The flaws in Intelligent design

[Subduction Zone]

 

[dianaiad]

You have been obviously wrong in your use of "ID". I understand that it sounds good, but sounds good is not a proper reason to try to redefine a term. I have not put you down in any way. You got mad at me because you did not realize it but by relatively using a well understood term incorrectly you kept calling yourself a creationist.



No, I would not. Again ID has a specific meaning. Unlike you that believes that God has a hand in it but it was a subtle one, ID believers claim that certain steps are impossible without God.



Sorry, but the obligation to use a term correctly is upon the person using a term. If a person uses a term incorrectly and is corrected getting mad at the person that corrected him or her is counterproductive

Talking to a mirror, are you?

 

[We Never Know]

In some movies dinosaurs speak English, or, as it may be,
other languages.

Speculation is fun, as is fantasy.

Dinosaurs being related to our birds does sugges
that they may have vocalized in at least vaguely
similar ways. Alligators are the closest reptiles
relatives of birds, and they at least bellow.

The way T rex always goes about with mouth open.
and then does this display of roaring, esp after
he has just killed something is kind of silly.

Hollywood.

Some dinosaurs to seem as if they have
structures adapted to noise-making.
This odd crest is not solid bone, but has
nasal passages running up, then down the
length of it. Sort of a trumpet? Who knows.

duckbill dinosaur - Google Search:

Exactly. It wasn't movies that made up some of the sounds, it was paleontologist. I was curious if anyone else had every thought how they got their sounds when none have ever been heard.

 

[We Never Know]

That is kind of rude and dismissive, bud.

He's sure he already had it figured out. The movies did it

 

[Audie]

Exactly. It wasn't movies that made up some of the sounds, it was paleontologist. I was curious if anyone else had every thought how they got their sounds when none have ever been heard.

Really. Including the ones that speak English.
And you know that because?

 

[We Never Know]

Really. Including the ones that speak English.
And you know that because?

The English speaking might have learned from the same place as the donkey and snake

The one you posted it is paleontologists that think it had a horn sound. Some think T-Rex couldn't roar with out lips, there are several arrivals on it.

Here's a quick simple one.
Dinosaurs likely didn't roar, new research suggests

 

[Audie]

The English speaking might have learned from the same place as the donkey and snake

The one you posted it is paleontologists that think it had a horn sound. Some think T-Rex couldn't roar with out lips, there are several arrivals on it.

Here's a quick simple one.
Dinosaurs likely didn't roar, new research suggests

Im not sure what we are disagreeing about.

In the event, lions seem to roar just fine with
mouths wide open.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talking to a mirror, are you?

No, I supported my explanations of how you were using a term incorrectly. A term that led others to think that you are a creationist too. Remember how you kept accusing me of making false claims about you? That was because of the continued misuse of the term "intelligent design".

Intelligent design - Wikipedia
Intelligent Design: Is it scientific?
Intelligent design - RationalWiki
intelligent design | History & Facts

Even the pseudo-science sites that support it have a different definition than you do. When a person uses a term in a way that no one else does that person has no grounds for complaint if others misunderstand that person.

 

[Bear Wild]

Which ID proponents are you talking about?

And HOW many times do I have to write that one cannot prove that god exists empirically? If one cannot prove that God exists empirically, then ...excuse the emphasis here, but I am really frustrated at the level of intransigence and unwillingness to actually read what I write....

how in the name of all that is logical, holy, objective or subjective can one prove "Intelligent Design?"

Indeed, What part of "Intelligent Design belongs in church," is going whoosh? What part of my repeated statements that science isn't about proving that God exists; science is about investigating the process? That science is about what the universe is and how it works, not Who made it?

But you folks seem to insist that because I DO believe in God, then I MUST 'really' believe in young earth creationism, or am all about proving that god exists, when almost every post of mine rather blatantly claims that this isn't possible through science?

"Intelligent Design" may include the young earth creationists who are attempting to present themselves under a new name. It also includes folks like me, who believe that the universe was indeed 'intelligently designed,' but who also believe that it's not science's job to prove that; it's the job of science simply to examine what is, and help us understand the processes. It doesn't matter, to 'science' whether God designed the universe or not; the goal here is to understand it, not to chase down the Author....or to prove that there isn't one.

But more than one of you simply doesn't seem to read what I write. You are inventing your own dialogue for me, and I am tired of it.

I have read what you wrote but wanting to believe in intelligent design does not make it so. Science has the evidence that the progression o life on the earth progressed without the need of an intelligent designer starting it or continually changing the design. Without a link to an intelligent designer you just have imaginative beliefs. There is too much evidence of how the genetic code increases in complexity by natural means to create and intelligent creator. Even what we call intelligence was formed by natural forces without the need for an intelligent designer to design a brain. To ignore all of the evidence just for the desire to believe in something you want to believe is the same as believing in magic or anything of the imagination.

 

[Bear Wild]

I gotta jump in here. I've only been glancing at the back and forth with @dianaiad but even at that level of perusal, I thought it was pretty clear that he saw his views on God and design as his personal religious beliefs, and wasn't saying in any way that they were scientifically valid and should be taught as such.

Unless I missed something.

The discussion is on intelligent design and why it cannot explain how life developed on earth. This is not about whether there is or is not a god.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ah. No, it isn't. You may claim it is, but you are wrong. Many ID proponents accept evolution. They just think that God micromanages it. Or if not micromanages, certainly giving it a boost in the desired direction from time to time...less, perhaps, than mankind has done with plants and animals ourselves.

I'm not even willing to go with that; I suppose that it might be possible to find evidence that the evolutionary process has been interfered with, if indeed it has...but I honestly don't see how, and as far as I am aware, nobody has found any such evidence.

Mind you, if He decided that evolution (in terms of producing us, say) went off the rails with the dinosaurs so that it would have been impossible to produce decent sized mammals that would eventually end up in us as long as they were there, the Chicxulub meteor would certainly have been a quick, 'down and dirty' way to accomplish getting the evolutionary train going in the 'proper' direction. A very OT style divine clobber, actually.

Oh...just to cut this off, because I KNOW that you will make some idiotic side track about how I claimed that the Chicxulub meteor was God micromanaging His design...I am not claiming that. It's a joke. I think. Anyway, we certainly can't prove that god had anything to do with it, and it is silly to try. Our job is to figure out what happened when the meteor struck, how life came back, and if the astrophysicists are interested enough, perhaps to figure out where that meteor came from and if there are any more out there with earth in the 'cross hairs.'

ID proponents run a very wide gamut of belief. that you insist that they ONLY comprise the far end of the 'creationist' spectrum, so that anybody who believes that god created the universe MUST then be strict biblical creationists is irrational. It's also fallacious; equivocation, composition....begging the question...shoot, just about all of them.

.....and your claim here is as rational as claiming that all atheists are hide bound anti-theists who want to pass laws prohibiting all religious observances and have 'Imagine" as their anthem.

You don't think that, do you?

The problem with understanding you logic is that if you accept evolution then it is clear that only natural forces are necessary for diversity to occur and the development of the natural world. If you throw in a god that micromanages everything then you would have to explain how the god makes the changes and have some evidence for it occurrence. What has been shown is that the natural forces of our world are all that is needed so why add in an improvable agent that has no evidence for support when all that is needed is already in the natural world itself?

 

[Jose Fly]

The discussion is on intelligent design and why it cannot explain how life developed on earth. This is not about whether there is or is not a god.

What I see is someone expressing their religious beliefs, making it abundantly clear that they are just that....beliefs, and you guys challenging her to empirically support those beliefs (as you just did above).

Seems a little annoying.

 

[dianaiad]

The problem with understanding you logic is that if you accept evolution then it is clear that only natural forces are necessary for diversity to occur and the development of the natural world. If you throw in a god that micromanages everything then you would have to explain how the god makes the changes and have some evidence for it occurrence. What has been shown is that the natural forces of our world are all that is needed so why add in an improvable agent that has no evidence for support when all that is needed is already in the natural world itself?

Hmmn.

I guess the situation, for me at least, is that (and I find this difficult to explain so others can understand me; my fault) I figure that God, in creating the universe. made the 'laws' by which it works. Of course everything would then work by those laws/rules, and since they are the ones God created, there is certainly no need for Him to break them.

So, if He designed evolution as a process, why would He go in and stir the pot? It's already doing what He wants it to do. So is every other process by which the universe works. To imagine that He has to come in and tweak things is to imagine that He was poor designer. IMO, of course.

Now WE, operating according and within those rules, aren't going to see beyond them to a designer; why should we? if the rules work as they should (and they should, if God designed them) then we aren't going to see anything outside or beyond them. Our view, as theists, would be the same view non-believers have; all we see are the rules/laws/processes. I think that if we SEE God's touch in them, it would only be because they broke somewhere.

This means that we won't ever see objective, scientific, proof that god is behind universe creation.

We can, however, through prayer and such, receive personal and subjective evidence that He is. Individually. I can't prove His existence to you...and you can't prove His non-existence to me.

but both of us have to approach the study of the universe the same way, with the same methods, and we will see precisely the same things when we do. You...or at least atheists...will see in this examination of the way the rules work evidence that God is not required.

Well, He's not; if He were, He would have been an extremely bad Designer of things. IMO, of course, and my opinion isn't worth much.

 

[Jollybear]

It is an easy metaphor. That is it. DNA is really more like a cipher. Changes are letter by letter and not whole words.

Is it literally a cipher?

I figured you would come up with some wild explanation that was based on unverified belief. Maybe it is alien NDE's that result in telepathy. I could be wrong about the whole ghost of Bigfoot thing.

We translate human languages and use dictionaries to define words. Theoretically any word can be any object in a language. Another feature found in languages, but not in the DNA code.

Is it literally a code?

Also if its not literally a code, then why is it LIKE a code?

Again, a metaphor that lay people can relate to and understand. Since, you are bent on arguing about things you are clearly not knowledgeable about, I did not think a full explanation was necessary.

Do a Google Scholar search for:

Tsonis, A. A., Elsner, J. B., & Tsonis, P. A. (1997). Is DNA a language?. Journal of theoretical Biology, 184(1), 25-29.

The pdf of this paper is available for download and it will provide the information about why DNA is not a language like English.

Ok, i read it. The first part of the article admits theres much thats not understood. The conclusion is more experiments need to be done. As far as the body goes, is beyond my comprehention.

 

[Jollybear]

No, it means that you were playing equivocation
with the word "faith", and now you are still doing
it, and compounding the silliness,

I suppose you do not know what "equivocation"
means, or what is the problem with it, why it is
an eye-roll when you keep doing it.

Look at it this way. The word "frog" has a lot of
meanings It might mean a Frenchman, a bayonet
thingy, a hoppy amphibian, part of a violin bow.

One might possibly make a low joke about
eating frogs, but it is hardly a worthy thing to bring
into some sort of debate.

Mixing up the meanings of a word is the
equivocation fallacy. You keep doing it. Plz
stop.

If you cannot recognize, or wont, the difference between
a bayonet thingy and a Frenchman, or between the
"faith" that your fork wont suddenly turn into a
Frenchman and "faith" in an undetectable sky-god
that runs everything, you are somewhere beyond
hopeless.

Please give us assurance that this is not so.

Im just using logic. Atheism is a lack of faith in God/gods, but its also an active faith in naturalism.

If you dont like the word faith, replace it with the word belief, or the word inference, or the word hypotheses. Any one will do just fine.

 

[Audie]

Im just using logic. Atheism is a lack of faith in God/gods, but its also an active faith in naturalism.

If you dont like the word faith, replace it with the word belief, or the word inference, or the word hypotheses. Any one will do just fine.

What I dont carre for is senseless, purposeless
word games.

Whst does any of this equivocation accomplish?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Im just using logic. Atheism is a lack of faith in God/gods, but its also an active faith in naturalism.

If you dont like the word faith, replace it with the word belief, or the word inference, or the word hypotheses. Any one will do just fine.

Why will any of those things be just fine to you, just as good as "faith?" To anyone who likes to communicate, words have meaning, and very often nuance. We use words, many of us, in an honest effort to convey what we really mean. That's part of the great wonder of language.

Yet it appears you would like to subvert the power of language for no other reason than to make it seem as if everybody is doing what you're doing. Surprise …. we're not.

 

[Jollybear]

What I dont carre for is senseless, purposeless
word games.

Whst does any of this equivocation accomplish?

My point is this: atheists like to say we religious folk have faith/belief and they dont.

Thats not true, they do have belief, just in something else.

Thats not a word game, its just pointing out an obvious fact.

Join forces with me in refuting all these posts because i dont have enough time to respond to all them.

 

[Jollybear]

Why will any of those things be just fine to you, just as good as "faith?" To anyone who likes to communicate, words have meaning, and very often nuance. We use words, many of us, in an honest effort to convey what we really mean. That's part of the great wonder of language.

Yet it appears you would like to subvert the power of language for no other reason than to make it seem as if everybody is doing what you're doing. Surprise …. we're not.

Many words have the same meaning in alot of cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I dont carre for is senseless, purposeless
word games.

Whst does any of this equivocation accomplish?

The acts of a desperate creationist.