Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

Originally posted by Outlawstar

Listen Im all ears there but seriously the name ID is all that was invented, the concept is THOUSANDS of years old, believe me I know all bout how religion has abused its power to commit horrific acts, however, as I said earlier, science is getting there now, we are starting to see the emergence of a religio-scientific sub community, Im by NO means condemning the establishment as a whole or even implying there isint a political will factor behind the action of some scientists, however my point still stands.

Again, I am defending a curiosity, not a belief, who know in the future I may experiment with some things myself^___^

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

I also will always defend curiosity.

I can not, however, defend an organization or beliefs that would make up a bogus theory in an attempt to manipulate science in an attempt to force their belief system on a nation. That’s what Intelligent Design was invented for.

…Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

Phillip E. Johnson, Discovery Institute

Scientific Method is a tried and trued method that has served mankind for a very long time. All modern technology owes it’s existence to it.

Imagine if scientists were to have to get scientific conjectures approved by the church before they were allowed to pursue them or report them.

Remember Galileo…

The church demanded He retract his idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe. They did not care what His evidence showed. They were only concerned with he fact that His evidence ran counter to their preferred perception of reality.

Be curious...

But don’t stifle curiosity because you do not have flexibility in you worldview.

It would be tragic to allow a group that wants reality to conform to a 2,000 year old worldview to have control of scientific inquiry.


P.S.
I know religion has pushed the idea that there is an intelligent designer behind all of creation for a very long time. But this thread is about the modern incarnation of Intelligent Design invented by the discovery institute as a ruse to attempt to sneak religion based creationism into public schools in America.

What evidence for ID have you seen that *can* be put to the test?

If we can all agree there is a design to everything, which of course we can, there is a plan, an established set of laws, then doesint it follow that there has to be another mechanism behind the ones in this "dimension" which if driving these laws, constitutes something of a designer?

Isint that the logical, if not strictly scientific conclusion?
I mean Im asking theses question because I genuinly am interested in such philosophically tinged questions, I mean how can we, the creators of technology and machines, fail to see exquisite perfect design of a machine like standard when we look into the depths of the cell, the seemingly impossible perfection which drives us??Why is that so illogical?Why does religion have to come into it, why does the intelligence have to be some guy with a beard, why cant it just be the definition for the fact that things "work", and dont tell me again that you can say there is a designer of sorts just because things work, you can, and science has no answer other wise, yet, and I stress yet as evidence of my neautral nature, though I conced teh more the debate goes on, the more Im edging toward ID in some shape or form.

Again Im just thinking out loud here, Im really quite confused now.

Can you cite any sources indicating that this is what the ancients believed, because I have never heard of this before today.

Frak its in a book called the secret history of the world, youll have to get a copy if you want to read about it, its correlated in many ancient doctrines though, the concept that we must ascend and become "enlightened to pass the final barrier before further answers become available is an old one!

What did you mean by this statement then?

Yes I do, frankly, I believe the fact we have found life on our Earth is evidence that it is found EVERYWHERE!!

Do you have any evidence that it is found everywhere?

Yes, the fact that its here,the fact that organic molecules are EVERYWHERE in space!!
Of course your interpretation of that evidence will no doubt be the opposite.

You agree with assumed numbers as statistical proof that life arising naturally is improbable on our own planet which real statistical observation says the probability is 1:1 as we have *not* discovered life elsewhere, but then you assume that life is probable elsewhere and that it had a hand in our own creation? Either your confused, or your confusing me. Please clarify your position as it makes no sense right now.

Really, I said proof I dont remember that?
I hope Im not wrong or Ill look pretty silly^_^

Quiet the contrary, which has lead me to state what I stated.

Well, well have to agree to disagree, though frankly Im unconvinced by your resolve here, no offence.

Do you have any evidence of any cover up of any alien life either in the past or in the present?

THIS WASINT IN REFERENCE TO ALIEN CONSPIRACIES, are you reading my posts, seriously Im not being funny here.

I see no evidence of any civilization equal to or greater than our own in the past history of our planet. Can you please cite any sources of evidence that may indicate I am wrong.

The pyramids spring to mind, Baalbeck, Mohenjo Daro Pillar, Piri Reis Map, VEDAS explanation of flight the list of evidence is endless tbh,

Every OOPART I have come across has already been debunked. Many mythologies are just that, mythologies. I also see no evidence of advanced modern knowledge in their writings at all.

Then you havint seen every OOPART^__^
Oh and there is plenty of knowledge of advanced knowledge in their writings, seriously you gotta do more digging, read HAMLETS MILL!!

Some theories utilize assumption in the capacity to explain observed facts, but those theories themselves can be prone to error, whereas the observed fact will still exist regardless of the theory getting it wrong. I hope that explains it a little better. I disagree that science is a control mechanism, discovering or attempting to learn how the universe came to be doesn't appear to me to contain any elements of control unless science is claimed to be a lie propagated by some great evil force trying to lie to us about some cosmic supernatural creator of the universe. Obviously that just sounds a tad bit silly.

God are you even noting the context I write in? Or are you just winding me up, Seriously?


Listen I gotta go so dont expect a reply for a while, but ILL BE BACK BRO!!

Peace.



[edit on 6-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

reply to post by Outlawstar

If we can all agree there is a design to everything, which of course we can, there is a plan, an established set of laws, then doesint it follow that there has to be another mechanism behind the ones in this "dimension" which if driving these laws, constitutes something of a designer?

I can't agree that there is design in anything. I honestly see no evidence that the natural state of the universe was designed by any entity taking any form whatsoever.

Isint that the logical, if not strictly scientific conclusion?

It would be if there was evidence, which i see none for so I can't agree that the speculated conclusion is based on proper logical thought.

I mean Im asking theses question because I genuinly am interested in such philosophically tinged questions,

An admirable trait, but we can't let curiosity become belief without evidence for. Or at least, that's how I like to keep it for myself.

I mean how can we, the creators of technology and machines, fail to see exquisite perfect design of a machine like standard when we look into the depths of the cell, the seemingly impossible perfection which drives us??Why is that so illogical?

The physics of our universe does not allow for the complex organization of non-organic molecules that lead to thing's such as fully functioning and fueled jet planes whereas it does allow for organic molecules to form from non-organic compounds and eventually lead to self replicating life forms. Nor is life perfect, our biological machines are far from perfect and are easily damaged and easily fall into disrepair, more so than non-organic machinery that we can build.

Why does religion have to come into it, why does the intelligence have to be some guy with a beard, why cant it just be the definition for the fact that things "work", and dont tell me again that you can say there is a designer of sorts just because things work, you can, and science has no answer other wise, yet, and I stress yet as evidence of my neautral nature, though I conced teh more the debate goes on, the more Im edging toward ID in some shape or form.

If ID doesn't implicate a God of sorts, then it would at the very least implicate a biological intelligent entity, but this doesn't answer where or how that biological entity arose and procured intelligence nor why it couldn't have equally occurred on our own planet without that biological entity having anything to do with it.

Im really quite confused now.

I noticed lol.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Frak its in a book called the secret history of the world, youll have to get a copy if you want to read about it, its correlated in many ancient doctrines though, the concept that we must ascend and become "enlightened to pass the final barrier before further answers become available is an old one!

After reading the website I can already tell most if not all of it is pure bunk. Do you have any *real* evidence?

Yes, the fact that its here,the fact that organic molecules are EVERYWHERE in space!!
Of course your interpretation of that evidence will no doubt be the opposite.

The fact that organic molecules exist out in space or that life exists on our planet is not evidence of design. Your speculating there, your not showing actual evidence.

Really, I said proof I dont remember that?
I hope Im not wrong or Ill look pretty silly^_^

You really want to get into a semantics argument?

THIS WASINT IN REFERENCE TO ALIEN CONSPIRACIES, are you reading my posts, seriously Im not being funny here.

Really? Then what *are* you implying here with this so called Brookings report? Is there a conspiracy or is there no current conspiracy?

The pyramids spring to mind, Baalbeck, Mohenjo Daro Pillar, Piri Reis Map, VEDAS explanation of flight the list of evidence is endless tbh,

Pyramids, Baalbeck, and the Mohenjo-Daro in my opinion were built by humans. There does not appear to be any advanced technology required to accomplish any of those feats. The Piri Reis map from my recollection has been prove a hoax already. The Vaimanika Shastra is also a fake. Many mythologies describe their Gods flying around in chariots, but tales such as these are not indicative of advanced knowledge or technology. I'm trying to find it, but there is an article floating around the net discussing IIRC a Greek tale reminiscent of modern science fiction tales, there is no reason to doubt that ancient men couldn't imagine and write about flying contraptions.

Then you havint seen every OOPART^__^

Cite one OOPART that has been proven to be a real OOPART.

Oh and there is plenty of knowledge of advanced knowledge in their writings, seriously you gotta do more digging, read HAMLETS MILL!!

I've read many mythologies, I still fail to see any advanced knowledge in them. Could you cite one such mythology that consists of modern day knowledge or more advanced knowledge so that I can patent any technologies and discoveries for my own financial gains?

Listen I gotta go so dont expect a reply for a while, but ILL BE BACK BRO!!

Thank you for the warning, and a word of advice... Stop jumping all over the board and I wouldn't have much problem trying to figure out your position here.

Originally posted by Outlawstar

...If we can all agree there is a design to everything, which of course we can, there is a plan, an established set of laws, then doesint it follow that there has to be another mechanism behind the ones in this "dimension" which if driving these laws, constitutes something of a designer?

Possibly...

...If everyone agreed that reality is the result of a design.

But just as many people, if not more, believe reality is a result of natural processes.

You appear to be attempting to make it sound like everyone alive believes there is a design to everything. That premise just is not the case. Everyone most certainly DOES NOT agree there is a design to everything

And we are back to the original conundrum.

Just because there are a number of people that believe reality is designed does not make that proposition so.

And that's where scientific method and research come in.

Study the phenomenon from a scientific point of view and see if your hypothesis has merit.

The argument...

"everything appears designed to me therefore there has to be a designer and therefore that designer has to be intelligent."

...has no scientific merit.

If that's what you want to believe, that's your prerogative.

However, people that think from a more scientific point of view will always want to see a hypothesis, some predictions, some experiments, some data, some peer review.

You have the right to believe what you want...

But understand; the reason why people say that Intelligent Design is not considered scientific (The original theme of this thread) is because it does not, at this point in time, meet the criteria to be considered scientific.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by hlesterjerome]

Originally posted by Outlawstar

What evidence for ID have you seen that *can* be put to the test?

If we can all agree there is a design to everything, which of course we can, there is a plan, an established set of laws, then doesint it follow that there has to be another mechanism behind the ones in this "dimension" which if driving these laws, constitutes something of a designer?

no. we can't. if we all thought there was design, wouldn't we be supporting intelligent design?

and about OOPARTS

here is a really good website that does debunk a whole lot of them.
www.badarchaeology.net...

the links to areas where specific OOPARTS are discussed are about halfway down the page on the right hand side. it breaks down OOPARTS into sections like "Human Remains," "Anomalous Fossils" and a couple more.

Hey guys, thanks for making your views clear and for so graciously presenting your views, its becoming a rarity on this site, just wanna say thanks Ive learned a lot here, okay Ive slept on it, and Ive decided that yes ID is unfortunately philosophical speculation until proven otherwise,

I personally believe that just because something is a natural process doesint mean it cant produce a design, I think thats pretty silly, and I cant get my head around the concept that people still think human built the pyramids with the technology of the time,(I dont mean aliens built it, I dont believe that) just a more ancient advanced race.

Id just like to remind you again that our greatest minds over the years have postulated based on their research into the nature of reality have a possible intelligence, Einstein comes to mind again, but I understand where you guys are coming from and I totally agree without teh proper application of the scientific method, we are reduced in our ability to reason and progress.

However I would like you to keep in mind what Ive said about the socio-political aspects of science, I really would, I can give countless examples of when politics trumps the results of the science, the Kettering Laboratories covering up of the danger of flouride results springs to mind, the removal of tumours caused in rats from the first Aspartame tests spring to mind, the implementation of dangerous lead into engines in the knowledge of its danger springs to mind, all for financial and political gain, I just want you guys to keep in mind the FACT that modern science is turning into a very different beast.


Anyway thanks again, but I think Ill move on to other ares of interest where I can learn more on the forum, so hopefully ill see you guys around!

And I may pop in again if the conversation rages on for another half dozen pages of so,^__^ Later!!

Chao!.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

reply to post by Outlawstar

Hey guys, thanks for making your views clear and for so graciously presenting your views, its becoming a rarity on this site, just wanna say thanks Ive learned a lot here, okay Ive slept on it, and Ive decided that yes ID is unfortunately philosophical speculation until proven otherwise,

Hopefully you've decided for the right reasons and haven't just given up on the matter.

I personally believe that just because something is a natural process doesint mean it cant produce a design, I think thats pretty silly,

I don't think anyone is explicitly stating that, if there were evidence for ID in humans then we could postulate that the ID is from aliens from Tau Ceti. Which would be natural ID, it's just that there is no evidence for it, that's all.

and I cant get my head around the concept that people still think human built the pyramids with the technology of the time,(I dont mean aliens built it, I dont believe that) just a more ancient advanced race.

The Egyptians were more than capable of moving and setting a few stone blocks. I've watched a video of some guy building his own Stonehenge without modern knowledge or technology. This guy is capable of moving up to thirty tonne stone blocks on his own with just a couple of pebble placed under it.

Id just like to remind you again that our greatest minds over the years have postulated based on their research into the nature of reality have a possible intelligence, Einstein comes to mind again, but I understand where you guys are coming from and I totally agree without teh proper application of the scientific method, we are reduced in our ability to reason and progress.

Einstein never said anything of the nature from what I remember. I know a lot of God believers have misquoted him over the years and some sites will continue that misquotation.

However I would like you to keep in mind what Ive said about the socio-political aspects of science, I really would, I can give countless examples of when politics trumps the results of the science, the Kettering Laboratories covering up of the danger of flouride results springs to mind, the removal of tumours caused in rats from the first Aspartame tests spring to mind, the implementation of dangerous lead into engines in the knowledge of its danger springs to mind, all for financial and political gain, I just want you guys to keep in mind the FACT that modern science is turning into a very different beast.

I agree to a point, but I have to disagree in whole. The whole of science is incapable of what you describe. You or I could easily become scientist, start our own experiments and write our own research papers. That doesn't inherently mean that you and I are also now part of some grand conspiracy or political-financial movement.

Anyway thanks again, but I think Ill move on to other ares of interest where I can learn more on the forum, so hopefully ill see you guys around!

No problem, hope I meet up with out on another thread.

Hopefully you've decided for the right reasons and haven't just given up on the matter.

Whops, couldint help but weigh in again, dont worry, certainly for the right reasons!

I don't think anyone is explicitly stating that, if there were evidence for ID in humans then we could postulate that the ID is from aliens from Tau Ceti. Which would be natural ID, it's just that there is no evidence for it, that's all.

Interpretation of evidence is a factor here again!

The Egyptians were more than capable of moving and setting a few stone blocks. I've watched a video of some guy building his own Stonehenge without modern knowledge or technology. This guy is capable of moving up to thirty tonne stone blocks on his own with just a couple of pebble placed under it.

"A few stone blocks"? Try 2.3million at an impossible rate according to Egyptologies calculations, no, there is more to this, and thats not including teh stunning acuracy with which they were placed which EXCEEDS our current capabilities!
Perhaps this is for another thread though^_^

Einstein never said anything of the nature from what I remember. I know a lot of God believers have misquoted him over the years and some sites will continue that misquotation.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

There are many more besides, history tells us that many of modern sciences greatest minds were heavily involved with esoteric doctrines!

I agree to a point, but I have to disagree in whole. The whole of science is incapable of what you describe. You or I could easily become scientist, start our own experiments and write our own research papers. That doesn't inherently mean that you and I are also now part of some grand conspiracy or political-financial movement.

Im just wondering if its possible to agree to a point but to disagree as a whole?

No problem, hope I meet up with out on another thread.

Im sure we will, couldint help but weigh in again here though hehe.

reply to post by Outlawstar

Interpretation of evidence is a factor here again!

In the case of ID, pointing at something and saying "Too complex PNWED YOU!" is far from evidence. This is the biggest argument *for* ID. There is no actual evidence to interpret differently that would allude to a designer of any sorts.

"A few stone blocks"? Try 2.3million at an impossible rate according to Egyptologies calculations, no, there is more to this, and thats not including teh stunning acuracy with which they were placed which EXCEEDS our current capabilities!
Perhaps this is for another thread though^_^

I call BS on this for very good reasons. The pyramid blocks only weighed two to two and a half tonnes each, well withing the capabilities of primitive man to move. Mind you, primitive doesn't inherently imply stupid here. There are many stone age tribes in our own modern day and age that can readily be taught and dropped into modern life, they aren't any more stupid than we are, they just simply lack modern knowledge and technology. We also *can* build the pyramids, we have cranes capable of lifting well over two tonnes by many magnitudes. We have *no reason* to build such a large monument though.

There are many more besides, history tells us that many of modern sciences greatest minds were heavily involved with esoteric doctrines!

I am not going to run around and look up every little thing that goes against what you think Einstein believed, I will leave that up to you.

Im just wondering if its possible to agree to a point but to disagree as a whole?

Yes, quiet possible. Certainly some members of the scientific community have been behind hoaxes and lies for their own financial gain, but the few doesn't apply to the whole scientific community.

In the case of ID, pointing at something and saying "Too complex PNWED YOU!" is far from evidence. This is the biggest argument *for* ID. There is no actual evidence to interpret differently that would allude to a designer of any sorts.

In other words, my point stands!
You interpret evidence differently to others.

I call BS on this for very good reasons. The pyramid blocks only weighed two to two and a half tonnes each, well withing the capabilities of primitive man to move. Mind you, primitive doesn't inherently imply stupid here. There are many stone age tribes in our own modern day and age that can readily be taught and dropped into modern life, they aren't any more stupid than we are, they just simply lack modern knowledge and technology. We also *can* build the pyramids, we have cranes capable of lifting well over two tonnes by many magnitudes. We have *no reason* to build such a large monument though.

First there is no substantial evidence that the Egyptians even built the pyramids, there is no concrete evidence coming from Egyptology for how they did it, just theories that are in conflict with each other, nothing more than your speculation, as for easily being able to quarry millions of stones and transport them from miles away and place them with accuracy that exceeds our own capabilites, and at a speed that is mathematically impossible, there is no evidence the Egyptians did this, I am not implying aliens, I believe humans built the pyramids, but not when, how or why Egyptology says.



As for cranes, yes we can lift that weights, but explain the trilithon at Baalbeck and the one-thousand tonne block that was hewn there, if you can explain this, you will be the first.

I am not going to run around and look up every little thing that goes against what you think Einstein believed, I will leave that up to you.

My statement is accurate, just look at newtons heavy involvement and even writings on alchemy and hermetic thought!!

Im just wondering if its possible to agree to a point but to disagree as a whole?

Yes, quiet possible. Certainly some members of the scientific community have been behind hoaxes and lies for their own financial gain, but the few doesn't apply to the whole scientific community.

Yes but thats kind of irrelevant really, if something goes on, it goes on, period!!






[edit on 7-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

Here is Scientific evidence - how do these fit with intelligent design:
- Look at the fossil records, what we see by comparing the fossils from the age of the rock is that many million years ago there were plants, then we see in later fossil records, there were small land animals then larger land animals, suggesting that if ID did take palce it did not happen at a set time.
- Look at our bodies, we have imperfections - tonsils and appendix can be removed without any down side. We have imperfect sight, in most humans, our vision degrades after 20/30 going more to long sight sight. Childbirth is incredibly painful, so there are all sorts of imperfections on humans.
- Look at the DNA sequences, we can see that the eye has "been created" only 4 times and all animals share that DNA from all the animals shareone of these 4 patterens at its centre.

These 3 are scientific facts that -although happy to run with ID as a hypothesis get blown out of the water when confronted with fact.

Originally posted by templar knight
Here is Scientific evidence - how do these fit with intelligent design:
- Look at the fossil records, what we see by comparing the fossils from the age of the rock is that many million years ago there were plants, then we see in later fossil records, there were small land animals then larger land animals, suggesting that if ID did take palce it did not happen at a set time.
- Look at our bodies, we have imperfections - tonsils and appendix can be removed without any down side. We have imperfect sight, in most humans, our vision degrades after 20/30 going more to long sight sight. Childbirth is incredibly painful, so there are all sorts of imperfections on humans.
- Look at the DNA sequences, we can see that the eye has "been created" only 4 times and all animals share that DNA from all the animals shareone of these 4 patterens at its centre.

These 3 are scientific facts that -although happy to run with ID as a hypothesis get blown out of the water when confronted with fact.

Interesting, however the assumption that an intelligent designer couldint "make mistakes" is equally as speculative, and thats assuming they are even mistakes, and that said designer would have the same concept of perfection, hmm, darn paradoxes.


Actually now that I think of it, those facts dont disprove anything, just trying to keep an open mind here.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Outlawstar]

"I have been studying various types of sciences for a while now in an attempt to see what "so clearly disproves" ID."

If a theory can't be disproven, it's unscientific.
ID, can't be disproven, ergo it's unscientific.

Evolution can be disproven.

It's as simple as that.

Intelligent design is not scientific because it has no evidence to support it...only faith. ID'ers have absolutely nothing...nadda to backup their claims. "God did it" is all intelligent design has. It's nothing short of embarrassing if im being honest, and people who adhere to intelligent design should also be ashamed. If they want to look credible and not simply a bunch delusional folks then get to work and write a paper on why intelligent design is a valid scientific theory and put it up for peer review. So far you have not while real science has been making strides and collecting thousands upon thousands of evidence to support evolution. And for the last time, saying you believe in micro evolution in one breath and then in the other saying you don't believe in macro just shows you have absolutely no clue as to how evolution works.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by Outlawstar

In other words, my point stands!
You interpret evidence differently to others.

I think I've asked you this before, what evidence is there for ID? Do you honestly think using the God of the gaps slanted arguments are really evidence for ID?

First there is no substantial evidence that the Egyptians even built the pyramids, there is no concrete evidence coming from Egyptology for how they did it, just theories that are in conflict with each other, nothing more than your speculation, as for easily being able to quarry millions of stones and transport them from miles away and place them with accuracy that exceeds our own capabilites, and at a speed that is mathematically impossible, there is no evidence the Egyptians did this, I am not implying aliens, I believe humans built the pyramids, but not when, how or why Egyptology says.

Actually, there is evidence that the Egyptians did it, they record themselves being the builders. We have tombs of the builders as evidence that not all of the builders were slaves, showing that the building of the structures was more socially complex than whipping slaves to make a pretty monument. We build thing's today many times more advanced in complexity and height with fewer men, so the claim that the Egyptians couldn't possibly stack a bunch of stones on top of each other is about as stupid as saying someone from the third world country couldn't possibly fly a plane into the twin towers. Primitive doesn't explicitly mean stupid. I had also given a link to that youtube video showing one man capable of quickly and effortlessly moving blocks of stone that weigh in much more than the pyramid blocks. Or are you going to claim that he couldn't have possibly be really doing that despite being on video?

As for cranes, yes we can lift that weights, but explain the trilithon at Baalbeck and the one-thousand tonne block that was hewn there, if you can explain this, you will be the first.

I see no reason to assume that they didn't do it. We do thing's today that they couldn't even conceive as possible and there is no reason to assume that they couldn't do thing's we can't conceive as possible. If a more ancient and advanced civilization were the real builders, then where is all that advanced technology today? Why no records left over from their civilization, no technology, nothing? So advanced but they couldn't leave a single shred of actual verifiable evidence of their existence?

My statement is accurate, just look at newtons heavy involvement and even writings on alchemy and hermetic thought!!

I said Einstein, not Newton.

Yes but thats kind of irrelevant really, if something goes on, it goes on, period!!

Not irrelevant at all, it's like your demanding the whole scientific community has to be involved with something bad, including you and I if we ever joined the community. Just because someone writes a book poking fun at a few bad apples and misconstruing that to mean all peoples are the same while at the same time trying to incite an emotional response by stating how stupid do they think we are, doesn't make their argument valid.

Originally posted by Solomons
Intelligent design is not scientific because it has no evidence to support it...only faith. ID'ers have absolutely nothing...nadda to backup their claims. "God did it" is all intelligent design has. It's nothing short of embarrassing if im being honest, and people who adhere to intelligent design should also be ashamed. If they want to look credible and not simply a bunch delusional folks then get to work and write a paper on why intelligent design is a valid scientific theory and put it up for peer review. So far you have not while real science has been making strides and collecting thousands upon thousands of evidence to support evolution. And for the last time, saying you believe in micro evolution in one breath and then in the other saying you don't believe in macro just shows you have absolutely no clue as to how evolution works.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Solomons]

I understand where your coming from but chill. hehe.

Anyways, your points are valid enough,however if intelligent design, and if you red previous posts my definition of that is quite different to the norm and has no religious connotations, is true, there is no reason evolution has to be false, both can exist in harmony, sure evolution has hoes, but it is a cracking theory that does a pretty good job at what it does, but its inability to explain its OWN existence, is naturally what sparks such philosophical questions, so please dont tell people they should be ashamed for being curious, those who consider it in the non-religious sense of course, because as I said in a previous post, Einstein himself strongly felt the presence of an elaborate esoteric plan to things, and seemed to indicate he believed it to be incomprehendable, which of course would be a shame, he, howver if cause and effect is a fundamental law, then technically that proves infinity, and infinity disprove the lone designer, however it doesint disprove a design within this fractal of reality as a result of a process in another.....hmm, the mind boggles!!!

I think I've asked you this before, what evidence is there for ID? Do you honestly think using the God of the gaps slanted arguments are really evidence for ID?

Like I said before, we interpret evidence differently!!!

Actually, there is evidence that the Egyptians did it, they record themselves being the builders. We have tombs of the builders as evidence that not all of the builders were slaves, showing that the building of the structures was more socially complex than whipping slaves to make a pretty monument. We build thing's today many times more advanced in complexity and height with fewer men, so the claim that the Egyptians couldn't possibly stack a bunch of stones on top of each other is about as stupid as saying someone from the third world country couldn't possibly fly a plane into the twin towers. Primitive doesn't explicitly mean stupid. I had also given a link to that youtube video showing one man capable of quickly and effortlessly moving blocks of stone that weigh in much more than the pyramid blocks. Or are you going to claim that he couldn't have possibly be really doing that despite being on video?

Are you even reading my posts, there is NO substantial evidence the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and we DONT build things liek the pyramids today, it was placed with a level of accuracy that exceeds our own capability!!!
I know primitive doesint mean stupid, why would I think that?

I see no reason to assume that they didn't do it. We do thing's today that they couldn't even conceive as possible and there is no reason to assume that they couldn't do thing's we can't conceive as possible. If a more ancient and advanced civilization were the real builders, then where is all that advanced technology today? Why no records left over from their civilization, no technology, nothing? So advanced but they couldn't leave a single shred of actual verifiable evidence of their existence?

To assume that who didint do it? We dont even know that!!
And I know, thats the whole point, we dont know how they did it, we cant concieve of it, thats my whole point!!
As for where is the technology, like I have said in previous threads, it would be all but destroyed and oxidised by now,almost all traces of our own civilisation would be completely destroyed within about 500 years, though of course the monument itself is evidence of advanced, lost knowledge, and the hundreds of civilisations who wrote and spoke of an advanced race, are we to immedietly disregard such copious amounts of corroberative evidence?

I said Einstein, not Newton.

My point was made about modern scientists, so my point stands!!

Not irrelevant at all, it's like your demanding the whole scientific community has to be involved with something bad, including you and I if we ever joined the community. Just because someone writes a book poking fun at a few bad apples and misconstruing that to mean all peoples are the same while at the same time trying to incite an emotional response by stating how stupid do they think we are, doesn't make their argument valid.

It might be "like" that, but its certainly not what I said, and in fact the opposite of what I previously stipulated!

reply to post by Outlawstar

Like I said before, we interpret evidence differently!!!

And yet you have consistently avoided showing what evidence it is that is being interpreted differently.

Are you even reading my posts, there is NO substantial evidence the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and we DONT build things liek the pyramids today, it was placed with a level of accuracy that exceeds our own capability!!!

I call BS, research the Egyptians better. We don't build pyramids today that way because we have more efficient building methods today, nor do we have a need to build like that despite actually being capable of easily replicating them today. We have cranes capable of lifting and moving 3,0000lbs, so this constant whine that we can't do it today is unsubstantiated.

I know primitive doesint mean stupid, why would I think that?

Then stop implying they were. Did you watch the video of that one man moving well over nine tonnes by himself?

Here is a great quote from ancient times:

"Give me a big enough lever, and I will move the world."
— Archimedes

To assume that who didint do it? We dont even know that!!
And I know, thats the whole point, we dont know how they did it, we cant concieve of it, thats my whole point!!

So because we don't know how they did it, you then want it to mean it was a more advanced ancient civilization that left no records of it's existence?

As for where is the technology, like I have said in previous threads, it would be all but destroyed and oxidised by now,almost all traces of our own civilisation would be completely destroyed within about 500 years, though of course the monument itself is evidence of advanced, lost knowledge, and the hundreds of civilisations who wrote and spoke of an advanced race, are we to immedietly disregard such copious amounts of corroberative evidence?

That actually make's no sense. I know of no mythology depicting more advanced civilizations or technologies at all, and I love ancient mythologies! If all traces of this civilization were destroyed it would have to be at least one thousand years older than the earliest known civilizations we know about today. Yet we see no evidence that anything more advanced before that even existed. No mines, no mythologies, and not even all the various monuments appear to be of the same age. I don't know, but if you ask me, despite how cool it may sound, we can't just claim something existed without having *any* evidence at all. Do you have any other evidence beside who else could have built these things?

My point was made about modern scientists, so my point stands!!

That's all fine and dandy, but I still raised the red flag about only one.

It might be "like" that, but its certainly not what I said, and in fact the opposite of what I previously stipulated!

Ah yes, only requires a few to cover it up despite hundreds to thousands of people working in the area. Do you have any evidence of any of this?

[edit on 7-11-2009 by sirnex]