Proof of ID the World is Looking For

sorry maddness unitl you learn what kinds means you got no business even arguing in this thread in my opinion one has to know english or admit their is a problem admiting you got a problem.

ya got johnson


- Con

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

kind is a very vague word, especially since it's not a scientific term
species is a very, very specific, scientific term

Get off it maddness Just google it yourself "species" and "speciation" is one of the most argued constructs in Science and is why the word KIND is so rejected by same because it cuts through the BULL and tells it like it is and is why YOU refuse to understand it. It isn't Vague at all. If someone were to tell you white woman should sleep with there own kind what do you think that means? Humans? or Race? Your answer is tantamount to your own prejudice, NOT against Race, but against creationism.

The word Kinds puts a lock on contextual usage automaticall;y and is why God used the word "Kind" because it leaves NO room for other silly theory and that includes Darwin Dawkins and any other fool. It is testable and observable and CRUSHES evolution as evolution is forced to evolve in its own gray muddy filthy murky obfuscation and deliberately created dis-information. Do you realize how silly it sounds today than when I first learned it before you were born. Jeez Darwin is an idiot by todays standards if he were to come up with such an idea it never get off the ground PERIOD but "Kinds" still makes perfect sense and if anything has any elegance to the way were were fearlfully and wonderfully made it is Genesis and the use of the word KIND to separate the bull from the blatent truth.

Sorry if thats too BLUNT for you or that you can't wrap your mind around it but that is just the way it is. Appleman doesn't have a chance, NONE

Kinds,, Maddness,, Genesis

It is worth believing in


- Con






[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

I'm not seeing any overt terms and conditions violations, however it would be nice if we could keep this thread on topic guys.

From here on out, please refrain from discussing one another.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Get off it maddness Just google it yourself "species" and "speciation" is one of the most argued constructs in Science

but there are several well defined arguments. it's not like it's a definition that changes from day to day. you have criteria.

and is why the word KIND is so rejected by same because it cuts through the BULL and tells it like it is and is why YOU refuse to understand it.

you refused to define it.

It isn't Vague at all.

go over and pick up that thing over there.

what kind of thing is it?
it's a book

what kind of book is it?
it's a science book

what kind of science book is it?
it's a biology book

hmm...kind if awfully vague

fish, i'd say that's a kind of animal
i'd also say that salmon are a kind
frogs
tree frogs
amazonian tree frogs
all are kinds, but they're obviously different levels.

If someone were to tell you white woman should sleep with there own kind what do you think that means? Humans? or Race?

who's saying it in what context?
is it an upper class person saying she shouldn't to root around with riff raff?
it could be a racist, as you said
it could be someone calling her out on her bestiality
it could be someone saying she shouldn't to have sex with children
it could be someone saying she shouldn't have sex with people that aren't educated as she is
it could be someone saying she shouldn't have sex with people of different nationalities and the exact same race.

but the thing is that the term "kind" doesn't fit with animals

zebras and horses somehow fit into the same "kind"
yet "zebra" and "horse" are also a separate "kind"

Your answer is tantamount to your own prejudice, NOT against Race, but against creationism.

wow, you just compared my prejudice against something entirely unscientific to something that's also entirely unscientific.

The word Kinds puts a lock on contextual usage automaticall;y

is a zebra a kind or does it fit into the same kind as horses?
there's no automatic contextual lock. it shifts drastically

i'm thinking of a living thing
what kind of living thing is it?
it's an animal
what kind of animal?
it's a vertebrate
what kind of vertebrate?
it's a mammal
what kind of mammal?
it's a primate
what kind of primate?
it's a great ape
what kind of great ape?
it's a gorrilla
what kind of gorrilla?
it's a western gorrilla
what kind of western gorilla?
an old silverback.

hm... 8 definitions of kind there...

and is why God used the word "Kind" because it leaves NO room for other silly theory

i just pointed out how imprecise it is, just see above.

and that includes Darwin Dawkins and any other fool.

hooray for ad hom attacks!

It is testable and observable and CRUSHES evolution

you keep making these statements, but i don't think you understand what the word "testable" means
please, provide an example of how creationism is testable.

as evolution is forced to evolve in its own gray muddy filthy murky obfuscation and deliberately created dis-information.

you also keep making these claims that evolution creates misinformation. it doesn't.

before you throw out something like piltdown, evolutionary biologists were the ones who threw that out. they were fooled. they didn't attempt to fool.

Do you realize how silly it sounds today than when I first learned it before you were born.

it sounds silly to those who don't understand science and prefer to take a conclusion and hang onto whatever frail evidence for it that they can

Jeez Darwin is an idiot by todays standards

more ad hom!

ad hom: showing people's lack of argument for centuries

if he were to come up with such an idea it never get off the ground PERIOD but "Kinds" still makes perfect sense and if anything has any elegance to the way were were fearlfully and wonderfully made it is Genesis and the use of the word KIND to separate the bull from the blatent truth.

i'm sorry, but i don't think you understand what "blatant truth" means. i've already filleted the "elegance" of the word kind

odd that you keep dodging the whole "giving me an answer" thing. you just keep pointing out that i must be an imbecile for not being able to explain it without giving an answer.

Sorry if thats too BLUNT for you or that you can't wrap your mind around it but that is just the way it is.

wow, more insults, now personally directed at me

Appleman doesn't have a chance, NONE

i believe you mean "strawman"

Kinds,, Maddness,, Genesis

It is worth believing in

not really, seeing as nobody can seem to tell me what it means.

reply to post by Conspiriology


so as long as i keep demonstrating scientific literacy, i don't have a right to discuss anything?

reply to post by AshleyD

I'm not really sure whether you want me to suggest an experiment along the lines you propose, AshleyD, or whether you want me to comment on the proposition. Allow me, then, to respond simply as follows:

1). Intelligent Design, though believed by various people throughout centuries in the form of different accounts concerning our origins, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...

The trouble here -- and it is precisely the problem with intelligent design as a hypothesis -- is that it can explain any and all phenomena. It is not a testable (i.e. falsifiable) proposition. There is no natural phenomenon that cannot be attributed to the work of a Creator, and no way to disprove that attribution. You will never be able to find a phenomenon to satisfy the requirements of Step One.

Hence there is no way to proceed through the remaining seven steps.

Here lies the difference between the theories of intelligent design and evolution through natural selection. Both explain the phenomena of life equally well. One theory, however, puts itself on the line with every new piece of scientific knowledge -- at any moment, some pesky researcher could come up with a discovery that disproves it. That theory is, of course, evolution by natural selection. Intelligent design, on the contrary, can accommodate every new discovery by the simple statement 'that's the way God planned it'. It is indestructible.

But in this apparent strength lies its actual weakness. Being indestructible, it is also unprovable. Therefore it is not a scientific theory. It cannot suggest new lines of inquiry that would advance and expand our knowledge. It cannot produce results of any practical utility. Above all, it cannot be taught as science, because it isn't science.

This, of course, is what I have being trying to establish in this thread. I am trying to show why and how intelligent design fails the test of a scientific theory, and therefore cannot be considered science. Some of you have accused me of acting in an underhand way because of how the OP is formulated, but that formulation, apart from being a nifty eyeball attractor, is also an inescapable part of the procedure I must follow, for this is how scientific theories are formulated and tested. My second post in the thread (immediately below the OP, before anyone else had posted) freely gives the game away for anyone who has eyes to see. And as to my own position, one had only to glance down at my signature to establish where I stand in the argument.

Just like the theory of evolution by natural selection, my theory -- that no proof can ever be found for intelligent design -- constantly puts itself on the line. It meets the criterion of falsifiability; at any moment, one of you may post such a proof and wipe the floor with me. But it hasn't happened yet, just as, despite the best efforts of the your party, it hasn't happened yet in the wider world to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, I confidently predict it will not happen.

It remains only to ask: if evolution and designed creation both explain the phenomena of life equally well, how can we tell which is the true explanation? Why should we prefer one over the other? You have chosen designed creation because it is in good accord with your faith and your disposition. Others (the majority, perhaps, at least in the civilized Judeo-Christian world) see no reason to choose; they are happy to combine the two explanations and see God at work in the natural processes of the universe. Still others, like myself, are rationalists, who are satisfied with mundane things and see no reason to believe in what cannot be proved or disproved when there is a coherent and comprehensive explanation that can be explored and tested. We're the ones with Occam's Razor in our shaving-kits.

We may all believe as we wish; it is our right. We may even adduce reasons to substantiate our beliefs, if we feel the need. But we must not claim for our beliefs scientific authority they do not possess, and attempt to impose them on the world under such false pretences of authority. To do so is to act in bad faith, in a manner both immoral and contemptible. I am not accusing you, personally, of doing so, but you have associated yourself with a movement that does. Beware the taint.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Astyanax]

Shifting the Goalposts?

At various points in this debate, I have been accused of shifting the goalposts, altering my definitions of proof, skipping over relevant arguments and so forth.

Most of these accusations can be safely ignored as nonsense. This one from AshleyD, however, deserves comment (if I have been singling you out in debate, Ashley, it is only because you're the one among your group who says the most cogent and relevant things):

Originally posted by AshleyD
When the OP asked to prove intelligent design, we told him we first need to prove a designer (as we actually are aware of the logical fallacy he later mentioned known as affirming the consequent). After pointing this out, he assured us it could be done. So, we did only to have him bring up the logical fallacy we were trying to avoid from the beginning of this debate: Affirming the consequent.

I never said you could prove a creator.

You linked me to a site that provided an argument for intelligent design. The argument was based on flawed logic. I pointed out the flaw in the logic. But a logically flawless argument for intelligent design can be constructed, as follows.

1. Phenomenon A may have come about through naturalistic evolution, intelligent design or an as-yet-unimagined third cause.
   
2. The following experimental results effictively eliminate naturalistic evolution as a possible cause of A.
   
3. We are now left with two hypotheses to explain A: intelligent design and an 'unimagined third cause'.
   
4. The third cause is unimagined and unknown, therefore we can ignore it for the time being.
   
5. Phenomenon A is (provisionally) the product of intelligent design.
   

And this, of course, is the argument behind the experimental setup I proposed in the OP. It also makes the hypothesis of intelligent design falsifiable -- once evolution has been eliminated as a possible cause of A*.

By contrast, Ashley, your way of looking at it -- first prove a designer -- leads to the unfalsifiable, scientifically worthless procedure you proposed in an earlier post. That is because it is based on the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Dave420 pointed out earlier that it doesn't have to be this way; all you have to do is prove intelligent design and you prove a Designer. I think I said the same a few pages back.

And now -- what, dear Heaven, have I done to deserve this little outburst?

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Lets get one thing straight here asty if you are going to keep vascillating between two differen't standards of what is burden of proof then NAME which one and stick to it! You know damn well there are two kinds and if you are going to use standards for logical fallacy where the burden of proof is predicated on the scientific method when it suits you then switch back to the burden of proof established for juris prudence, you can't have it both ways.

There was no vacillation between standards. I am no expert on jurisprudence, which does not apply here. Logic is not jurisprudence; it stands on its own as the foundation on which the edifice or human knowledge is built. It is the basis of science. If a theory is illogical, it cannot be scientific. This, too, has been previously stated in the thread.

At no point have I 'shifted the goalposts', altering either the standards of proof demanded or the means of assessment. This thread remains what it has always been: an opportunity for someone to provide strong evidence -- 'proof' -- of intelligent design by falsifying the only competing theory, naturalistic evolution. I admit that as long as it remains open and no suitable experiment is proposed, the thread also continues to show up the hopelessness of intelligent design as a scientific proposition. I freely admit that this, too, was my intention; but as I said, that's obvious from my second post.

To those who complain that I have set up a logical minefield for them to negotiate, well... that's science. It's hard. That's why not everybody gets to be a scientist.
*Please note that this procedure does not disprove evolution -- it merely eliminates evolution as the cause of A. The distinction is subtle, but important.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by Astyanax]

And Another Thing

Originally posted by Conspiriology
If I were to continue tio think "Oh he wants to go at it with me on falsifiable theory again!" Oh yeah baby lets do it! As soon as I would rip his arguments from hell to highwater he would charge me with derailing the thread again or pick something out of it that is off topic.

Start your own thread on falsifiability. If this forum won't host it, BTS certainly will. It's an interesting subject, and I'm sure many of us would be happy to read what you have to say, and comment on it if we feel it worth our while to do so.

But this thread is about something else.

Speaking of which, I'd love to see a few contributions from other members than the usual suspects. Anyone else have anything to say? A fresh perspective would be welcome -- in fact, it would be rain in the desert! Any takers?

Originally posted by Astyanax
The trouble here -- and it is precisely the problem with intelligent design as a hypothesis -- is that it can explain any and all phenomena... You will never be able to find a phenomenon to satisfy the requirements of Step One.

Hence there is no way to proceed through the remaining seven steps.

I'm sorry you passed on the challenge, especially when I said I would not refute your arguments. It would have taken a quick use of the noggin to have said something like this (And remember, we're referring to explanations based on science and not a simple 'GDI' for now as that wouldn't cut it for the rigorous testing we're putting each other through):

1). Intelligent Design has never been able to satisfactorily explain [or prove] the following phenomenon [or thing (you can rewrite some things to adjust the questions for evolution)] through scientific evidence: The existence of any source of intelligence (whether it be supernatural or extraterrestrial), however the theory of evolution believes complex organisms came to be not due to the actions of intelligence but through a process of natural selection, time, and chance.

That's a loose example and of course isn't perfect but something like that would have been fine. I wouldn't have even balked had you simply said 'Pass' or offered the argument you mention above and moved onto the next part. I wasn't planning to pick apart whatever flaws that would have existed in your eight steps as the point of this thread isn't for you to defend evolution and I understand that.

However, I was mostly looking forward to seeing what experiments you would have listed in the later steps that would have proven macroevolution... experiments that could be repeated again and again (like you asked of us), how the test was done (in detail like you asked of is), and how the results would have been as expected and been able to be reproduced with the same results (liked you asked of us).

The entire point of that challenge was to point out a few things. Evolution and ID both take a final bit of faith to complete the theories regardless of whether or not 'rational proof-only' evolutionists want to admit it. ID shows a design, code, complexity, and supporting evidence in the fossil layer but it still takes that last bit of faith. We can also support intelligent design through experiments and that is done every time scientists alter 'the code' and therefore 'intelligently design.' The final leap of faith is to believe our origins started out as an intelligent design based on the evidence.

Likewise, evolutionists also have fossil record evidence, repeated and predicable experiments based on microevolution and genetics, and scientists who have observed micro. However, their last leap of faith requires them to believe our origins are based on evolution after using the supporting evidence.

See where I am going with this? You could not perfectly answer your own list of eight items from the view of evolution. So is the same with ID. Regardless you will see your side as having sufficient evidence to take that final leap just like I still see my side as having sufficient evidence to take that final leap.

You have your evidence and say 'I accept.'

I have my evidence and say 'I accept.'

If you still want me to answer your original eight questions, I will but it will take some liberty to make some connections based on evidence just like you would have had to do had you answered your own eight questions from the view of evolution.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Astyanax
(if I have been singling you out in debate, Ashley, it is only because you're the one among your group who says the most cogent and relevant things):

I didn't see it that way at all. No worries.

By contrast, Ashley, your way of looking at it -- first prove a designer -- leads to the unfalsifiable, scientifically worthless procedure you proposed in an earlier post...

I thought I had made my point clear earlier but apparently that is not so, so allow me to clarify. I do not believe it has to be done that way. I can see the evidence of a design and the complexity of that design and see the code that is DNA and come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer. To me, it takes less faith to believe in an intelligent designer than to believe this complexity existed by coincidence.

If you read my previous comments carefully, you will see I targeted my point of 'proving a designer' to those who refuse to believe (atheistic evolutionists, for examples) or even as a requirement for it to be accepted in the field of science. It was more of a philosophical predicament, in my opinion, than it was scientific although it is a scientific conundrum as well. No matter how complex the code (and we do have a code), the 'devout' skeptics would not believe it was an intelligent code without seeing proof of an intelligent source.

all you have to do is prove intelligent design and you prove a Designer.

This has already been done and I don't see the atheistic evolutionists admitting the existence of a designer.

DNA is the code and scientists prove everyday how this code is the blueprint during their experiments where they adjust or rewrite this code in order to seek their desired results. They are the 'intelligent designers' playing with the 'design.' It's all there. That is why I think it is why I think it is more of a philosophical problem. There are people who refuse to accept the designer even though the design is there.

Emphasis on the word intelligent design in the segment I quoted from you above. We can prove there is a design but how do you expect (and this is an honest question) it to be proven that it is an intelligent design if you do not believe in the source of intelligence and do not accept the complexity of this code as evidence?

Originally posted by AshleyD

This has already been done and I don't see the atheistic evolutionists admitting the existence of a designer.

DNA is the code and scientists prove everyday how this code is the blueprint during their experiments where they adjust or rewrite this code in order to seek their desired results. They are the 'intelligent designers' playing with the 'design.' It's all there. That is why I think it is why I think it is more of a philosophical problem. There are people who refuse to accept the designer even though the design is there.

They aren't the Designers, they are more like the Manipulators. If, and I do mean if, there is a Designer, then there can only be one. Anyone else who comes along and tries to manipulate the code, would be just that.

Emphasis on the word intelligent design in the segment I quoted from you above. We can prove there is a design but how do you expect (and this is an honest question) it to be proven that it is an intelligent design if you do not believe in the source of intelligence and do not accept the complexity of this code as evidence?

For any being trying be a designer, intelligence must be a pre-requisite. Without some sort of intelligence, how could anything be designed? So, to prove your side, you would have to prove that the DNA code shows some kind of intelligent structure to it. You argue that the complexity of the code is evidence, in and of itself, of intelligence. But there are issues with the correlation of complexity of the genetic code, to the complexity of the animal in nature.

Junk DNA: function and non-function

These early researchers also noted that some "less complex" organisms (e.g., salamanders) possess far more DNA in their nuclei than "more complex" ones (e.g., mammals).

As a person of relative intelligence, if I were to go about designing something complex, I would still want to keep it as simple as possible. The number one word that comes to mind is efficient. Now, once I figured out how to design something relatively simple, if I wanted to make a leap to something even more complex, then I would assume the complexity would go up at the code building level as well.

Evidence currently available suggests that about 5% of the human genome is functional. The least conservative guesses put the possible total at about 20%. The human genome is mid-sized for an animal, which means that most likely a smaller percentage than this is functional in other genomes.

Not exactly the picture of efficiency we were looking for.

One more problem with the code that I personally have is brought up in this article challenging ID similarly to this thread.

An Opportunity For ID to be Scientific

It also opens the discussion to more philosophical questions, such as why the designer would choose to design such a massive number of pathogens and parasites.

These are errors in the genetic code which can be explained by the theory of evolution. You would need to be able to explain how that shows "intelligence" from a designer.

Originally posted by Evil Genius
They aren't the Designers, they are more like the Manipulators. If, and I do mean if, there is a Designer, then there can only be one. Anyone else who comes along and tries to manipulate the code, would be just that.

I actually agree with you to an extent. They didn't create the concept of the code- simply manipulated it, as you stated. To me it would seem that there was an intelligence previously behind that code to have designed it in the first place. It would be like an original architect making a set of blueprints, having another architect discover the plans, and building off that original design.

So, to prove your side, you would have to prove that the DNA code shows some kind of intelligent structure to it. You argue that the complexity of the code is evidence, in and of itself, of intelligence. But there are issues with the correlation of complexity of the genetic code, to the complexity of the animal in nature.

I believe that the complexity most definitely is one aspect of it. On the other hand, Big Whammy explained it in further detail only to be brushed aside as well even when it appeared he gave everyone exactly what they had asked for. So, if his contribution doesn't make it clear, I don't know what else will help.

Junk DNA: function and non-function

...Not exactly the picture of efficiency we were looking for.

Very interesting point. The thing is, what you mention actually helps confirm the Genesis account (and does not necessarily dismiss the generic theory of ID). However, since we're simply attempting to prove an intelligent design and not a specific designer (which is why I am not a fan of ID in an of itself), I will refrain from using Biblical based points. It should be rather obvious what I am referring to if you are familiar with Genesis, though.

One more problem with the code that I personally have is brought up in this article challenging ID similarly to this thread.

It also opens the discussion to more philosophical questions, such as why the designer would choose to design such a massive number of pathogens and parasites.

Hm. Again I want to mention how this ties into Genesis but will refrain. Similar to the point I am alluding to above, it should be obvious but it does nothing to prove my case in terms of intelligent design in a generic scientific sense so I will leave it alone for now. I will expand on this from the view of ID in just a minute, though.

These are errors in the genetic code which can be explained by the theory of evolution. You would need to be able to explain how that shows "intelligence" from a designer.

Again, although this is alluded to and explained in Genesis and verified by modern science (degeneration is what I am referring to due to the fall), we can also explain this from a generic ID point of view instead of tying it into any certain belief system. I have to admit I believe in the Genesis account and the reasons given in the Bible for such problems and hate defending ID for reasons I have already explained but I will mention it anyways. How do all three (Evolution, Creationism, and ID) explain such things?

Evolution: If there really is no intelligence behind our existence and organisms really are a result of an unguided process, then it is a normal occurrence in the world of evolution.

Creationism: God declared his creation 'good' and not 'perfect.' Then we are told due to the fall all nature is in a state of degeneration as modern science has confirmed through reasons I have already explained on ATS numerous times. If you want me to elaborate, just ask and I will back it up with physics and biology. I'm simply trying to keep this as 'generic' as possible.

ID: Although I believe in the above explanation, if we want to keep things on topic with the concept of a generic designer, then there is nothing to say this generic designer is omniscient and omnipotent or that there will not be flaws in their design.

For instance, I could 'intelligently design' and build a home. You could see the complex structure and have no doubt there was an intelligence behind its existence. Yet, that does not mean the roof is not going to leak, the roof tiles will not dim, the paint won't fade, the floor won't creak, etc. Flaws in a design do not show a lack of intelligence behind the design. It only shows a lack of perfect intelligence and capability in a generic sense.

So, all three have explanations that can be backed up with scientific evidence and sound logic.

On a side note, I just wanted to let you know I am thoroughly enjoying discussing this and wanted to thank you for having this discussion with me in a civil and intelligent manner.

[edit on 5/3/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh I answered your "kinds" confusion maddness right over here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rest of your post is too much exercise when I know you're simply deliberatly disagreeing with it merely because it has religous or God like implications

- Con

Originally posted by Astyanax

So far, none of the responses (as I'm sure any fair-minded observer would agree) comes close to providing experimental, falsifiable evidence for intelligent design.

Can you provide an example of macro evolution at work that can be tested and verified by scientific principles? I understand you putting the ball at the start of this post in the "ID" court but this statement is one that those that believe in macro evolution throw around but that I never seem to be able to see them practice what they "preach"

Originally posted by Astyanax

The theory of evolution and speciation by natural selection, though widely accepted, has never been able satisfactorily to explain the following phenomenon...

Are you referring to macro evolution as in the changing of species ie. fish to dino?

Instead, we contend that the phenomenon can best be explained as the result of Divine Fiat, because...

Is faith a valid answer? I know everyone wants to be able to prove everything but I have heard evolution "believers" themselves say that they can't prove it all hence there is still faith to their "belief/theory" (side note I hardly ever hear anyone call evolution a theory anymore)

This can be tested by means of the following experiment...

Hold gun to head and pull trigger...... actually I'm not sure if you could replicate that. I already said that this question you pose is one that no macro evolution believer has been able to preform for me.

Its been awhile since I've involved myself in this thinking but what exactly are you looking for when you say to provide a test to verify claims made by GDI believers? I can come up with many examples of claims by Old earth believers that there is many reasons why the earth doesn't have to be as old as macro evolutionist have to "believe" in.
Or are you looking for an answer of mix chemical x with chemical y and poof you have your proof?

Reply to AshleyD

Hello, Ashley. I did not 'pass' on your challenge. I pointed out that I was unable to answer it because there is no phenomenon that cannot be explained by saying 'God did it'. Your own example proves the point: we can very easily account for the existence of intelligence by saying 'it was created by God'. Do you see what I am getting at?

There is no conclusion on earth that doesn't take a little bit of faith, even if it is only faith that our eyes are not deceiving us. But thinking people have learnt, from bitter experience, that the less faith it takes to believe in something, the more likely it is to be true. This is Occam's Razor, stated in a more humane way. Your post offers no counterexample, no reason to discontinue its use.

You could not perfectly answer your own list of eight items from the view of evolution.

Actually, I could not answer them at all. And this is precisely the point. I could not answer them because -- to repeat myself for the umpteenth time -- God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

I can see the evidence of a design and the complexity of that design and see the code that is DNA and come to the conclusion of an intelligent designer.

But this, once again, is the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Now, please -- we must not pull each other round in circles.

Here's something you posted on the thread much earlier:

If you do not believe in a creator or designer, then there is really nothing in this world that would convince you of creationism or intelligent design. - AshleyD

I think that more or less clinches it, don't you? To believe in creationism or intelligent design, you have to believe in God. That statement of yours makes mincemeat of any pretence that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

* * *

Reply to Canada_EH

'Macroevolution' is not a scientific term. The word you're looking for is speciation. Since I used that word in the sentence you quote, it is clear that species changing into other species is just what I mean.

You sought examples. Here is an article on speciation, abounding in them.

In addition, the fossil record, notwithstanding its much-touted 'gaps', provides more evidence for 'macroevolution' than one could compass in a year of reading.

Further evidence comes to us from molecular biology, which has been used to identify the fossil genes of our ancestors in the human genome.

This is a very old, dull and long-debunked argument and I do not propose to collude in any attempt to resurrect it. If, however, you would like to offer some proof of intelligent design according to the OP criteria, or make on-topic comments on what others have posted in respect of that, you are most welcome.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I pointed out that I was unable to answer it because there is no phenomenon that cannot be explained by saying 'God did it'. Your own example proves the point: we can very easily account for the existence of intelligence by saying 'it was created by God'. Do you see what I am getting at?

Of course I do. So reword it or skip those steps and go right to the latter questions and answer them from an evolutionary perspective, in particular, macro-focused. Not being a jerk- I'd really like to see it answered before continuing. I understand the original questions were posed with ID in mind and some adjustments would need to be made in order to answer them for evolution.

But I am glad you admit the obstacle 'God Did It' is keeping you from answering the first few steps. What I am trying to hit home is how evolutionists have a similar defense before I continue: 'Natural Selection Did It.'

There is no conclusion on earth that doesn't take a little bit of faith...

Glad we agree. The thing is, IDers only seek to have ID taught along side evolution- not completely replace it (at least that is what I gather but I don't keep up with ID too much). Since both evolution and ID have supporting evidence and both leave some things to faith, I can at least say I understand where they are coming from.

Actually, I could not answer them at all. And this is precisely the point. I could not answer them because -- to repeat myself for the umpteenth time -- God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

I agree- He is not scientifically falsifiable. However, answering the questions I am trying to get you to from a materialist evolutionary angle would allow you to leave God completely out of the equation.

Here's something you posted on the thread much earlier:

If you do not believe in a creator or designer, then there is really nothing in this world that would convince you of creationism or intelligent design. - AshleyD

And here is something you posted on the thread in reply to my above point:

You don't have to prove the existence of a creator to prove intelligent design. It's exactly the other way round. -Astyanax

Glad to see you are coming around.

I think that more or less clinches it, don't you? To believe in creationism or intelligent design, you have to believe in God.

This is going to be nit picky but not only religionists believe in ID because ID is more generic in the technical sense. Again, the wedge document aside. Some atheists even believe in ID but believe it was accomplished by aliens or some other means. Creationism is 'GID' while ID is 'DDI.' Creationism starts from scratch (the whole caboodle) while ID focuses on our development. You don't have to believe in God to believe in ID.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Reword it or skip those steps and go right to the latter questions and answer them from an evolutionary perspective, in particular, macro-focused. Not being a jerk- I'd really like to see it answered before continuing. I understand the original questions were posed with ID in mind...

My last post to you, Ashley. You're repeating yourself and I have better things to do.

I cannot reword the test or skip those steps. By suggesting that this is possible, you display yet again that you have no understanding of science and the scientific method. It cannot be done.

Therefore you will not see the question answered.

The original questions were not 'posed with ID in mind'. They are the questions that are asked and answered in a scientific experiment. You cannot alter the method without invalidating the science. That is precisely why intelligent design is a failure -- a scientific wannabe with an IQ of 83.

But I am glad you admit the obstacle 'God Did It' is keeping you from answering the first few steps. What I am trying to hit home is how evolutionists have a similar defense before I continue: 'Natural Selection Did It.'

Absolute rubbish. Natural selection has passed countless tests of the kind I laid out in the OP and come through with flying colours. Intelligent design never has, because it is not science, and therefore it cannot pass such a test. End of story.

]There is no conclusion on earth that doesn't take a little bit of faith...

Glad we agree.

We do not. In imputing that we do you demonstrate yet again the bad faith of creationists, their easy dishonesty, which never fails to disgust me.

The thing is, IDers only seek to have ID taught along side evolution- not completely replace.

You seek to place a heap of wish-fulfilling poppycock on the same level as science. You want to create an American version of Lysenkoism. You will fail, as you deserve.

The rest of your post is just further evidence of your wilful refusal to understand me -- since that would mean admitting that I am right -- and as such, a fine example of creationist dishonesty. I thought you were a little more honorable than your fellow-travellers, but when it comes down to the wire, you are as they.

I shall not waste my time debating further with you. If you have a scientific proof of intelligent design, post it in this thread. Evidently you have not, or you would have posted it by now. Very well, you have had your say. Now kindly stop monopolizing the thread and let other ATS members have theirs. Thank you.

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh, nice. Rudeness and accusations of dishonesty. Didn't I just see you get onto someone on another thread for accusing you of being dishonest? Maybe we can add hypocrisy to the list of your behavioral flaws.

Anyways, I'm still working on my novel-length reply to your original eight questions. Just need to finish up a few things. The reason it hadn't been submitted yet is due to the fact I was trying to get you to answer some things for me which you now have made clear cannot be done. Hope you will still allow me to submit it without accusing me of, how did you put it, 'monopolizing your thread.' After bumping your own thread due to lack of replies, it would seem you'd sit back and enjoy the points my thread-monopolizing mouth is racking up for you.

But to reply to a few things really fast:

Absolute rubbish. Natural selection has passed countless tests of the kind I laid out in the OP and come through with flying colours. Intelligent design never has, because it is not science, and therefore it cannot pass such a test. End of story.

Thanks but I never said NS was not scientifically validated or could not be passed by experiment although I have some problems with NS that are not important at the moment. Yet, scientists are constantly toying with the code in their experiments. It looks like 'intelligent designers' have experiments they also pass with flying colors and come up with the results they expected time and time again. And we're not talking about simple code manipulation that another member and I spoke about before but code creation.

We do not. In imputing that we do you demonstrate yet again the bad faith of creationists, their easy dishonesty, which never fails to disgust me.

Now who is being dishonest, Asty? I said all conclusions take a bit of faith. You said all conclusions take a bit of faith. I said glad we agree on that point to which you now say we do not agree when you just agreed with me- but then label me as the typical dishonest creationist. That makes sense in Astyland I suppose.

BBT...