Excellent Darwin Vs. Intelligent Design Video

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

…because we assume, or have assumed, that we are the only intelligence in the Universe. Science has not proved that aliens exist yet, but we can't deny that they do or do not.

Incorrect. I would argue that most scientists believe that we are not the only life, or even the only intelligent life, in the Universe. I don’t have any kind of numbers to back that up, but I’m a scientist and a majority of the people I work with on a daily basis are scientists and the when the topic has come up in casual conversation, I have yet to hear someone say that we’re the only intelligent life in the Universe.

In my defence, I did say, "have assumed." But we can't dismiss the fact that other scientists are less open minded as yourself, or myself for that matter, and they have a direct influence on the scientific culture around certain ideas and unfortunately their research such as UFO research. It is only recently (20 years or so) that scientists have become more open to the idea of alien life visiting Earth (have or will).

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

It is an unknown and a possibility, therefore alien intervention of animals on this planet is also an unknown and a possibility.

A possibility, yes. But, given the absence of evidence, hardly enough of one to give it serious consideration at this point in time. Keep in mind that if you’re willing to accept that alien intervention is a possibility, then you have to accept that all assertions with the same lack of evidence are equally possible. Therefore I’d like to throw my hat in the ring as being the external guiding intelligence that altered human DNA.

Actually there is plenty of circumstantial evidence around UFOs, thousands of alien abduction cases and animal mutilations. No it is not concrete, but evidence just the same especially the video evidence of UFOs behaving in ways conventional technology cannot implying higher intelligence. But again, it comes down to the cultural aversion in the scientific community towards UFOs - which I say is out of fear (not very scientific).

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by CantSay

 

Science is not about absolutism, it is about possibilities. Belief is about absolutism. There is a clear distinction and we have to watch out for innate assumptions that are rooted in absolutism because they're not science and can influence our scientific minds.

No, science is about possibilities that are supported by evidence. The theory of evolution, as it stands now, has it. Intelligent design doesn’t. Prove that aliens exist objectively and then we can think about adding them to the mix.

Yes science is about possibilities. In fact that is all it's is about, with evidence or without. Look at string theory with no supporting evidence. The reality in science, not saying you or many others, is that we pick and choose what to support.

To reiterate, circumstantial evidence for support of Intelligent Design exists with our own human achievements in designing and creating artificial life recently for the first time in history. The evidence exists with the UFOs evidence, thousands of alien abduction cases and animal mutilations. All of it is circumstantial, much like evidence supporting standard evolution. Interference from an external intelligence is a definite possibility which should not be dismissed.

Originally posted by Tony4211
Intelligent design does not seem so intelligent. Quite redundant, if you ask me.

www.youtube.com...

Sorry Richard Dawkins is not very objective which is why he is disappointing.

reply to post by CantSay


So, because he is not objective, that changes the fact that a nerve in the Giraffe is redundant, showing the improbability of an intelligent designer? People often turn away from listening to facts from certain scientists because they seem to be close minded. Richard Dawkins is very close minded when it comes to religion. Why should he not be? He is a scientist and there is no factual evidence of god himself. It is alright to be skeptical, but if you are leaning towards the side of the fence that lacks much needed evidence to fit it's claims, you have no right to demean him.

reply to post by CantSay


WOW~!!

that's the best argument (for lack of a better word) on both sides of the debate.. and i"m a staunch Creationist~!

yea.. i can't and won't say anything and let the video speak for itself.. ;D meh, someone with higher intelligence than ourselves....

created us ..*looks around the world today*.......................................

THX the POWAR(S) that be !!! LOL .. cuz' we'd wiped ourselves out eons ago ! :lolmaybe that's exactly the extinction lvl actually happened.......?)

S&F~!

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by CantSay

 

So, because he is not objective, that changes the fact that a nerve in the Giraffe is redundant, showing the improbability of an intelligent designer? People often turn away from listening to facts from certain scientists because they seem to be close minded. Richard Dawkins is very close minded when it comes to religion. Why should he not be? He is a scientist and there is no factual evidence of god himself. It is alright to be skeptical, but if you are leaning towards the side of the fence that lacks much needed evidence to fit it's claims, you have no right to demean him.

edit on 21-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)

No. Dawkins is only restating what is believed to be evidence for evolution in this video. But that's not the point. His objectivity to alternatives is singularly biased. He preaches like a priest which makes him just as bad. He preaches with conclusive certainty when we really can be certain about anything. Science is about probabilities not certainty. He is guilty for doing the same thing that the religious people do. He is absolute and certain that evolution as it is is absolutely correct. Do I need to post videos of his certainties.

Here you go, "it is a fact." That is pretty absolute which is not scientific.

reply to post by CantSay

Dawkins is only restating what is believed to be evidence for evolution in this video.

What do you mean, "what is believed?" It is not believed if the evidence supports the claim.

His objectivity to alternatives is singularly biased.

Would you consider yourself anything different? You claim that Creationism is correct, yet their is no supportive evidence. Dawkins has the right to be close minded on the subject because there is enough supportive evidence for his and the rest of the evolutionary bioligists claims. One difference between you and him is that he is a professional and has been studying evolutionary biology for a large portion of his life. He understands it to the point where he can make claims such as, "It is a fact." He should be more open minded to things, I agree. So should you. Especially since you have no observable evidence.

Your way of thinking is terrible. You pretty much support the thought that nothing is fact because a lot of things in Science changes. And yes, many things are subject to change, but that does not mean some things are not fact. Gravity for example, is fact. The Heliocentric theory is fact.

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by CantSay

 

Dawkins is only restating what is believed to be evidence for evolution in this video.

What do you mean, "what is believed?" It is not believed if the evidence supports the claim.

His objectivity to alternatives is singularly biased.

Would you consider yourself anything different? You claim that Creationism is correct, yet their is no supportive evidence. Dawkins has the right to be close minded on the subject because there is enough supportive evidence for his and the rest of the evolutionary bioligists claims. One difference between you and him is that he is a professional and has been studying evolutionary biology for a large portion of his life. He understands it to the point where he can make claims such as, "It is a fact." He should be more open minded to things, I agree. So should you. Especially since you have no observable evidence.

Your way of thinking is terrible. You pretty much support the thought that nothing is fact because a lot of things in Science changes. And yes, many things are subject to change, but that does not mean some things are not fact. Gravity for example, is fact. The Heliocentric theory is fact.

edit on 25-9-2011 by Tony4211 because: add-in

I claim no such thing. I think you're assuming I am a Creationist. I am not!! I'm just a critical thinker (and scientist). I see merit in evolution and intelligent design together as a singular theory.

Here's the problem. When scientists start believing they have the right to be close-minded due to supporting evidence, science suffers. When any scientist starts saying "this is fact" or "law", he stops being a scientist and becomes and evangelist for a certain dogma he "believes" in that our current knowledge currently supports to our best understanding...until it's invalidated by new data as is the way of science.

My way of thinking is not horrible. It's the scientific way of thinking and it's not mine. Nothing is fact including gravity. Why? Because once it becomes fact, we stop researching what it actually maybe. The mechanism of gravity is only a theory and is very poorly defined to state "fact". Same goes for all other theories. There's a reason why it's called a theory. A theory is our best educated guess based on data.

Yes, there are no facts. There are only probabilities from a relative perspective. For example, you may believe that your name is John. That what you were told. You're 100% certain, so you think it's fact. This appears that it will never change. Try proving to me you're John. It can be very hard to do that especially since I'm skeptical about everything. You may show documents, pictures and even testimony from friends and colleagues, but if I were to take all that evidence and deem it 100% (factual) I would have missed supporting evidence from my own research that you were adopted, or abducted, as an infant and your actual name was something else.

We don't know everything. We're infants in the Universe. There is a very high probability that we really don't know anything at all even though we think we do. On example is the application of infinity in all physics theories. It distorts everything and makes everything you imagine possible.

There are no facts, just probabilities.

I thought someone would have replied to that.

Originally posted by CantSay
I thought someone would have replied to that.

Why bother?

You stated that gravity isn't a fact. It is.
You stated that evolution isn't a fact. It is.

The mechanisms that describe said facts may change over time as new data is presented, but they DO NOT change the facts themselves.

For someone that *claims* to be a scientist, you should understand that.

reply to post by CantSay


There is no way to refute the theory of gravity. Just like there is no way to refute the Heliocentric theory. We will never find that physical bodies don't attract with a force proportional to their mass and we will never find that the earth does not revolve around the sun. Therefore, how could they ever be dismissed? Because they are labeled a theory? You don't hear what I have to say, so why would I reply to your comments?

The mechanisms that describe said facts may change over time as new data is presented, but they DO NOT change the facts themselves.

That's the biggest contradiction I've ever read. To state something is fact it to state it is 100%. Then to state that the mechanism that describes something with 100% certainty changes due to new data proves only that the 100% certainty was WRONG! Therefore not fact to begin with. Perhaps it was more like 95% certain, with 5% room for error. 95% is not fact. It is not science to state 100% certainty if there is ANY chance for error. That is science.

Just to add, even if there is 99% chance something is correct, with 1% room for error, all that means is that there is a 1% chance to the whole theory is wrong, not that 1% is potentially wrong.

One question makes ID obsolete.

Who designed the designer?

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by CantSay

 

There is no way to refute the theory of gravity. Just like there is no way to refute the Heliocentric theory. We will never find that physical bodies don't attract with a force proportional to their mass and we will never find that the earth does not revolve around the sun. Therefore, how could they ever be dismissed? Because they are labeled a theory? You don't hear what I have to say, so why would I reply to your comments?

Who says any of this will NEVER be refuted? You? That is very absolute, and there if anything I hate most is absolutism (from atheists, believers and especially scientists who should know better). To the best of our knowledge, gravity attracts. Our knowledge is only getting better with all the knew data we're collecting. You cannot claim that we will NEVER come across data that refutes gravity. No one can, because that's a belief, like a religious belief.

Look, I want to hear what you have to say. I like discussion and debate. I have a very critical mind which can be annoying, but I promise you one thing. I will make you think.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
One question makes ID obsolete.

Who designed the designer?

Another designer. As far as I'm concerned, intelligent design doesn't limit the number or levels of designers. Humans last year designed and developed artificial life. In that case we're the designer. Perhaps the levels, or hierarchy, of designers is infinite laterally and vertically.

If there is one thing I admire about certain believers, are that they believe in something knowing full well there is a lot of unknown to establish that belief. There is a leap of faith in short which is admitted to. There is an acknowledgement of the unknown. Some maybe ignorant to other ways of thinking, and some maybe excellent thinkers yet still believe.

What I dislike is when someone argues that a belief, their belief, isn't a belief. That it's fact. And that goes for believers of God or atheism and especially scientists. Or that their way of thinking, their belief in their way of thinking is better than someone else's. They try to logically reason it out, which is good, but ultimately the bias is clear.

There is a clear separation between belief and scientific probability. The belief crosses the margin of possible error to reach that 100% certainty. Acknowledging there is a leap of faith involved in a belief over unknown territory is far healthier than denying it and just claiming 100% certainty because there is some evidence or "just because".