Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Originally posted by truthseeka

ID makes no reference to a method through which the designer works. ID does not describe the nature of said method. Not on par with evolution here.

truthseeka,

I'll keep it simple for you...

Take a look at a bridge.

You do not have to know how the bridge was built, the materials that were used, etc., to know that someone designed it and someone constructed it.

The same applies to the Universe.

Evolutionism has lots of flaws. The only proof positive that the Evolutionists have been able to provide us is that microscopic life forms - under certain circumstances - have progressive mutations. This is a far cry from furthering solid evidence that we evolved into Homo sapiens from single-celled life forms.

As such, the theory of Intelligent Design not only holds up as a valid theory in its own right, but in some ways it is even more reasonable than the flawed theory of Evolutionism.



[edit on 4-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

Evolutionism has lots of flaws. The only proof positive that the Evolutionists have been able to provide us is that microscopic life forms - under certain circumstances - have progressive mutations. This is a far cry from furthering solid evidence that we evolved into Homo sapiens from single-celled life forms.

Hey, the theory has changed quite abit since darwin's day.

As such, the theory of Intelligent Design not only holds up as a valid theory in its own right, but in some ways it is even more reasonable than the flawed theory of Evolutionism.

Far from reasonable. The second you question the designer itself the second the theory topples. Why won't anyone from the ID circle of super friends answer any question directed about the designer itself? Evolution's only flaw is that it's still a theory in progress. No, it doesn't explain everything, but there's plenty of evidence in support of it. What evidence is in support of ID that doesn't rely on lack of knowledge? Can you show me something that screams of design without relying upon science not knowing how something works?

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Produkt]

Nice try.

We know how bridges are constructed and what means one might go about constructing bridges. This is totally different from life forms; we know nothing about how one might design a life form. See the difference yet?

Try this; have ID hold itself up without attacking evolution. Like I said, no mention of the way the designer designs and no description of the process. Evolution has natural selection and describes it. Whether you agree with it or not, the point is that evolution poses a way in which it works and describes it.

Originally posted by truthseeka

We know how bridges are constructed and what means one might go about constructing bridges. This is totally different from life forms; we know nothing about how one might design a life form. See the difference yet?

I used a simple illustration.

Taken in a more complex situation, the logic remains the same.

In other words, the same applies to life forms.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Try this; have ID hold itself up without attacking evolution.

You mentioned Evolutionism in your argument, which is why I mentioned it also. It is not my fault that you can't come up with a good rebuttal to support your stance.

Intelligent Design is an excellent theory surrounding the beginnings of the Universe. Evolutionism does not embrace cosmic beginnings, only mutations after the fact.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Like I said, no mention of the way the designer designs and no description of the process.

You must first learn how to walk before you can run.

Do you know how to make a bridge? No.

Do you know how to make life forms? No.

But they both point to architects

Originally posted by truthseeka
Evolution has natural selection and describes it. Whether you agree with it or not, the point is that evolution poses a way in which it works and describes it.

A piss poor way...sure.

I guess if one is not very good at deductive and inductive reasoning and will merely go along with the crowd which furthers an antiquated theory that has an abundance of flaws, then yes, you are quite right.

Re: Snowflakes, "God of the Gaps," etc...

From Demski's blog "uncommon descent" - www.uncommondescent.com...

You're continued assertions that ID is based on a lack of data only serves to show that you have no understanding of the concepts/theories/hypotheses being discussed by ID theorists. You're contention that snowflakes should be evidence of ID shows you're ill-informed as to what is meant by specified complexity or what Dembski's explanatory filter does (see comments section of link re: triangular snowflakes.)

You're first inclination may be to google the rebuttals to SC and the EF (they do exist but i'm willing to bet this is the first you've heard of them) and then post those along with another "you gotta be a moron to believe this." You're a mile wide and an inch deep guy; you're ability to debunk concepts without ever having read them is astonishing... the design inference is based on observational data, known laws and mechanisms (whether you're talking biology or cosmology (physics) )... not simply filling in the gaps of knowledge with a "God did it." If i were to say that the atheist position is "nature did it," would i be as credible?

If you really are interested in design from a design theorists perspective i'd suggest the following sites:

www.designinference.com... - "The Writings of William A. Dembski" (already gave you a link to his blog... the comments section below each post contains great discussions/debates imo, the skeptics that post on his blog offer some great counter arguments (i suggest you take notes) )

arn.org... - Access Research Network: "Providing accessible information on science, technology, and society from an intelligent design perspective." Tons of info on that site, the discussion board is top notch also imo (again some really good counter arguments there). I only post on ATS but i follow that board also... alot of scientists (both pro and anti ID) and some very good debates/discussions about NDT/ToE/ID/creationism on ARN.

www.ideacenter.org... - The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a recently formed non-profit organization dedicated to promoting awareness of scientific evidence that supports intelligent design theory and fostering good - spirited discussion and a better understanding over intelligent design theory the creation - evolution issue among students, educators, churches, and anyone else interested.


Some specific pages that you might appreciate:

www.arn.org... - The Explanatory Filter:
A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design "An excerpt from a paper presented at the 1996 Mere Creation conference, originally titled "Redesigning Science."

www.ideacenter.org... - FAQ: Is ID a "god-of-the-gaps" argument?

inductive logic From: wikipedia

Enjoy

What?

How? If no one knows how to go about constructing a life form, how does your bridge analogy apply? How do you know you're not making too much out of a natural process? Humans are good at spotting patterns, but this also leads to us seeing patterns where there are none.

I mentioned evolution because the point of this thread, which YOU made, is that evolution and ID are equal theories. Why the hell wouldn't I mention evolution? You must have missed the point, but here it is again, evolution does not attack ID to prove itself. However, the way you put it, ID attacks evolution to prove itself.

I am not an architect, but I have some rudimentary ideas on how to make a bridge. NO ONE has any idea on how to make life forms. Get it? Architects can make bridges, but NO ONE can make life forms.

You obviously didn't read what I posted. I said your opinion is IRRELEVANT, the point is that evolution both mentions a way in which it works and describes it. Even if it is "piss poor" (which it isn't ), it is at least a part of the theory. Where's the parallel in ID?

You wanna talk about flaws? ID mentions a designer in TITLE only; not only does it completely ignore the designer, but it ignores how the designer might have did it. Those flaws are MASSIVE compared to an incomplete fossil record, etc.

Try again, pimpin.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by truthseeka]

Rren,

Why is it though every ID site I look at relies upon lack of knowledge of something to infer design? Like this for example ...

qurl.com...

P1
Watches are designed.

P2
Watches and organisms exhibit functional interdependence of parts, adaptation of
means to ends, etc.

P3
There is no known instance where something exhibits functional interdependence
of parts, adaptation of means to ends, etc. without being designed.

C
Therefore, organisms are designed as well

We don't know all the mechanic's behind living orginism's, so how can one say they're using reasonable logic to conclude that living orginism's are designed? That's just not logical at all. We don't know all the underlying mechanics behind organic systems, we're still in the process of learning and discovery, so how in the world can anyone claim design based upon this lack of knowledge?

Every aspect of ID I've seen has done nothing more then rely upon lack of knowledge, not reasonable logic.

[edit on 4-3-2006 by Produkt]

en.wikipedia.org...

here's a bridge. Design?

I mentioned this before in another thread - we can not tell between natural selection and intelligent selection except for historical data.

We can only tell between a natural bridge and a designed bridge through history/experience. If we can ever create/design a lifeform, how would we know it was designed? History and maybe experience. We have no evidence/history/experience of intelligent design for biological organisms, so how will we know design when we see it?

Oh...this is WAY TOO MUCH FUN.

First off...

Rren...Good job.

You have my way above vote.

Originally posted by truthseeka

How? If no one knows how to go about constructing a life form, how does your bridge analogy apply?

Think REAL hard.

Just because you don't know how to construct a bridge does not mean that someone didn't construct it. By all observational evidence, someone did in fact design it and build it.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I mentioned evolution because the point of this thread, which YOU made, is that evolution and ID are equal theories.

I am open to the strong possibility that Intelligent Design is actually more valid a theory than Evolutionism.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Why the hell wouldn't I mention evolution? You must have missed the point, but here it is again, evolution does not attack ID to prove itself.

We are getting riled up now, aren't we?

So you are saying that you don't need to mention Evolutionism to further your argument but that you should do so anyway.

Yeah...right...good logic there!

Originally posted by truthseeka
However, the way you put it, ID attacks evolution to prove itself.

No it doesn't.

Intelligent Design is an excellent theory for the beginning of ALL THAT IS. Evolutionism attempts to explain how Homo sapiens came into existence. I believe I stated this before.

You must have just missed it somehow.

Originally posted by truthseeka
I am not an architect, but I have some rudimentary ideas on how to make a bridge. NO ONE has any idea on how to make life forms. Get it? Architects can make bridges, but NO ONE can make life forms.

Oh...so that's the problem. You harbor a limiting belief that since conventional science has been unable to actually create life forms that therefore it must have never been done in the first place.

Ahhhh....

Originally posted by truthseeka
You obviously didn't read what I posted. I said your opinion is IRRELEVANT, the point is that evolution both mentions a way in which it works and describes it.

Relevance and irrelevance stem from good and bad reasoning ability.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Even if it is "piss poor" ...it is at least a part of the theory. Where's the parallel in ID?

Back to using Evolutionism to attack ID I see.

Darwinian speculation is piss poor because it cannot back itself up adequately.

Read the ID links that Rren has provided us.

Especially the one on Inductive Reasoning.

Originally posted by truthseeka
You wanna talk about flaws? ID mentions a designer in TITLE only; not only does it completely ignore the designer, but it ignores how the designer might have did it. Those flaws are MASSIVE compared to an incomplete fossil record, etc.

Time to try to stretch that little noggin of yours again.

If conventional science cannot explain the energies that were at play just prior to The Big Bang and that there was an Intelligent Designer that orchestrated it, then...are you ready?...the energies that were used to manifest The Big Bang were also not within conventional science.



Which means that you will not be able to understand how the Intelligent Designer made The Big Bang because you are not even open to the idea that there is an alternate spectrum of energy that can and did predate The Big Bang.



An alternate spectrum of energy that cannot be directly measured in a laboratory.

Now...take an Advil Liquid Gel and lie down.

Do you think you could make your points without the condecention?

TIA.

Originally posted by melatonin
We have no evidence/history/experience of intelligent design for biological organisms, so how will we know design when we see it?

The very fact that biological organisms emerged in the first place is evidence of Intelligent Design

We also have evidence of Interventionism/Colonialism because of the intelligent design of biological organisms, but that is slightly off-topic.

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think you could make your points without the condecention?

TIA.

Which name-calling person was that directed towards?

As there is more than one in here who started to do so before the other responded in like manner.

You CAN NOT claim design from something when you know nothing of how it works. There have been plenty of so called IC example's that have already been refuted. Just because we do not have all the answer's (another DUH moment here) does not mean that thing's require a designer. Complexity in nature is far from uncommon. Life, may be abit more of a rarity, but without knowing all the variable's, or how it starts, you can NOT logicaly conclude to any extent that there is a designer. It's a big universe out there, and we've hardly even discoverd a fraction of it. ID does nothing more then rely on lack of knowledge to keep it alive, and already saw one fine example from a link Rren sent me too. Finding more and more the more I read these site's.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think you could make your points without the condecention?

TIA.

Which name-calling person was that directed towards?

As there is more than one in here who started to do so before the other responded in like manner.

Those that are engaged in this activity know who they are.

Guide yourselves accordingly.

Originally posted by Produkt
You CAN NOT claim design from something when you know nothing of how it works. There have been plenty of so called IC example's that have already been refuted. Just because we do not have all the answer's (another DUH moment here) does not mean that thing's require a designer.

Another DUH moment here?



I can see a building and know that it was built without ever seeing the builder.

Originally posted by Produkt
Complexity in nature is far from uncommon.

It is quite uncommon in the vacuum of space.

Or, to put it another way, to have something spring from nothingness is quite rare indeed.

Don't you think?

Originally posted by Produkt
Life, may be abit more of a rarity, but without knowing all the variable's, or how it starts, you can NOT logicaly conclude to any extent that there is a designer. It's a big universe out there, and we've hardly even discoverd a fraction of it.

The larger and more complex the Universe, the greater the probability that an Intelligent Designer was behind it.

Originally posted by Produkt
ID does nothing more then rely on lack of knowledge to keep it alive, and already saw one fine example from a link Rren sent me too. Finding more and more the more I read these site's.

Wow! Produkt i posted those links less than 30mins ago (that includes the time it took you to assemble your last two posts.) I think you've illustrated my point perfectly regarding your misunderstanding/ill-informed opinions of what ID does and does not say/imply... oh well. Different strokes.

intrepid apologies if i crossed a line... the "discussions" get rather heated sometimes... but i have no intentions of posting any further in this thread, and will keep the attitude in check elsewhere.... honest injun.

:go mods:

Regards,
-Rren

Boy, it feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. You make snide comments when you argue with me about using logic and reasoning, yet you don't read what I post. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.

If you HAD read what I posted, you would have seen that I said that some people know how to make bridges. Again, SOME PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO MAKE BRIDGES. However, no one knows how to make a life form. Again, NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A LIFE FORM.

Cling to your analogy if you like, I'll still be laughing.

Boy, oh boy. Quite a disconnect from reality here. Was it not YOU who created a thread saying that ID and evolution are equal theories? Was it not YOU who created a thread saying that ID and evolution are equal theories? Was it not YOU who created a thread saying that ID and evolution are equal theories?

Gotta be redundant here so you get the idea. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. Therefore, I have to mention ID and evolution in my responses. Therefore, I have to mention ID and evolution in my responses. Therefore, I have to mention ID and evolution in my responses. OK?

You don't know what you're talking about. Evolution applies to ALL LIFE FORMS, not just humans. And, by your logic, ID is superior to evolution, not merely an equal. Apparently, it is equal to evolution, abiogenesis, and Big Band Theory all rolled into 1! Quite a theory, ID is...just wish there was ample evidence for this super theory.

While you sit there saying "duh," remember it was yourself who said that seeing a bridge and seeing a life form both imply design, because we know both bridges and life forms are designed AS A FACT! No duhs from me, but laughs will do.

My head is starting to hurt, that wall is hard. Maybe I didn't repeat this enough earlier, but, I'll do it here.

To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution. To address your thread, I have to compare ID and evolution.

My post was in no way an evolutionary attack on ID. It was a comparison between the 2 to see if they are on the same level. In anticipation of your next response...It was a comparison between the 2 to see if they are on the same level. It was a comparison between the 2 to see if they are on the same level. It was a comparison between the 2 to see if they are on the same level. It was a comparison between the 2 to see if they are on the same level.

Do you finally understand?

The Short Answer: Not at all. Intelligent design works off positive predictions about where experience tells us that intelligent design is the cause at work. Furthermore, the "gap" in Darwinian evolution is not a gap in knowledge, but a fundamental theoretical gap that represents an aspect of biology which Darwin's theory is simply incapable of bridging.

This answer is flawed. It IS a gap in knowledge. ToE is still a theory in progress, as are all theories. We don't have all the knowledge and answer's of the universe. As newer discoveries are made, these theories get reworked and other's dropped completley. So, in a way, ID IS god of the gaps for the simple resonable logic of observation on how it does nothing more then attack the thing's science can't explain yet.

Wow! Produkt i posted those links less than 30mins ago (that includes the time it took you to assemble your last two posts.) I think you've illustrated my point perfectly regarding your misunderstanding/ill-informed opinions of what ID does and does not say/imply... oh well. Different strokes.

Wow! looky how you didn't answer. the example I posted does not show design. It show's lack of knowledge of how the systems operate. How many more examples of IC does scientist's have to destroy in order for the IDer crowd to get this?

www.ideacenter.org...

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.

Read this. www.talkdesign.org...