Intelligent design theory, PROVEN

a reply to: noonebutme

How is it invalid? Your "God", according to the scriptures in the bible, say he created man in his own image. If that's the case, why make us so fallable? So weak? So physically inferior?

Good observations but the story goes on from there and implies that something changed to disrupt what God had originally created and wanted . Is it not strange that all humans seem to think of a ideal world where all is a paradise .Could this be some kind of lost identity that we seem to work towards . Paradise lost ,so to speak . Oh and the Image thing is more of a title that only man has a legitimate right to pursue and hopefully regain in its full context .
If you continuing reading you see that plan A (the garden) is plan A in the end .There is no plan b for God ,He will complete what He desired and burn the rest .If He is the creator of the soul He will be the destroyer of the soul .

If we are meant to be so special, why did you God not give us the ability to see infrared radiation which causes damage? or gamma rays? Why are our eyes so poorly designed in comparison to an eagle, which is a subordinate form of life. Do eagles have better eyes than God?

He went one better and gave us a brain to use to see much further and better then the simple eagle now didn't He . He gave us many attributes that the other animal's dont have . Should the pot complain to the potter about the way the potter made it .Why am I not like that pot ? why have you done this to poor me boo-hoo .

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO. Another creationist thread that claims proof in the title but offers none. Typical intellectual dishonesty, not like I expected actual proof in an ID thread that says proof. Too many creationist liars out there. Keep on breaking god's commandments to dishonestly promote your religion. Too funny. Can't you stop lying, maybe if just for even one thread? It's not even worth arguing. ID is not a theory or hypothesis. It's a flat out guess, FAR from proven.

LMao
Just like your threads
Typical intelectual dishonesty

What, don't like evidence, the same evidence I have to put up with
Evolution theory is a flat out guess
Next round

a reply to: the2ofusr1

If you continuing reading you see that plan A (the garden) is plan A in the end .There is no plan b for God ,He will complete what He desired and burn the rest .If He is the creator of the soul He will be the destroyer of the soul .

In other words, it was God's plan for Adam and Eve to disobey (was God using reverse psychology to get Adam and Eve to want to take from the fruit, with the snake just providing some extra peer pressure?) and thus also his plan to bring about suffering and death - and et ceterea ad nauseam.

The above being true, it's isn't the Satanist, but the Christian, who worships evil.

a reply to: polyath

Well, if we take God to be all powerful, then there are infinite possibilities. Ergo, "God" becomes superfluous. Moving away from debating about God, let's move onto the concept that the universe was intelligently designed,i.e. that everything falls together according to a plan. Indeed, the universe does seem to work like clockwork...except that it doesn't. It's chaotic, but since we know nothing else, it seems ordered. Furthermore, with infinite possibilities - our universe was bound to arise, us included. There is no reason to assume an intelligent being created anything.

Just because there may be many ways to bake a cake ,you may decide to bake it a certain way for it to be just the way you like it or want it to turn out . Consider the Universe as something that is winding down and has a shelf life that can sustain the ingredients to the results you are making .We create thing to serve a purpose and that become useless after we are done making what we wanted . Simple forms to hold hot metals to create a piece to fit in something bigger we are making .

with infinite possibilities - our universe was bound to arise, us included.

Now that is quite the statement . Not saying I know one way or another but you might have a problem proving it .Some times numbers might be convincing but they are not really empirical .Convincing to some but not to others but can be a useful data point to maintain our comfort zone .

a reply to: polyath

In short no .But to understand why no you would have to go into deep study and thought on the subject .There is no one single thing or answer to what God may be up to ,but lots of data points along the way to suggest what it is .Some questions can be answered in simple terms but to get to some of the deeper answers to even the simple questions is like going into the spooky world of the quanta . Unlike the quanta which is a thing the spiritual world may not be of the same substance ..Hard to compare this with that thing we have no reference point to . Its like imagining life in other galaxies and what that might look like if it did exist . Strange might be a good word in comparison to this rock we live on .

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO. Another creationist thread that claims proof in the title but offers none. Typical intellectual dishonesty, not like I expected actual proof in an ID thread that says proof. Too many creationist liars out there. Keep on breaking god's commandments to dishonestly promote your religion. Too funny. Can't you stop lying, maybe if just for even one thread? It's not even worth arguing. ID is not a theory or hypothesis. It's a flat out guess, FAR from proven.

LMao
Just like your threads
Typical intelectual dishonesty

What, don't like evidence, the same evidence I have to put up with
Evolution theory is a flat out guess
Next round

Here is a typical creationist at work. This is called creationist false equivalence, basically he's lying.
Do not your book fabels say false witness get you a ticket to hell?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

It's not a matter of "comfort." It's known as the infinite monkey theorem - or better yet, is just a version thereof. You can say we don't know God's purpose, we don't know there was no God, etc. My argument is not whether or not God exists - my claim is that whether or not God exists, He is not necessary. Whether or not intelligent design is true, it is not necessary - and furthermore it is explaining something retroactively.

Another problem with the notion of intelligent design is that it assumes death was always a part of God's plan. Thus death was never a result of sin, but rather a result of God's plan.

a reply to: polyath

Maybe its all about how we approach the data within our own world view .That at least seems fair enough .Now we both may represent the same data in different ways that will fit it into our own view .The comforting part is only the product of how well that data seems to fit into our own narrative . If someone else is messing with our data that we don't like then it becomes uncomfortable . Not all data is created equal nor is all data interpreted equal .We both have a bias in the game and want to support that bias . That is why there can be very strict rules to follow so as to create good quality data ,independent from bias .

It bring into question objectivity and if its really possible to bridge it when dealing with the physical and none physical nature of the cosmos .The mixing of speculation with observation can be both exciting and troubling depending on how fixed a stance you have in either realm. Toss Metaphysics into the mix and it may just be a overload of information to parse properly or correctly for that matter .

a reply to: Raggedyman

A theory cannot be based on an unprovable assumption. Theories by definition are an explanation of some process with repeatable observable phenomena with rigorous amounts of data to back them. Saying an unfindable, non-verifiable force at work is creationism in disguise. Intelligent design is the worst sort of bottom-feeder.

In leaving this thread I want to post something I am nearly finished reading .I encourage others that are truly seeking to know the truth of the matter and warn those that could be uncomfortable with a 180% turn to avoid the piece .

Atheists routinely style themselves as champions of reason and science, and they view evolutionary theory as a triumph of both. Indeed, they believe that evolution helps them to explain features of the world that would otherwise be inexplicable. As Richard Dawkins put it, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”1 Ironically, however, evolution cannot possibly bear this burden, because if evolution were true it would undermine our confidence in human rationality. While Christianity has the resources to account for reason, the atheistic paradigm self-destructs. The contrast can be seen by comparing what each worldview says about the origin and composition of human beings

Another poster mentioned Monkeys so seeing Monkey minds as a title I was curious .creation.com...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
LMao
Just like your threads
Typical intelectual dishonesty

What, don't like evidence, the same evidence I have to put up with
Evolution theory is a flat out guess
Next round

I have not once ever on this site created a thread with a blatant lie in the title. This isn't your first time, either, your history speaks for itself. You didn't prove intelligent design, so why lie about it in the thread title? I wish mods could fix thread titles like that. It should say, "My opinion on intelligent design", but you guys just refuse to acknowledge that your opinion is opinion or that your faith is faith. It's laughably absurd the level of dishonesty you stoop to to promote a religion.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1Good observations but the story goes on from there and implies that something changed to disrupt what God had originally created and wanted . Is it not strange that all humans seem to think of a ideal world where all is a paradise .

I'm not suggesting or implying that we should be immortal or that life should be easy peasy. Not at all.

But I find it very...."convenient" that if we were made by such an incredible being, that so many fundamental issues were either "missed", forgotten about or intentionally put in place.

Why is our larynx and throat in such a fashion that we easily choke? Other animals do not have this issue.

The point about the eyes -- what I was really getting at was, there are SO many invisible and unseen ways for us to have irreparable damage done to us; why not give us the ability, innately, to avoid them?

He went one better and gave us a brain to use to see much further and better then the simple eagle now didn't He.

But the human brain evolved over millions of years - we have evidence of the cranial space increasing over generations of hominids which eventually led to our species. It wasn't just 'given' to us as you put it. It took millions of years to get to the size it is now. At the cost of our other senses (reduced space for olfactory, hearing canal depth, eye size, etc) .

Should the pot complain to the potter about the way the potter made it .Why am I not like that pot ? why have you done this to poor me boo-hoo .

Absolutely! Taking your side for a moment, your God created us, but created us flawed, weak and overwhelmed by hormones and emotions which for the most part supersede logic and reason in many instances. We live comparatively short lifespans and are susceptible to countless diseases and congenital defects. This isn't logical and from what we can see of the world and universe around us, things operate on logic and reason.

Finally, and this is might be sensitive, why create people with different skins colours? If evolution isn't correct, then why make people with different skin colours, only for us to eventually kill each other because of it? Or multiple religions? Why not, once a week, tell the whole world there IS no right religion and just be kind to each other?

I guess what I'm saying is, with all his power, knowledge and wisdom, why make SO many fundamental mistakes? Why put in the conditions which naturally lead us to war and kill each other?

Seems unnecessarily barbaric and sadistic.

EDIT: I'm not trying to have a go at you or anything - just stating my points. The internets don't convey tone very well and if you read anything malicious from this post please don't - it certainly wasn't meant to have any!

a reply to: noonebutme

You raise legitimate objections that can be resolved and understood using reason .I posted a link to a piece that takes up the subject of reason within the two camps of thought .I know the theory of billions of years does give or should give one theory at least the time that may be needed to be believed .In fact in the article it mentions Dawkins being quite comforted by it . Take the billion or millions of years out of the equation and he becomes a very uncomfortable atheist intellectually. My view is that it doesn't matter one way or another if its thousands millions or billions of years .I don't need a lot of uncertain things to focus on or defend .It is what it is .Either there is reason for life or there is not .I seem to think there is and have but my effort to looking into it .

a reply to: Raggedyman

List them all, and make sure they actually agree with your theory. That first once certainly does not.

You do not understand how theories are postulated.

Then there is the Plos One paper....
Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

4 Mar 2016: The PLOS ONE Staff (2016) Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0151685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151685 View retraction

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Do you think life was inevitable?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nothing I could say, do, or link will prove anything to anyone

Those very words you have written should have been in the OP.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Well kinda sorta.

There are many peer reviewed articles out about ID now, they have peer reviews, so its a theory, if we understand theory as evidence, does it make it a proven science?
Of course its not empirical evidence, like what I would expect from a real proven scientific fact. It is evidence, it is a theory, am I repeating myself to much

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

www.sciencedirect.com...

www.discovery.org...

journals.plos.org...

Now a theory is

plato.stanford.edu...

www.geo.sunysb.edu...

www.nap.edu...

So there we have a scientific theory, it has peer reviews and it is clear and precise in its explanations.

Now to borrow from NI

originally posted by: Noinden



" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]" From Wikipedia(yet I include the citations they use, least you try the "don't trust Wikipedia fallacy).



(1) National Academy of Sciences, 1999 (www.nap.edu...)
(2) "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu...)
(2) Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science" (www.geo.sunysb.edu...)

So Intelligent Design is a theory, it has evidence, peer reviewed so cant be ignored as a faith anymore, scientific evidence as listed.

www.faithandevolution.org...


So feel free to shred, tear, rip up at it gents.

Evidence, theory, science.

Raggedy - mind if I borrow one of your links for my upcoming thread? Thanks.

As a proponent of Biblical Creation (Gen 1), to me, ID has merits of its own in support to my belief. Although ID fall short of showing an Intelligent Designer / Creator for the Intelligent Design, it contains proof (as far as I'm concern) that life and the universe for that matter are the products of an Intelligent Designer.

Proof is abundant but only to those who are willing to seek it with an open mind.

a reply to: polyath

Do you think life was inevitable?

Depend's I guess .Such a small but yet very big question .Much like the question [s] about a soul or the soul .Would it even be possible to prove or disprove such a question ? Where do you start to find the answer ,in the subjective or can it be determined objectively ?. I didn't or cant remember making that determination .I don't think my parents determined it but defiantly had a part in the process in the creation of my flesh .
ETA on the other side of the coin is the inevitability of death .I think we can agree that it has a 100% chance of happening while you coming into existence has bigger odds to over come .

a reply to: edmc^2

Feel free to use anything you want to.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

List them all, and make sure they actually agree with your theory. That first once certainly does not.

You do not understand how theories are postulated.

Then there is the Plos One paper....
Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.

The editors apologize to readers for the inappropriate language in the article and the errors during the evaluation process.

4 Mar 2016: The PLOS ONE Staff (2016) Retraction: Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0151685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151685 View retraction

Oh dear me
So the proponents of evolution let a nasty ID design paper slip and then retracted it due to an outcry from atheists

Big shock
and I am supposed to think what?
What you tell me to?