Intelligent Design is Dead

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Now Darwinism doesn't exist.. Haha.. Well then.. Wikipedia disagrees

Did you even read your own link? That term is from 1860, and doesn't apply to modern day evolution in the least. This is why Expelled is a strawman, it's based on a false concept and arguments are made against THAT, rather than modern day evolutionary science. I'd love to see Ben Stein pick modern day biology apart, because without evolution, none of it makes sense. That would be comical. Please stop quote mining me.

Quote mining? You said "Darwinism doesn't exist", but I showed you it does. No "quote mining" there. And yes I read the link. Did you? From the same source:

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "NeoDarwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin.

You're wrong once again. Oh, will you call this quote mining too? Do you even know what quote mining is?

Originally posted by Barcs
Oh boy nonsense about Meyer and his article that got rejected after being MISTAKENLY published in a peer reviewed journal.

Read the story of the guy who actually published the paper. It was no mistake:

I did not act unilaterally or surreptitiously in my handling of the Meyer paper. Within the Society, I raised and discussed the paper and its potentially controversial nature with a scientist on the staff of the National Museum of Natural History and a fellow member of the Council of the BSW soon after its submission and before deciding to send it out for peer review, and then again after receiving the peer reviews and before sending notification to Dr. Meyer of acceptance. I discussed the paper with this scientist on at least three occasions. Each time this person encouraged me to proceed, stating that the controversy would be beneficial since it was good occasionally to shake up people's established views on important issues.
I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly.
Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600.

For full story: Click
Once again you're spouting nonsense not based on facts. You should stop believing everything that you read that conforms to what you already believe. Challenge yourself from time to time.

Originally posted by Barcs
Go read the wiki on that. Every scientist that worked with the journal admitted it was not science and that it didn't qualify for the journal. The editor was discredited for publishing it. You can claim its some mega conspiracy if you'd like, but Meyer's claims can't actually be backed up by legitimate science, hence why everyone spoke out about it. His claims about people harassing him are merely claims. He was obviously butthurt about how many legitimate scientists spoke out and crapped all over his speculation.

Believe whatever you want to. Sadly it's not based on reality. Pretty much what you call out others for doing. Ironic isn't it? You only believe what is being said about the editor, not what he himself has to say. You even don't know what he said. Until you know both sides, you are not entitled to make a proper judgement. Only a biased closed-minded one.

Originally posted by Barcs

Watch this.

Nonsensical biased video. ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive, which the reporter assumes. That woman said his paper was not an ID paper, which was already shown in the video I posted in my last post... You're lost dude...

To be continued...

Originally posted by BarcsIt should also be noted that amazon lists "Signature in the Cell" in Books › Christian Books & Bibles › Theology

Yeah because Amazon is an amazing scientific journal.. And oh, check this out:
Click

Originally posted by Barcs
It's not a science book. Meyer is not a scientist. He did not perform any experiments to back up his idea. He threw a bunch of science around and then speculated about how it means we were designed.

Oyeah.. You didn't read it did you? How do you know this then? Lemme guess? Sheeping out on what others have been saying? And well, look at what you posted in another thread. Criticizing others for what you're exactly doing here.. Hypocrite much? And this is all over your posts btw. It seems fundamental in your beliefs. You're projecting hatred towards others for things you dislike but are blind to in yourself. Just so you know.. Maybe you can do something about it.

Originally posted by Barcs
You can post all the facts in the world, but it doesn't make the wild guess thrown in the mix suddenly more viable.

So what you're saying is that no matter how many facts are presented you're still gonna reject it anyway, because it will always remain "a wild guess"? Good. At least we established that and I won't have to waste my time discussing or hell even educating a dogmatic person. And that's how you people are against religion.. It's sooooo funny really.. Disliking others for what you do yourself, just in a different context.. Groups are illusions. Look at principles. I won't expect you to know or understand what that means btw...

Originally posted by Barcs
What you have posted is all definitive evidence that ID is dead.

Yeah, just like cold fusion was dead right..?

Originally posted by Barcs
ONE paper was MISTAKENLY published in a science journal,

Read post above.

Originally posted by Barcs
and the mistake was acknowledged. Not a single thing has happened since with ID to move it beyond the hypothesis stage, and that paper was 7-8 years ago.

edit on 6-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Repeat repeat repeat. Do some actual investigations instead of sheeping out all the time. Learn both sides of the story and then draw conclusions.. But nah.. You're too busy bashing to do that.. Well, good luck with that.

And it's actually funny how you present amazon as some sort of evidence against ID, and then have this huge standard for ID because it's supposedly not scientific... You don't hold what you believe to the same standard as what you're against, and that's your main problem. But of course, you will refuse to acknowledge this and say that there's evidence for what you believe blah blah blah blah blah blah. Good luck with that. My points have been made. People who investigate will know how to tell the difference. The ones who have not, will keep sheeping out. Enjoy your closed mind.

"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

As an atheist, you would be surprised at the truth you can verify with nature and the Bible. God is most logically and reasonably there, but he will not be seen by the unbeliever, unless the unbeliever objectively and wholeheartedly seeks truth.

I admit; I was an atheist for 25 years of my life (I used to believe in a non-christian God, the same as an atheist, it's just my Idol was of my own creation of what I wanted God to be). I didn't even look for God anywhere, before being saved. Now I see him everywhere. I speak to God daily. I didn't have a foundation of faith. I didn't have a family that knew all the verses of the Bible. It says in the Bible, "...seek and you shall find...". What's the harm in asking God for the truth to be shown to you? He gave me the truth. You'll find he GAVE us all the truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to God. If you're reading this, God wants to turn your fear into love and truth. The fact that you're in this conversation right now, let's you know God is giving you another chance to know him. Seize it.

P.S. With the fervor you have for denying God, with every ounce of your mind, he will flip that and you will be the voice of reason for God if you allow him to give you the truth. Grace has been given, he wants you to take it.

reply to post by squiz

Let's have a look at some of this 'evidence for life in ID' you're putting forward, shall we?

'The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations.' BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 4, 1-10.

'The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds.' BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 1, 1-12.

'The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: A case study from the biotin pathway.' BIO-Complexity 2, Issue1, 1-17.

'Reductive evolution can presevent populations from taking simple adaptive paths to high fitness.' BIO-Complexity 1, Issue 2, 1-9.

BIO-Complexity is not a scientific journal. It is a specialist publication promoting ID.

'Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines.' DDPE Pp. 287-302

'DDPE' is Darwinism, Design and Public Education, an ID Trojan Horse. Not scientific. Not peer-reviewed. Just sneaky.

"LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information" in... THE NATURE OF NATURE (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009).

The Nature of Nature is a book of popular essays, again with an ID slant. Not scientific. Certainly not peer-reviewed.

Jerry Coyne, "The Great Mutator," The New Republic (June 14, 2007).

The New Republic?

Not scientific. Not peer-reviewed. Just a popular magazine you can buy at a newsstand.

"Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search," Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA - October 2009, pp. 2647-2652

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success" IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, vol.5, #5, September 2009, pp.1051-1061

The IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Hardly a peer-review forum for biologists, though easy for Dembski to get published in because, I am sure, he is a member.

"The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol.14, No.5, 2010, pp. 475-486.

A computer-science journal. Again, hardly a peer-review forum for biologists.

*

We could go on, I suppose. Perhaps a few of the references you cite will turn out to be real scientific papers, of recent (2010 or later) provenance, peer-reviewed and published in appropriate scientific forums, that actually make worthwhile points in support of intelligent design. If they exist, you had better pull them out of that load of half-baked nonsense you posted and show them to us again, and perhaps we will believe you.

I say 'perhaps' because all you managed to do with your post is prove, yet again, that creationists (and ID proponents are nothing but creationists pretending to be scientists) cannot be relied upon to be honest and truthful – even, in this particular case, when it would actually be in their interest to do so.

As my surprisingly long-lived thread creeps slowly to the bottom of its eighth page, it remains the case that not one ID supporter has yet been able to provide conclusive evidence that the intelligent design movement is still alive. Neither, I will confidently predict, will one be able to.

It is 2012, and Intelligent Design is dead. Happy New Year, everybody!

I'm sorry, I did not know I was tasked with specifics and rules, The claim was that ID hasn't done anything for years. So in about five minutes I slapped em together. I don't recall any requirements. I was well aware of what I was posting and I knew you'd love it!

But I must say Bio-complexity was set up for the debate, to encourage the debate, it's peer reviewed. And some critical falsification of Darwinian mechanism.
bio-complexity.org...

All of them are actually either peer edited, or in peer journals and books. And yes there are some in major publications. The ID slant ones actually encourage the debate. Why do they censor rather than accept the challenge?

It's very easy to find peer reviewed stuff, take look for yourself.

But here's a book that is peer reviewed, it's not from any ID proponents. Doesn't mention the word. Or the word religion or God. It's more of a technical manual. And I genuinely offer it as a good read.

“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions: *How did physics and chemistry write the first genetic instructions? *How could a prebiotic (pre-life, inanimate) environment consisting of nothing but chance and necessity have programmed logic gates, decision nodes, configurable-switch settings, and prescriptive information using a symbolic system of codons (three nucleotides per unit/block of code)? The codon table is formal, not physical. It has also been shown to be conceptually ideal. *How did primordial nature know how to write in redundancy codes that maximally protect information? *How did mere physics encode and decode linear digital instructions that are not determined by physical interactions? All known life is networked and cybernetic. “Cybernetics” is the study of various means of steering, organizing and controlling objects and events toward producing utility. The constraints of initial conditions and the physical laws themselves are blind and indifferent to functional success. Only controls, not constraints, steer events toward the goal of usefulness (e.g., becoming alive or staying alive). Life-origin science cannot advance until first answering these questions: *1-How does nonphysical programming arise out of physicality to then establish control over that physicality? *2-How did inanimate nature give rise to a formally-directed, linear, digital, symbol-based and cybernetic-rich life? *3-What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for turning physics and chemistry into formal controls, regulation, organization, engineering, and computational feats? “The First Gene” directly addresses these questions.

It's edited by the director of the Gene Emergence Project.

The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature. The Foundation's main thrust is to encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers specifically into the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. By what mechanism did initial genetic code arise in nature? The primary interest of The Gene Emergence Project is to investigate the derivation of functional monomeric sequencing at the rigid covalent-bond level. This must occur prior to any selection for phenotypic fitness.

I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

So it doesn't really matter if ID is dead or not. The scientific questions remain and remain inexplicable. Stories just don't cut it.

reply to post by Astyanax


You want a peer-reviewed paper that shows that ID is not dead? Here you go
and
Here
and
Here

Those are all from 2011 btw.. And there are a bunch more. What do you mean dead? Of course, there were articles that were impartial or against (Kenneth Miller, what a surprise... -.-) ID, but, I bet you'd rush to find those while never looking for the ones that support ID. But in any case, that still means, it's widely discussed, and so, far from dead. Whether they are against or pro-ID. Things that are dead are not discussed at all. When was the last time you saw a paper on the geocentric model? So your basic premise is out the window, whether you're willing to admit it or not. And seriously, stop expecting the church to say that the bible is incorrect. I wonder if you can put that analogy into context. I bet you can't.

And now I can patiently wait on how all these papers do not have property X Y and Z and thus can't be considered science but something else, and a repetition of the so-called "fact" that ID is dead..

reply to post by squiz

I'm sorry, I did not know I was tasked with specifics and rules, The claim was that ID hasn't done anything for years.

From my opening post:

Originally posted by Astyanax
Meanwhile, out in the public forum, ID books have stopped selling, and ID blogs are losing followers. ID proponents are actually out there complaining that the evolutionists they attacked earlier are now ignoring them. Apparently even our attention is better than no attention at all; the poor things must be feeling very unloved.

Of course the diehard ID-ologues will keep thrashing about. They won't stop writing papers and printing them in their own tame journals and books and posting them on their own tame web sites. But nobody else is paying attention any more, and the ID movement has stalled.

It was you who claimed that

Originally posted by squiz
there are now over 50 published peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject. With the most appearing from around 2004. Link to post

Now you are hoist by your own petard, unable to find those fifty peer-reviewed papers you boasted of so confidently. Poor old squiz!

Well, go on, have another try at convincing us. Like I said, we might believe you.

It's very easy to find peer reviewed stuff, take look for yourself.

Are you expecting me to do your work for you? As far as I am concerned, until you show me those papers they do not exist. And neither, as a successful defender of intelligent design, do you.

But here's a book that is peer reviewed, it's not from any ID proponents. Doesn't mention the word. Or the word religion or God. It's more of a technical manual. And I genuinely offer it as a good read.

Books are not peer reviewed, although the papers in them may be. This particular book is just another rubbish piece of creationist apologetics. And it is selling like slug mucus, just like all the other garbage produced by the ID sausage machine.

Stories just don't cut it.

Exactly. If you have to tell so many untruths to defend your belief, can your belief possibly be true?

HaHa, Angry much? Na it's not about science at all is it? It's not about the content of the arguments. It's best the argument is just surpressed.

There are so many untruths in your above post, I think your drunk.

BTW wow a real successful thread Asty. Wouldn't think there would be much to talk about if were dead.

Dream on...

Never use poor science as a tool to back up your own rigid beliefs.

reply to post by mandroids


I wish that would apply for all sides, not just one.

Originally posted by squiz
There are so many untruths in your above post, I think your drunk.

Cite one.

reply to post by vasaga

You want a peer-reviewed paper that shows that ID is not dead? Here you go
and Here and Here

The first paper you cite is a psychological examination of whether the fear of death makes people more sympathetic to intelligent design and hostile to evolution. It does not offer any evidence whatsoever in support of (or against) intelligent design. In other words, it is completely irrelevant to our discussion. Fail.

The second paper you cite is a philosophical essay claiming to show that intelligent design is a collection of ideas based in religion, that ID makes no sense outside a religious framework. Its authors are not sympathetic to ID and it is not a scientific paper. Fail.

The third paper is a PDF and appears to have been published, not in a peer-reviewed journal but in a book of religious-philosophical essays. It is an attempt to draft probability theory into the service of theology. Fail.

It's widely discussed, and so, far from dead... Things that are dead are not discussed at all. When was the last time you saw a paper on the geocentric model?

I read a lot of history, so I am well qualified to point out that dead things, and people too, are actually discussed very frequently. Actually, the range of unlikely disciplines you had to trawl, none of them remotely connected to biology, are evidence of nothing more than desperate barrel-scraping on your part. And four of the five papers you cite are unsympathetic to ID anyway.

And seriously, stop expecting the church to say that the bible is incorrect. I wonder if you can put that analogy into context. I bet you can't.

I leave the interpretation of gnomic codswallop to those with time to spare for such amusements.

And now I can patiently wait on how all these papers do not have property X Y and Z and thus can't be considered science but something else, and a repetition of the so-called "fact" that ID is dead.

What's this? An insurance policy against the reaming-out you knew your pathetic citations would receive? Hasn't worked, has it?

Originally posted by vasaga
Quote mining? You said "Darwinism doesn't exist", but I showed you it does. No "quote mining" there. And yes I read the link. Did you? From the same source:

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories, sometimes called "NeoDarwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin.

You're wrong once again. Oh, will you call this quote mining too? Do you even know what quote mining is?

Quote mining is when you ignore the point of an argument and instead only pick out one line that is questionable to you, when it quite often does not reflect the argument in its entirety. By ignoring my entire post except my criticism of your use of the word "Darwinism", you did exactly that. No scientist refers to evolution as Darwinism. That word is from the 1800s and isn't a realistic term anymore, because evolution has evolved far beyond an "ism". Is is now a field of science. There were originally 2 competing theories on evolution. Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution. This is where the term Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism came from, but they simply aren't applicable today. Using terms like that from the 1800s is intentionally deceptive, and no evolutionary biologist would ever call it that. The term is outdated, and just a nonsensical as "Darwinist" or "evolutionist". Yeah, the words exist, but the concepts are invalid.

Read the story of the guy who actually published the paper. It was no mistake:

I did not act unilaterally or surreptitiously in my handling of the Meyer paper. Within the Society, I raised and discussed the paper and its potentially controversial nature with a scientist on the staff of the National Museum of Natural History and a fellow member of the Council of the BSW soon after its submission and before deciding to send it out for peer review, and then again after receiving the peer reviews and before sending notification to Dr. Meyer of acceptance. I discussed the paper with this scientist on at least three occasions. Each time this person encouraged me to proceed, stating that the controversy would be beneficial since it was good occasionally to shake up people's established views on important issues.
I followed the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers' comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly.
Dr. Meyer became a paid member of the BSW after the paper was accepted and before it was published, the standard practice for first-time authors or authors whose previous membership has lapsed. He also paid all the appropriate "page charges" for his article, a bill amounting to approximately $1600.

For full story: Click
Once again you're spouting nonsense not based on facts. You should stop believing everything that you read that conforms to what you already believe. Challenge yourself from time to time.

LOL. I read the story, and that's the reason the editor got discredited. You don't publish something in a science journal that isn't scientific, just to shake up people's views. You do it to demonstrate the science behind your hypothesis. Meyer has not done this.

Believe whatever you want to. Sadly it's not based on reality. Pretty much what you call out others for doing. Ironic isn't it? You only believe what is being said about the editor, not what he himself has to say. You even don't know what he said. Until you know both sides, you are not entitled to make a proper judgement. Only a biased closed-minded one.

When a non scientific paper gets mistakenly published without the proper peer review process, because of an editor who isn't intellectually honest, I am entitled to make judgements based on what other legitimate SCIENTISTS say about it. You can claim my view isn't based on reality, but I am simply going on what actual scientists have said about the paper. It's been debunked. People lie. It doesn't matter what some editor claims, and it is hardly a basis to assume anything from. I can say anything I want, and so can you. It doesn't mean what you said is factual, just because it came from the horses mouth.

Nonsensical biased video. ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive, which the reporter assumes. That woman said his paper was not an ID paper, which was already shown in the video I posted in my last post... You're lost dude..

ID and evolution certainly are not mutually exclusive, which is why I don't understand how so many ID advocates claim evolution is false. In reality they should have nothing do with one another. You can't, however, combine science and faith and put them in the same category, which is exactly how any ID proponent is. They won't provide evidence of a designer, but they're quick to assume design

reply to post by Astyanax


What I think it's time for is for individuals to realize that Intelligent Design does not dispute evolution - but also evolution does not dispute Intelligent Design. All evolution tells us is that we have a pretty good grasp on there being diversity of life. It does not state anything near what will explain where we came from [ultimately].

I don't understand why "scientific" people love this debate, when they should notice that evolution can't explain how the universe came to be. The creation of all things is for the realm of philosophy, unfortunately. You will NEVER be able to scientifically prove where we all came from. We may be able to take a few educated guesses at the matter, but we will never be able to prove them.

The funny part is evolution may have even come from Intelligent Design. And all the creative processes that make up this world. Or maybe it didn't and all of this was really just random chance.

At any rate - evolution doesn't do anything for disproving ID. It only gives egotistical people the ability to call themselves "smarter" than the other believing crowd, even though they are basing the same faith into something tangible when tackling a question that involves both intangibility and tangibility.

Yeah because Amazon is an amazing scientific journal.. And oh, check this out:
Click

It's not, but it knows how to categorize books.

Originally posted by Barcs
Oyeah.. You didn't read it did you? How do you know this then? Lemme guess? Sheeping out on what others have been saying? And well, look at what you posted in another thread[/url]. Criticizing others for what you're exactly doing here.. Hypocrite much? And this is all over your posts btw. It seems fundamental in your beliefs. You're projecting hatred towards others for things you dislike but are blind to in yourself. Just so you know.. Maybe you can do something about it.

I've read reviews of the book, read cited material, read debunks, and also seen a lot of Meyer's work not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Again, you're going to refer me to read an entire nonsensical book, yet won't even read a couple links that's a posted. Don't call me a hypocrite, when we all know who the true hypocrite is here. I'm assuming you've read plenty of books on evolution and completely understand it, right? Desire for knowledge is not hatred. It is funny how you equate the 2. If I see a nonsensical statement I'm going to call it out, because the whole purpose of this site is to deny ignorance. I know you are set in your worldview but have you ever even tried to think about it outside of your comfort zone? I doubt it.

Originally posted by Barcs
So what you're saying is that no matter how many facts are presented you're still gonna reject it anyway, because it will always remain "a wild guess"?

Read it again. I said that regurgitating scientific facts, doesn't make the wild guess thrown in the mix any more viable, unless experiments are actually done that indicate a creator exists. Speculating about the complexity of genetics, and claiming it cannot arise naturally because of that, is a wild guess. Ok, you say it can't arise naturally. Show the evidence that demonstrates it arising in any other manner. Science isn't about what you don't know or can't know. It's about what we know based on experiments and objective evidence to support it.

Good. At least we established that and I won't have to waste my time discussing or hell even educating a dogmatic person. And that's how you people are against religion.. It's sooooo funny really.. Disliking others for what you do yourself, just in a different context.. Groups are illusions. Look at principles. I won't expect you to know or understand what that means btw...

Did you seriously just call me dogmatic? I posted the objective evidence behind evolution and it was ignored. It's funny, because each response you give becomes more and more condescending. Let me guess, I must be a godless atheist because I believe in scientific facts. I'm not against religion, I'm pro science. You are grouping the 2 together AGAIN, when there's no logical reason to do so. You don't need faith to believe something that has tons of objective evidence behind it. You are spending more time insulting my intelligence than actually addressing my points. Stop with the fallacies already, I haven't said a single derogatory thing about you.

Repeat repeat repeat. Do some actual investigations instead of sheeping out all the time. Learn both sides of the story and then draw conclusions.. But nah.. You're too busy bashing to do that.. Well, good luck with that.

There you go again. Not responding to my posts, links or anything else, yet saying I don't know both sides, as if you do and you fairly consider evolution along with your ID hypothesis. That's pretty funny considering your posts show you have no knowledge of it.

And it's actually funny how you present amazon as some sort of evidence against ID, and then have this huge standard for ID because it's supposedly not scientific... You don't hold what you believe to the same standard as what you're against, and that's your main problem. But of course, you will refuse to acknowledge this and say that there's evidence for what you believe blah blah blah blah blah blah. Good luck with that. My points have been made. People who investigate will know how to tell the difference. The ones who have not, will keep sheeping out. Enjoy your closed mind.

Yes, by all means, keep the insults coming. It totally proves your case.
I DO hold evolution to high standards, which is why I posted the links that clearly demonstrate it and prove its a fact of reality. You ignored it. That's the funniest part about what you are claiming here. I haven't seen a single scientific study that indicates a creator, other than speculation about complexity and the probability of life arising naturally. Where's the evidence of a creator? What experiments show this. Again, you don't go by what we don't know. You go by what is testable.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

More lies, they are peer reviewed, they do not concern theology. Look the links up yourself. You won't read them. You pass judgement on a paper you've never read, you pass judgement on book you never read. You have provided no evidence. I have shown experiments in the other thread. You ignore evidence to the contrary even from those outside of the ID movement. I'm still waiting for proof of complex protein folds occuring through random mutation and natural selection. But that seems too much to ask.
Yes I think your posts reveal alot about this whole debate.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that scientific experiments exist and have been peer reviewed that indicate a creator exists? Could you please post them. Could you please give me a list of the scientists that have reviewed and endorsed these publications? Again, speculation about complexity and how things can arise naturally is not evidence of design. What DOESN'T happen in an experiment bears no reality on what does. If you've already posted it, I'll get to it tonight when I get a chance to read through all those links. I read the paper, I'm not wasting my time reading a theology book, clearly categorized by several sources as such. Meyer has been debunked already, no reason to even entertain it. It's like telling someone to read a Hovind book, and until you do, you have no right to comment on how stupid his claims are. The stupidity of his claims speak for themselves. As far as the proteins, refer to my other post about that, requesting you to explain it.

I'm sorry, I did not know I was tasked with specifics and rules, The claim was that ID hasn't done anything for years. So in about five minutes I slapped em together. I don't recall any requirements. I was well aware of what I was posting and I knew you'd love it!

The claim is that ID has not made any progress scientifically. Obviously there are still plenty of crackpots supporting it, but it doesn't mean the theories have made it into the scientific community or have gone anywhere. Both the court system AND the scientific community have shown that ID isn't true science.

All science points to ID. You say all life, except for the first life, is the product of evolution. I say all life is the product of an intelligent designer. I say he's personal, and the bible says...well I'll just post the verse.

All science points to ID. Really? ALL OF IT? I don't care what you say, your claims don't have any science behind them. They are filling in a guess to explain the unknown (origin of life). Evolution covers diversity not origin.

Originally posted by addygrace
As an atheist, you would be surprised at the truth you can verify with nature and the Bible. God is most logically and reasonably there, but he will not be seen by the unbeliever, unless the unbeliever objectively and wholeheartedly seeks truth.

There's nothing wrong with that opinion, it's just not scientific or objective. You are assuming a book is accurate with no way to verify it. And I'm not an atheist.

I admit; I was an atheist for 25 years of my life (I used to believe in a non-christian God, the same as an atheist, it's just my Idol was of my own creation of what I wanted God to be). I didn't even look for God anywhere, before being saved. Now I see him everywhere. I speak to God daily. I didn't have a foundation of faith. I didn't have a family that knew all the verses of the Bible. It says in the Bible, "...seek and you shall find...". What's the harm in asking God for the truth to be shown to you? He gave me the truth. You'll find he GAVE us all the truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to God. If you're reading this, God wants to turn your fear into love and truth. The fact that you're in this conversation right now, let's you know God is giving you another chance to know him. Seize it.

P.S. With the fervor you have for denying God, with every ounce of your mind, he will flip that and you will be the voice of reason for God if you allow him to give you the truth. Grace has been given, he wants you to take it.

This discussion is about science and intelligent design, not faith in a god. If you've got some science, please post it, otherwise you need to be in a faith based thread. I have never denied god, I've stated several times that there is no objective evidence of his existence, which is true. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Barcs
There's nothing wrong with that opinion, it's just not scientific or objective. You are assuming a book is accurate with no way to verify it. And I'm not an atheist

There are many ways to verify the Bible, scientifically.

This discussion is about science and intelligent design, not faith in a god. If you've got some science, please post it, otherwise you need to be in a faith based thread. I have never denied god, I've stated several times that there is no objective evidence of his existence, which is true. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

With the theories most likely to explain the universe and everything in it, ID is the strongest, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. What did the Bible say about the beginning of the universe? First it said the universe had a beginning. Second, the universe is expanding. Not until the 20th century, did the majority of scientists believe the universe had a beginning. For their to be a creator of the universe, their had to be a point when the universe wasn't yet created. The Bible knew that many years before scientists did.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by vasaga

 

You want a peer-reviewed paper that shows that ID is not dead? Here you go
and Here and Here

The first paper you cite is a psychological examination of whether the fear of death makes people more sympathetic to intelligent design and hostile to evolution. It does not offer any evidence whatsoever in support of (or against) intelligent design. In other words, it is completely irrelevant to our discussion. Fail.

The second paper you cite is a philosophical essay claiming to show that intelligent design is a collection of ideas based in religion, that ID makes no sense outside a religious framework. Its authors are not sympathetic to ID and it is not a scientific paper. Fail.

The third paper is a PDF and appears to have been published, not in a peer-reviewed journal but in a book of religious-philosophical essays. It is an attempt to draft probability theory into the service of theology. Fail.

It's widely discussed, and so, far from dead... Things that are dead are not discussed at all. When was the last time you saw a paper on the geocentric model?

I read a lot of history, so I am well qualified to point out that dead things, and people too, are actually discussed very frequently. Actually, the range of unlikely disciplines you had to trawl, none of them remotely connected to biology, are evidence of nothing more than desperate barrel-scraping on your part. And four of the five papers you cite are unsympathetic to ID anyway.

And seriously, stop expecting the church to say that the bible is incorrect. I wonder if you can put that analogy into context. I bet you can't.

I leave the interpretation of gnomic codswallop to those with time to spare for such amusements.

And now I can patiently wait on how all these papers do not have property X Y and Z and thus can't be considered science but something else, and a repetition of the so-called "fact" that ID is dead.

What's this? An insurance policy against the reaming-out you knew your pathetic citations would receive? Hasn't worked, has it?

edit on 9/1/12 by Astyanax because: of a lust for brevity.

I said it would show that ID is not dead. I never said it would be a paper specifically about ID investigations. But you people always lack reading comprehensions, and I guess, like I predicted, they didn't have property X Y Z... My argument was clearly that it was still being discussed and therefore not dead.. But yeah, strawman away.

Screw this. I'm outta here.

We are here, thus there is a POSSIBILITY that something made us. that mere fact that we exist,is reason [no pun] enough for contemplation.