Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

OK, looks like I have to spell this out, another post like that truthseeka and the red flags fly.

www.talkreason.org...



As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID.

[...]

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it.

Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover, pp. 76-9, citations omitted)

How does one test for design anyways?

It's like blood testing before a big race. If your opponents is getting tested and there's a possibilty that he might test positive.. you can pretend while you wait that your winning is inevitable because he's going to test positive and get banned and you'll win the race by default..

even though you yourself refuse to take the test and have trouble running around the block.

hope that made sense.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by riley]

theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

evolution has been tested on the micro scale and the macro scale

intelligent design cannot be tested

In the evidence for ToE vs ID, I thought it was rather funny, Rren's post describe's such evidence as not being part of god of the gap's, obviously it is.

The website proclaiming the cosmological constant's as evidence relies upon science having no other explanation or evidence for why they are the way they are. The constant's themselve's are just what they are, not actual definitive evidence for design. As it turn's out, there is a more naturalistic theory for this, you can read about it in my cosmological natural selection thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another thing that bring's down the whole ID argument, the probability of the designer himself. Dembski like's using probability against our own evolution, well if you apply such though to the probability of the designer designing our universe and designing it the way it is rather then an infinite possible other ways and designing life to occur on this planet alone out od trillions upon trillion that may exist within the entire universe and desiging our particular form of life for intelligence rather then some other form of life for intelligence ... etc etc etc... well, the probability for that is rather awful compared to evolution. Dembski already agree's that evolution is real, he just doesn't agree that it's the whole reason we got where we are today. As do all IDer's. Yes, evolution is a real thing, it just doesn't adequatley explain everything as of yet, so we'll call the thing's it doesn't explain as being designed. But we won't dare theorize on the probability of the designer and refuse to discuss about him outright because we know the second we do, we destroy IDism and expose it for the neo-creationism that it is.

this is funny, the mousetrap isn't a good example of IC. Check this site out.

udel.edu...

Originally posted by truthseeka
NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A LIFE FORM.

I would not make that assumption.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
evolution has been tested on the micro scale and the macro scale

Wow...I had no idea that they have been able to take a single-celled organism and have it EVOLVE into a HOMO SAPIEN in a laboratory.

You should learn abit more about evolution. It's not the spontaneus generation of one species into another in a wham bam thank ya ma'am event.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by truthseeka
NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A LIFE FORM.

I would not make that assumption.

Name one person on this entire planet that know's how to make a life form from sratch and has done so and is widely viewed with such awe for doing so. Human person mind you.

Originally posted by Produkt
You should learn abit more about evolution. It's not the spontaneus generation of one species into another in a wham bam thank ya ma'am event.

Unfortunately, outside of theory, it has proven to be nothing more than progressive mutations in microscopic organisms. No solid evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from hominids, much less single-celled amoebas. I think you need to do more research and a lot more critical thinking on this matter.

Originally posted by Produkt
Name one person on this entire planet that know's how to make a life form from sratch and has done so and is widely viewed with such awe for doing so. Human person mind you.

Are you referring to biological constructs or souls?

Widely viewed?

There are millions that have had near death experiences and thereby have firsthand knowledge that there is life after death. But there are many scientists who have yet to embrace that progressive understanding.

So are we factoring in the effect of those in the mainstream scientific community?

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Produkt
You should learn abit more about evolution. It's not the spontaneus generation of one species into another in a wham bam thank ya ma'am event.

Unfortunately, outside of theory, it has proven to be nothing more than progressive mutations in microscopic organisms. No solid evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from hominids, much less single-celled amoebas. I think you need to do more research and a lot more critical thinking on this matter.

Here's a few google search's for you to get started, as your still have a little trouble in understanding it.

www.google.com...
www.google.com...
www.google.com...

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by Produkt
Name one person on this entire planet that know's how to make a life form from sratch and has done so and is widely viewed with such awe for doing so. Human person mind you.

Are you referring to biological constructs or souls?

Widely viewed?

There are millions that have had near death experiences and thereby have firsthand knowledge that there is life after death. But there are many scientists who have yet to embrace that progressive understanding.

So are we factoring in the

effect of those in the mainstream scientific community?

NDE's are currently explainable by scientific standard's, as well as OOBE's. But for the sake of argument of a designer, as the topic of this thread is, and not that of souls.. the biological would be most forth comming.

I like how this author put it:

Evolution is less than "science;" it's secular religion.

From: Bridge To Nowhere: Evolutionism's Flaws & Holes

Here are some other links for you to overcome your biased perspective:

What are the odds that the first cell could have popped into being?

Is There A Quick Way To Understand Why Evolution Is Not Science?

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics Proves Creation

Evolution Is Religious Dogma

Was Darwin Wrong? Yes -- His Logic Was Fatally Flawed

I rather enjoyed this site.

www.seekfind.net...

What are the odds for a designer existing that need not have been designed itself designing our possible universe out of many other differing congiguration's and designing life on this one small insignificant planet out of the trillions upon trillions that may possibly exist through out the entire universe itself, and the chance's of said designer, designing our particular from of dominant intelligent species out of many differing configuration's the designer could have chosen.

Originally posted by Produkt
NDE's are currently explainable by scientific standard's, as well as OOBE's.

They are currently explained as valid by those who are objective enough to embrace the abundance of evidence

NDE's Have Been Reported Since Ancient Times

People Have NDE's While Brain Dead

People Born Blind Can See During An NDE

People See Verifiable Events While Out Of Body

After-Death Communications

Scientific Discoveries Are Brought Back

Originally posted by Produkt

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by truthseeka
NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A LIFE FORM.

I would not make that assumption.

Name one person on this entire planet that know's how to make a life form from sratch and has done so and is widely viewed with such awe for doing so. Human person mind you.

This has actually been done last year or so. They put the basic materials in a testtube and they created a (basic) life form. I'm sure you can dig it up with google.

Just these three for now while I look up more site's for you.


Link1 Link2 Link3
Still waiting on the other question I asked. can answer it in the thread I started just for it if you'd like.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by Produkt

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

Originally posted by truthseeka
NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO MAKE A LIFE FORM.

I would not make that assumption.

Name one person on this entire planet that know's how to make a life form from sratch and has done so and is widely viewed with such awe for doing so. Human person mind you.

This has actually been done last year or so. They put the basic materials in a testtube and they created a (basic) life form. I'm sure you can dig it up with google.

Is this what your talking about?

www.wi.mit.edu...

The new ribozyme, generated by David Bartel and his colleagues at the Whitehead, can carry out a remarkably complicated and challenging reaction, especially given that it was not isolated from nature but created from scratch in the laboratory. This ribozyme can use information from a template RNA to make a third, new RNA. It can do so with more than 95 percent accuracy, and most importantly, its ability is not restricted by the length or the exact sequence of letters in the original template. The ribozyme can extend an RNA strand, adding up to 14 nucleotides, or letters, to make up more than a complete turn of an RNA helix.