The flaws in Intelligent design

[Audie]

Great reply.

Hey, what is wrong with "I'm rubber and you are glue, what
you say bounces off me and sticks to you"?

It raises the level of creogument!

 

[dianaiad]

I am not here to get involved in a debate about the value of proselytizing. People are free to try to convince others about what they believe in. I do not object to a person witnessing their belief to another, but any claim offered is just a claim about what is believed and not evidence that what is believed is demonstrated. Even experiences that are very real to the witness cannot be demonstrated so that another knows they are real too. It is an issue of faith, that, by its very nature, must remain always faith. In my opinion, that must be taken into account to be an honest witness.

I said that. Didn't I say that? (looking) yep, that's pretty much what I said.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why should scientists worry about whether the universe is 'designed' or not, if the method (scientific) used to examine how it works is the same either way?

As long as you figure that one MUST make a decision one way or the other as to whether the universe was designed, as long as you insist that one cannot be a scientist if one figures that it was, you are turning your position into a religion. That is, you are insisting upon qualifications for admission to the group 'scientist' that have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Since one cannot prove or disprove that there IS a 'designer,' or God, empirically, one must use other methods to figure that out for oneself. those other methods are not science or the scientific method...and should not be used to figure out whether a volcano is a shield volcano or a cone volcano. However, the methods used to determine the probable cause of 'shocked quartz," (whether nuclear explosion or meteor strike) cannot be used to determine spiritual, religious, matters. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

......and yes, SOME ID believers do the same thing, but by no means all do.

Being in the group science is not based on what a person believes, but only that they practice science. Trying to demonstrate a designer or a specific designer is not possible in science, so it is not doing science, even if you apply the scientific method.

I do not know of people that believe that came to that belief using an empirical method. It is not surprising, since that method does not work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

IOW ya gots nothing.

Get out of my head.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said that. Didn't I say that? (looking) yep, that's pretty much what I said.....

Good then. It sounds like we are on the same page on that issue.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

It was not a try. It was a valid argument based on the evidence and rejection of it should be likewise, if possible. Rejecting it by claiming 'nice try' is just weak denial based on what appears to me to be feelings of discomfort and lack of understanding.

I was shooting for a polite denial. The absolute truth to me is just what I said. Bird and Fish. They can only be categorized as transitional forms in rhetoric, which does not change what they are.

 

[Audie]

From within the design itself? (and we would be, of course, within the design) You can't. All you can do is examine how the design works. Perhaps someday we might be able to do this, but not now, and it doesn't matter in terms of science. Doesn't change anything about the design itself, would it? It is what it is. Designed deliberately or accidental, the process of it's workings are the same either way.

It kind of does say a lot about the "design"
and a whole lot more.

Because if the organism is in fact designed by a
"intelligent agent",then the grand unifying concept
is biology is as dead as the discovery that there
are no atoms would make all of theory in chemistry.

Then there is the whole thing of accepting magic as
real , and then everything in science goes spinning
seemingly out of control.

Next thing you know the law of averages and the law
of diminishing returns* will go haywires.

*try cleaning house after this happens.

 

[Audie]

Being in the group science is not based on what a person believes, but only that they practice science. Trying to demonstrate a designer or a specific designer is not possible in science, so it is not doing science, even if you apply the scientific method.

I do not know of people that believe that came to that belief using an empirical method. It is not surprising, since that method does not work.

I dont know that I would say it is impossible, but it sure
has not been done.

 

[Audie]

Get out of my head.

Prease exprain American idiom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was shooting for a polite denial. The absolute truth to me is just what I said. Bird and Fish. They can only be categorized as transitional forms in rhetoric, which does not change what they are.

They are transitional forms based on the evidence, unless you are claiming that modern birds have teeth, wing claws and a flat sternum. Are you claiming this? If so, on what evidence? The evidence is as scarce as hen's teeth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Prease exprain American idiom.

You were reading my mind.

 

[Audie]

You were reading my mind.

Ah so desu ka

 

[Jose Fly]

I was shooting for a polite denial. The absolute truth to me is just what I said. Bird and Fish. They can only be categorized as transitional forms in rhetoric, which does not change what they are.

In this thread you've asserted that no new species has ever been observed to evolve, there is no evidence of any species-to-species transition in the fossil record, archaeopteryx was just a bird, and the coelacanth....something.

Are you interested in finding out if those statements are actually true?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

They are transitional forms based on the evidence, unless you are claiming that modern birds have teeth, wing claws and a flat sternum. Are you claiming this? If so, on what evidence? The evidence is as scarce as hen's teeth.

Can you assume that every unusual creature is a transitional form? Is the platypus a transitional form?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Are you interested in finding out if those statements are actually true?

Tell me how to find out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interestingly in lists of the top 100 most beneficial inventions to mankind,
none inherently rest on evolution.

Often both views share the same data, but differ not in the scientific observations
but on the assumptions

I keep hearing that last claim repeated regularly, but I never see one example to support it. What I do see is an apparent disregard for the evidence by creationists. The same evidence may be available to both sides, but one only one side appears to be using it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should scientists worry about whether the universe is 'designed' or not, if the method (scientific) used to examine how it works is the same either way?

This shows how you are getting ahead of yourself. You are assuming design when you do not have any evidence for it. The time to believe something is after sufficient evidence has been found for that concept. You keep supporting my claims that ID is not science.

As long as you figure that one MUST make a decision one way or the other as to whether the universe was designed, as long as you insist that one cannot be a scientist if one figures that it was, you are turning your position into a religion. That is, you are insisting upon qualifications for admission to the group 'scientist' that have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

I never said that. I said that one must find evidence for one's claims. But if there is no evidence for a claim the rational way to act is not to believe that claim.

Since one cannot prove or disprove that there IS a 'designer,' or God, empirically, one must use other methods to figure that out for oneself. those other methods are not science or the scientific method...and should not be used to figure out whether a volcano is a shield volcano or a cone volcano. However, the methods used to determine the probable cause of 'shocked quartz," (whether nuclear explosion or meteor strike) cannot be used to determine spiritual, religious, matters. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

No, once again my only claim is that ID is not scientific, it is not a rational belief. You keep supporting that claim of mine.

......and yes, SOME ID believers do the same thing, but by no means all do.

I have yet to see an ID believer properly approach their beliefs. They go about it backwards. They assume an answer and then try to fit observations to it. The problem is that they have to pretend that certain observations do not exist.

The reason that it is illegal to teach ID in schools is because it is a religious belief and not a scientific one, as you have shown all too well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From within the design itself? (and we would be, of course, within the design) You can't. All you can do is examine how the design works. Perhaps someday we might be able to do this, but not now, and it doesn't matter in terms of science. Doesn't change anything about the design itself, would it? It is what it is. Designed deliberately or accidental, the process of it's workings are the same either way.

Your inability to define "design" is tripping you up. Your answer assumes a design.

By the way "accidental" is a bit of a strawman when it comes to evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you assume that every unusual creature is a transitional form? Is the platypus a transitional form?

In essence, all living things are transitional. It is a mammal that lays eggs. Obviously, it is transitional to mammals, even while it is classified as a mammal.

I see we have entered the "gotcha" phase of the discussion where you cannot win based on logic and evidence, so you are going to keep firing out post to trip me up.

 

[Audie]

They are transitional forms based on the evidence, unless you are claiming that modern birds have teeth, wing claws and a flat sternum. Are you claiming this? If so, on what evidence? The evidence is as scarce as hen's teeth.

Hey what are ya going to do with a guy who has
absolute truth?

Still, I bet our friend could not name one bone in a skull,
still less identify what are the diagnostic differences among
reptile, bird, and mammal skulls. I bet I could come up with a fish or two he would know are fish.