The ToE claims all the complex life forms on earth were not designed by a Creator, but evolved by natural (and undirected) processes from earlier life forms. Can we keep it real here?

How do you describe viruses and prions?

 

[rusra02]

Do you realize that such a model is neither necessary, nor actually useful as evidence for evolution?

It could make a good educational tool, and something alone those lines will doubtless be built eventually. But it is worthless as evidence (not proof, which is not a scientific concept) of Evolution.

I agrees it is worthless as evidence for evolution, but very useful as evidence for creation. As to it's being built "eventually", only if man's knowledge and engineering skills increase exponentially. And if it is built, which I sincerely doubt, it will only prove the truth that such a fantastic edifice as a single cell cannot happen without an intelligent Designer.

 

[LuisDantas]

"That being" the ToE having nearly unlimited resources for research.

Why do you think it is so? Might it be perhaps because that research gets results and they are often financially rewarding as well?

Of course, if you are speaking of so-called macro-evolution, nothing of the sort has been proven.

There are only so many ways to call a lie a lie. Is it ok if I just ignore your statements of this sort from now on?

As you should know (and I'm persuaded you do know), The ToE claims all the complex life forms on earth were not designed by a Creator,

That, too, is a lie.

The ToE says nothing whatsoever about the existence or lack of any Creator. It just explains how lifeforms change and adapt along generations, often developing new species.

Absolutely nothing in the ToE is incompatible with the belief in a Creator God, although one sometimes wonders why would a Creator leave so much signs that he did not mean to Create.

but evolved by natural (and undirected) processes from earlier life forms. Can we keep it real here?

Yes, please. Come back to me when you are ready.

 

[Falvlun]

What is only hypothetical for ID is close to reality for those espousing evolution. Yet despite such enormous expenditures of time and money, and ceaseless research spanning many decades, the ToE remains unproven.

This is like saying Germ Theory is unproven. I mean, you can say it, but nobody is going to take you seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agrees it is worthless as evidence for evolution, but very useful as evidence for creation.

Why would it be so?

There is nothing in the actual workings and structure of the human cell that supports creationism. If there was, one would expect some Histologists to let us know already.

Quite a many of them are believers, you know. Such a major breakthrough would hardly pass unnoticed.

As to it's being built "eventually", only if man's knowledge and engineering skills increase exponentially.

So you believe they do not?

And if it is built, which I sincerely doubt, it will only prove the truth that such a fantastic edifice as a single cell cannot happen without an intelligent Designer.

To those that are mind-set to perceive things by whatever filter that is necessary to reinstate their preconceptions on the matter, that might very well be.

For those who care about facts, though, things will happen in a very distinct way.

 

[Falvlun]

I suppose I would have to find the garden of Eden and the earthly remains of Adam and Eve. In the garden there should also be the remains of a big snake, and a huge number of different "kinds" of organisms from the whole history of life all, coexisting in a single sedimentary layer. That would also have to be within spitting distance of THE FIRST sedimentary layer: IOW, before the separation of the earth and the water, there could have been no annual deposits of sediment. Once you'd drilled down 6000 layers, there should be no layers any more, and shortly after the first layer there should be a very sudden appearance of the earthly remains of every known living thing.

I'd just be wasting the money, but if somebody wants to pay me to do that, I'll go for it.

For the Biblical account of Creation to be proven, this is exactly what we'd need to see.

What is the Creationist argument that we don't see sediment layers ending at 6-10,000 years, and a layer containing fossils of every kind of animal?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Of course, if you are speaking of so-called macro-evolution, nothing of the sort has been proven.

Macroevolution in plants through hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed and studied...

 

[Alceste]

"That being" the ToE having nearly unlimited resources for research.

Of course, if you are speaking of so-called macro-evolution, nothing of the sort has been proven.

As you should know (and I'm persuaded you do know), The ToE claims all the complex life forms on earth were not designed by a Creator, but evolved by natural (and undirected) processes from earlier life forms. Can we keep it real here?

You've heard of DNA, right? Guess what - it proves macroevolution.

 

[Alceste]

For the Biblical account of Creation to be proven, this is exactly what we'd need to see.

What is the Creationist argument that we don't see sediment layers ending at 6-10,000 years, and a layer containing fossils of every kind of animal?

They've never thought about it. Creationists don't do science. They just attack it.

I know most of them don't believe sedimentary layering is a reliable measurement of time passing. Yep - they don't believe in grade 7 level geology. When it comes to different evolutionary eras appearing at different layers, they say it's because the heaviest animals stunk the fastest during the flood. Lol.

That's something else I could set out to find - evidence of heavy animals sinking faster in a modern day flood, replicating the pattern we see in the fossil record.