Proof of ID the World is Looking For

Reply to AshleyD

IDists also have evidence of design

Again, you are stating as fact what you are being asked to prove.

Again, you are assuming the consequent.

The entire paragraph from which the above is taken is a restatement of Paley's fallacy: claiming that evidence of elaborated, integrated function (call it, for short, evidence of design) is evidence of intelligent design. It is a false argument.

Because the TOE only tries to explain what happened once life was already in existence, there is no 'unexplained phenomenon' ID can address concerning evolution that cannot be explained by evolutionists with the predicted response, 'NSDI.'

Fiddlesticks. When 'evolutionists' say 'NSDI' they have to prove it, and they do. If they don't, the explanation will not be accepted. In humiliating contrast, no-one has ever been able to prove GDI, or 'DDI' if you prefer. It cannot be proved because it cannot be proved false.

Evolutionary biologists actually have a derogatory term to describe evolutionary explanations for natural phenomena presented without solid supporting evidence. They are called 'just-so stories', after Kipling, and they are rightly despised.

there is nothing unexplainable from TOE's point of view as well to explain the variety of life.

Fiddlesticks again. There are plenty of aspects of life evolutionary theory has trouble explaining: why homosexuality is universal in human populations (see above), how and why music and art evolved, ditto the religious impluse. Explanations alone are not enough; in science, proof is demanded.

The fact that proof is so often available clearly illustrates the validity -- indeed, one may well say, the truth -- of natural selection as a hypothesis.

In the end, your long post does not provide any proof for intelligent design, either in the form proposed in the OP of this thread or in any other form. It simply repeats things you have said before, and justifies those repetitions with the same old exploded arguments you have offered before.

You're repeating yourself, Ashley. Boring boring boring. You bang on and you bang on, trying to hide the truth in clouds of rose-pink rhetorical smoke, but the truth will not be hid. And the truth is that, despite many promises, you have repeatedly failed to produce that elusive proof of ID the world is looking for.

Flunked. Next, please.

* * *

Reply to the other two

You two are asking the same question, so one answer will do for both.

And the consequent (Paley) assumed was? Oh wait!! the goal posts are moving too fast for me to keep up

The same one you assumed: namely, that evidence of 'design' (in fact: elaborated, integrated function) is evidence of intelligent design, which is the consequent he wanted to prove.

The goalposts never moved. The reason you have to keep jogging up and down is that your argument falls flat as a pancake the second you stop to look at it head-on.

Which of Paley's premises are false? The 'logical' ones. To repeat them yet again (Upuluvanna grant me patience!),

All A are B.

X is B.

Therefore X is A.

Do I know Paley's entire argument? Yeth darling. Apart from the original illogical statement, it consists merely of heartbreaking little attempts to shore up that statement with others equally illogical. Look:

Nor, fifthly, would it yield his inquiry more satisfaction, to be answered that there existed in things a principle of order, which had disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation. He never knew a watch made by the principle of order; nor can he even form to himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order distinct from the intelligence of the watchmaker.

Bad logic ('I can't imagine it, so it can't exist!') pressed into the service of even worse logic.

A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds...

Yes, we all know how the law of gravity is really the outcome of angels chucking stuff about.

Far from standing unrefuted, Paley's argument refutes itself. And were that not enough, the vast corpus of science that so terrorizes you refutes it utterly.

If this is the best you can do to produce proof of ID the world is looking for, I can only say -- what sorry stuff.

* * *

He speak with forked tongue

Calling me a reptile will not reinforce your case.

It may, however, draw the unwelcome attention of a moderator.

But don't worry, I won't tell.

reply to post by Astyanax


Instead of breaking down your above reply for rebuttal (I'd hate to yet again be accused of repetition, thread monopolizing, or dishonesty), I'm simply going to make a general response concerning the progression of this thread and the goal post shifting.

In case you forgot, I was the first one to bring up the point of this being a case of assuming the consequent in my first, second, third, and subsequent comments although I did not refer to the point by its technical term. Instead, I pointed out about needing to prove a designer first if we are to convince a skeptic. My point/argument was scoffed at by yourself and a couple of others and we were told we could work it out 'the back way,' in essence.

So, several of us began to provide certain pieces of evidence concerning design including irreducible complexity, fossil record support, an existence of a code that can be used to create and manipulate, etc. only to receive the argument that the evidence we were submitting wasn't tied into the 'eight steps' provided in the OP.

So, the very steps in the OP were broken down to show how the test itself was scientifically and logically flawed (And sorry but I do not consider homosexuality, music, art, etc., to be a good starting point for step one for numerous reasons that I'm surprised are not obvious). But for some reason, rather than actually answering what I said, I hear sweeping accusations that I am being repetitive. No, the process you set up in your OP was ripped to shreds for being the false dichotomy (another logical fallacy) that it is HERE.

After doing all of the above, we're back at what I have been trying to say all along but what was argued at first. Yet, for some reason, is now being thrown into my face as if I never noticed it in the first place even though I was the first to bring it up: assuming the consequent.

When I have brought up arguments, I am accused of 'dishonesty.' Upon clarifying (and to refute the false accusation of being untruthful), the insults of thread monopolizing and repetition are made when all I am doing is rebutting an opponent's arguments.

Have I made my point? Yes, I made it. Will it be understood? I doubt it. Well, Con was right. This thread has been an immense waste of time. However, a lot of good came from it. I knew nothing about ID at the beginning of this thread but much thanks to Clear Skies, Big Whammy, Conspiriology, Pieman, and others, I have learned a lot.

This thread is a waste of time because those who have faith in God can not be swayed, regardless of the evidence thrust in their faces. If they're a fundamentalist, then their beliefs will obviously clash with science, and they won't be moved, no matter how air-tight the logic and evidence is. Scientists can always be swayed if you've got evidence. That's the fundamental difference, and that's why one approach helps people, and the other condemns them to never learning anything new ever again.

Originally posted by dave420
This thread is a waste of time because those who have faith in God can not be swayed, regardless of the evidence thrust in their faces.

Er... it seems you need to have that the other way around, Super Dave. Being that the subject of this thread is ID and not evolution, the atheistic materialistic evolutionists (don't you just love labels?) are the ones who will not be swayed.

If they're a fundamentalist, then their beliefs will obviously clash with science, and they won't be moved, no matter how air-tight the logic and evidence is.

Newsflash: Neither Evolution or ID has air-tight evidence. I can acknowledge that fact. Can you? It does not appear so.

Scientists can always be swayed if you've got evidence.

Although it should be that way, science is horribly stagnated and at a stalemate in this regard.

That's the fundamental difference, and that's why one approach helps people, and the other condemns them to never learning anything new ever again.

I agree but, again, believe you have it reversed.

reply to post by AshleyD


Hahaha! This is getting funnier and funnier every time.

Let me make two points that sum up my case:

So far, no evidence has been discovered that discounts evolution. Plenty has been found, and it all lines up perfectly with the theory.

So far, no evidence has been discovered that even suggests ID happened. None. Not one bit. Not one smidgen. Not a trace. Nothing. Not one fossil. Not one base pair. Nothing. Oh, sorry, the Bible. That's it.

Even the Pope agrees with me. So, seeing as he's God's representative on Earth and what he says God will uphold in heaven, by disagreeing with me, you're saying God is wrong, and as you know God can't possibly be wrong.

So, who's right - you or God?

Originally posted by dave420
So far, no evidence has been discovered that discounts evolution. Plenty has been found, and it all lines up perfectly with the theory.

Such as????
The feathered dinosaur?
Piltdown man?
Lucy?
ALL those transitionals?
Proven false and yet, NOT yet proclaimed to the average layman AS FALSE.

So far, no evidence has been discovered that even suggests ID happened. None. Not one bit. Not one smidgen. Not a trace. Nothing. Not one fossil. Not one base pair. Nothing. Oh, sorry, the Bible. That's it.

How about evidence?
Transcontinental rock layers!


Who's interpreting the evidence???

Fossils and rock layers do not speak for themselves—they must be interpreted. The way that you interpret evidence depends on the presuppositions you accept. The Bible offers a different set of presuppositions than naturalistic evolution.

Items your course in evolutionary science DOESN'T cover;

The presence of living trees that are virtually identical to fossil species, like the ginkgo shown here and the Wollemi pine, demonstrates the failure of evolution to make useful predictions. Living and extinct trees are proof that evolution can keep things the same for hundreds of millions of years or make drastic changes—take your pick.

The fact that the age of the oldest known trees corresponds to the biblical date of Noah’s Flood cannot be easily explained by evolution. There is no reason that trees much older than 4,500 years should not be found on earth—unless a global catastrophe wiped them out.

Even the Pope agrees with me. So, seeing as he's God's representative on Earth and what he says God will uphold in heaven, by disagreeing with me, you're saying God is wrong, and as you know God can't possibly be wrong.

The pope is NOT the supreme authority on Earth for protestants or even free-thinking catholics.

The fact that Archaeopteryx has reptilian characteristics does not mean that it is not a bird. Several living birds, like the hoatzin, have claws on their wings like Archaeopteryx. Experts generally agree that Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a transitional form.

So, who's right - you or God?

God is ALWAYS right!
Genesis to Revelation.............

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by dave420

Even the Pope agrees with me. So, seeing as he's God's representative on Earth and what he says God will uphold in heaven, by disagreeing with me, you're saying God is wrong, and as you know God can't possibly be wrong.

So, who's right - you or God?

I fear some of these enthusiastically scriptural types see the Pope in much the same light as the Devil. The individual I've been quoting in recent signatures, for example. He had a hell of a lot -- if you'll pardon me -- of influence.

In terms of trying to knock some sense into the noggins of the Faithful, this thread certainly has been a failure, but to be fair, I never conceived of it in those terms. Why waste breath? But it is a success, I hope, in these terms: as long as it remains open, and the original challenge unsatisfied, we may safely dismiss any pretensions by creationists that 'intelligent' (haha!) design is a scientific proposition. Anyone tries that on ATS, all you have to do is direct them to this thread.

To put it all to bed (and yes, as far I'm concerned, the thread is over unless someone posts a convincing response to the challenge), an observation: a few contributors to this thread have been at pains to draw a distinction between creationism and intelligent design. Yet, when we come to discuss the details and consequences of these 'theories', we find these folk easily as prone to elide the difference between the two as any -- what? -- 'atheist evolutionist'. No more convincing proof that creationism and intelligent design are one and the same thing could possibly be advanced. We have it from the horses' mouths.

reply to post by Astyanax


It was a stab in the dark, I know I don't deny ignorance, I want to erradicate it. Wishful thinking, clearly.

I think you did a great service to ATS by putting this thread up. It's very existence, awaiting a response, is a massive blow to the creationist/ID movement's claims that creationism/ID/whatever-its-called-today is equivalent to evolution in the eyes of science. The differences can't be more pronounced.

A Great Flood WOULD explain the 'layout' of fossils,
Clams, mussels, followed by seafloor dwelling animals.......
finally by mammals!

The fact that the illustration shows increasing complexity in higher strata does not mean that evolution has occurred. Evolution predicts a gradual series of complexity within a group. The gradual changes of evolutionary history (i.e., simple reptile to complex reptile) are not found in the fossil record. In many cases, the evolutionary “ancestor” is found in higher strata.

Anomoly after anomoly!

The presence of “living fossils” like this coelacanth casts doubt on the value of evolution as a predictive model—organisms can change rapidly or stay the same for hundreds of millions of years. Other examples of living fossils include wasps, dragonflies, stromatolites, Ginkgo, clams, and the Wollemi pine.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Clearskies


No, it wouldn't. I know the pictures have all those animals all stacked up on one-another, but that's not what the picture's saying.

Again, please try to study evolution before trying to destroy it, for your sake - as you're just wasting your own time.

Evolution doesn't dictate that organisms will always change. Heck, it demands that some organisms might never change, should that be the most suitable trait for their environment. If all other mutations are negative, then they won't take a hold in the species. The coelacanth does not challenge evolution. Neither do wasps, dragonflies, stromatolites, Ginkgo, clams, and the Wollemi pine. The theory of evolution has taken all of those into consideration, and still it makes sense.

Where's your evidence for ID/creationism? Still haven't got any? Weird...

Dave. Do you ever think before you submit?

Originally posted by dave420
So far, no evidence has been discovered that discounts evolution. Plenty has been found, and it all lines up perfectly with the theory.

So far, no evidence has been discovered that discounts ID.

Well that was easy.

Oh. Ya, ya. Unfalsifiable. Anyways, there has been evidence discovered that contradicts evolution- it just gets tossed to the side. Like things showing up in fossil layers that shouldn't be there. 'Oops! That shouldn't be there so it doesn't count' is a pretty well known occurrence and many examples of such a thing happening were presented in my evolution thread.

Or the failed predictions of the countless transitionals that should exist in the fossil record but don't even though billions of fossils have been found including delicate ferns and fragile bacteria. Yet, surprise, surprise, not a single smack-down, in-your-face-creationists piece of true transitional evidence that is uncontested. And even the few questionable pieces that have been found and presented are argued to death. Nothing slam-dunk and certainly not the untold numbers that should have shut up creationists decades ago.

Or genetic breakdown, tamed regression, genetic regression, etc. etc. I could go on.

Oh, those are some good ones. Perhaps I'll answer the eight steps off of those premises. Or maybe I'll finish the steps I began with abiogenesis. Or homosexuality like Astyanax suggested. Eh, never mind. It's a waste of time as the progression of this thread and the false dichotomy of the OP has proven.

So far, no evidence has been discovered that even suggests ID happened. None. Not one bit. Not one smidgen. Not a trace. Nothing. Not one fossil. Not one base pair. Nothing. Oh, sorry, the Bible. That's it.

None? Not one bit? Not one smidgen? Not a trace? Nothing?

Have you been paying attention, Super Dave?

But I would still like to take you up on Con's request- the so called 'mountain of evidence' for macro or experiments that back it up. Feel free to U2U me so we don't derail the thread. Or make a new thread. Either way, I'd truly like to see it. But don't simply flood me with links. Explain the evidence to me like the intellectual two year old you think I am.

Thanks in advance.

Side note to Astyanax: Before you jump on my neck about being off topic, please note I am simply responding to the arguments of an evolutionist on your thread.

Even the Pope agrees with me. So, seeing as he's God's representative on Earth and what he says God will uphold in heaven, by disagreeing with me, you're saying God is wrong, and as you know God can't possibly be wrong.

So, who's right - you or God?

reply to post by Astyanax


I guess the goal posts left the field.

I took logic in engineering school and made an A in it. Your A-->B diagrams don't impress me. Everything you said amounts to nothing but a smoke screen.

namely, that evidence of 'design' (in fact: elaborated, integrated function) is evidence of intelligent design, which is the consequent he wanted to prove.

So all that big talk and your whole argument is... "It takes no intelligence to make a watch?" Sorry, that's just a plain stupid argument. I expected more for all your forked tongue bravado.

Sorry you've not even made an honest attempt to refute Paley's argument. Just another smoke screen. Consider yourself in like company your zoo keeper high priest Dawkins couldn't either.





[edit on 5/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by dave420
This thread is a waste of time because those who have faith in God can not be swayed, regardless of the evidence thrust in their faces. If they're a fundamentalist, then their beliefs will obviously clash with science, and they won't be moved, no matter how air-tight the logic and evidence is. Scientists can always be swayed if you've got evidence. That's the fundamental difference, and that's why one approach helps people, and the other condemns them to never learning anything new ever again.

This isn't about God Dave and NO as usual you only TALK about the mountain but you have never seen the mountain top much less showed us where you think it is.

If they're a fundamentalist, then their beliefs will obviously clash with science, and they won't be moved, no matter how air-tight the logic and evidence is.

WRONG Dave, we don't clash with Science, we clash with Atheists and Atheists ARE NOT scientists. You may THINK you all are but you are NOT.

We may have a problem understanding some of it but INTELLIGENT people know how to take that which is complicated and make it more simple so that even the average joe can grasp it. Astyanax does the oposite, he likes to obfuscate it, confuse people with his thesarus hobby and circular semantics while he suggests things we answer them we realize we went off topic just as we got set-up for after he accuses us.

You keep telling us we need to learn about evolution and I will suggest YOU learn it, at least learn enough to be able to explain it yourself rather than make accusations and ride on the coat tails of astyannax work.

I agree with ashley about the futility in this and astyanax may as well know, I had emailed them both wahammy and ash an email siding with astyannax as I can tell he knows the arguments for inductive logical fallacy much better than either ashley or whammy.

I also know I know it better than YOU dave. But BOTH Ashley and whammy are smart enough to know it better than I do and I have seen them become extrordinarily well versed in subjects of science in a very short time.

It seems the more they do the less the Atheist camp is seen anymore because frankly, they have obliterated your macro-evolution the jack squat status. Clear skies has given you a thumpin Dave because she does one thing you NEVER do.

She backs up her bravado

with evidence

- Con

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by dave420



Hahaha! This is getting funnier and funnier every time.

Let me make two points that sum up my case:

YOUR CASE!! You haven't contributed a damn thing other than shakin your pom poms for your team, Astyanax did all the work and by the way astyanax I am impressed by your grasp of logical fallacy but I have always thought assuming the consequent is just like the Bible says it would be with Science in the last days, would be to deny the consequent.

so far, no evidence has been discovered that discounts evolution. Plenty has been found, and it all lines up perfectly with the theory.

Your forgetting the most compelling evidence on ATS we know of to discount evollution dave,,,


You

- Con



[edit on 8-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

You can't reason with people who refuse to honestly consider the evidence but just shut their eyes and deny it. I feel sorry for you poor miserable atheists. It's unfortunate people choose to live that way. You don't have too. There's hope for you yet if your still breathing.

Astyanax just set up a rigged scenario with his atheistic evangelism agenda in mind and then moved the goal posts around to suit his whims. Backed it up with lies and then stroked his ego like he accomplished something. From looking at Howie's thread I see he has developed a reputation for it.

Ashley correctly asserted right from the beginning all the proof of design in the world will not work for someone who is completely sold out by blind faith in the meaningless and hopelessness of material life. Even if the designer himself taps you on the shoulder, somehow I fear you would still deny him then. Sin just isn't worth eternity guys.

Asty claims he refuted an argument in less than one paragraph that world renowned atheist zoo keeper Richard Dawkins devoted an entire book to and did not succeed in refuting.

From Dinesh D'Souza in 2007

Let us now return to the claims by Dawkins and others that Darwin's theory of evolution has decimated Paley's argument from design. Actually, Paley's argument has never been refuted. I am not talking of the specific details that Paley cited, but about his general case for design. That case is actually much stronger today than when Paley made it two centuries ago.

D'Souza

From: Theological and Critical Statements
By Daniel Denison Whedon, J. S. Whedon, Daniel Avery Whedon

Paley's argument from the watch has been abundantly replied to never refuted.

Theological & Critical Statements



[edit on 5/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by dave420
This thread is a waste of time because those who have faith in God can not be swayed, regardless of the evidence thrust in their faces.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

U2U me your address and your prize robot will be winging its way to you pronto...

Originally posted by melatonin
Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

No 'Ding! Ding! Ding.' Because.... This thread is not designed to convince anyone of evolution... It is designed to show evidence of ID. So, if anyone, as Dave puts it, "cannot be swayed, regardless of the evidence thrust in their faces," it would seem to be the evolutionists.

Now go back into your 'self imposed exile' onto the other site where you can gossip about ATS members in undisturbed bliss.

Originally posted by melatonin
Some totally off topic image

Cute but it needed a minor adjustment:



[edit on 5/9/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Now go back into your 'self imposed exile' onto the other site where you can gossip about ATS members in undisturbed bliss.

I use lots of sites. Which one do you mean? What gossip?

Got linky?

Anyway yeah, as usual, derivative and tedious.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I use lots of sites. Which one do you mean? What gossip?

Got linky?

Oh, you're a tricky one, My Dear Mel. Here is a little hint: The one that would get me instantly banned if I posted a link to it. Why? Because it sucks just that bad.

Or maybe I should say I am not a fan of spooky nudists or general nuisances. Perhaps that hint will make it a little more clear.

[edit on 5/8/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Oh, you're a tricky one, My Dear Mel. Here is a little hint: The one that would get me instantly banned if I posted a link to it. Why? Because it sucks just that bad.

Wow! Sounds interesting! Instant banninating, must be really bad.

Anyway, carry on. I have a choice between a discussion with some in this subforum and a pile of 1st year project work.

Bright young enquiring minds vs. Ash et al.

See ya, wouldn't wanna...