Intelligent Design....?

I agree. From what I have read it has been explained. I HIGHLY believe in Darwinian theory, but I've always had a science mind guiding me towards my own understanding of the Universe. I have reached a conclusion which suprisingly enough to me includes universal consciousness (GOD), so although I am not a creationist (per se). I do believe we as (micro-gods) could influence our own evolution.

i.e. If we knew we were destined to live many lives on a planet with only ocean, we might consciously dream of or think about flippers, webbed fingers, Gills, etc. That type of thinking may play a role in evolution.

"Wish I had a longer tongue", said the frog.

Hmmmm. Yeah, O.K. so I believe in god. So what. Actually I find the best theories for overalll sense is under a title of SETH

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/quotes.htm?200723

I found this interpretation of "GOD" to be astonishing, and I must confess that I have never truely believed in anything of the sort until the past few years, and now I am utterly convinced.

So make fun, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who believes in god.
 
Oli said:
Except that the motor has now been "explained" (inasmuch as a theory on how it developed has been put forward with few naysayers (New Scientist, about a month ago reported on it).
Complexity in and of itself is no reason to invoke ID.
Click to expand...

The motor is explained in how it works...just like how you can explain how a TV works.....as for all those theories about how it developed they're just theories without any objective evidence supporting them...I guess a TV wasn't intelligently designed...who cares about the fact that we never see TVs naturalistically forming right? In the same way, who cares if we never see bacteria naturalistically forming, it doesn't matter if we never ever create anything besides amino acids in labs right? We've got lots of spurious theories and calculations, who cares about objective evidence.....hahahaha
 
The motor has been explained in how it developed - which was a stumbling block that made the ID supporters shout "irreducible complexity! therefore intelligent design". Now that's sorted we just sit back and wait for the next thing that biology can't explain IMMEDIATELY to their satisfaction.
Most of ID is like a 4 year starting school - "I don't understand this so it must be impossible" and then they find that as the years progress they DO (well some anyway...)
Objective evidence? There's some for ID? Right. As for bacteria or anything else forming, we may not (do we? not a biologist) SEE them forming but there is a theory that says "if they form naturally then we should see such-and-such happening here, here and here". And guess what? We do. EVIDENCE points to natural development, not some pie in the sky designer.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807
 
Last edited:
VitalOne said:
The motor is explained in how it works...just like how you can explain how a TV works.....as for all those theories about how it developed they're just theories without any objective evidence supporting them...I guess a TV wasn't intelligently designed...who cares about the fact that we never see TVs naturalistically forming right? In the same way, who cares if we never see bacteria naturalistically forming, it doesn't matter if we never ever create anything besides amino acids in labs right? We've got lots of spurious theories and calculations, who cares about objective evidence.....hahahaha
Click to expand...

Prior to the first successful test of a nuclear explosion duing the Trinity project, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_site) the idea that atoms could be broken - releasing great amounts of energy - existed only in thoery and calculations.

Many everyday people still saw the atom as a single unit, and the idea of electrons and protons and matter being mostly empty was limited to the academics. Who had use for numbers and ideas that could only be shown on paper?

Yet those theories and numbers, being backs by a ton of smaller experimental peices, has certainly changed the world.

It seems to me that on the day when life "explodes" from the lab, you will be as surprised as most of the world was in 1945 - seeing theory in practice. My question is, why wait to be hit over the head with it, when the progress is so evident?
 
Last edited:
Oli said:
The motor has been explained in how it developed - which was a stumbling block that made the ID supporters shout "irreducible complexity! therefore intelligent design". Now that's sorted we just sit back and wait for the next thing that biology can't explain IMMEDIATELY to their satisfaction.
Most of ID is like a 4 year starting school - "I don't understand this so it must be impossible" and then they find that as the years progress they DO (well some anyway...)
Objective evidence? There's some for ID? Right. As for bacteria or anything else forming, we may not (do we? not a biologist) SEE them forming but there is a theory that says "if they form naturally then we should see such-and-such happening here, here and here". And guess what? We do. EVIDENCE points to natural development, not some pie in the sky designer.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807
Click to expand...
This is just another typical anti-IDer argument. The argument isn't "I don't understand so it must be impossible" the argument is that "No naturalistic explanation is sufficient so an intelligent cause is viable". Just like how no naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains how the Egyptian Pyramids formed, so they must have been intelligently designed....you don't conclude that the Egyptian pyramids were formed by natural dust and wind blowing overtime do you?

Ofcourse I could show lots of calculations and theories of how the Egyptian pyramids formed naturalistically...but without any objective evidence its useless

river-wind said:
Prior to the first successful test of a nuclear explosion duing the Trinity project, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_site) the idea that atoms could be broken - releasing great amounts of energy - existed only in thoery and calculations.

Many everyday people still saw the atom as a single unit, and the idea of electrons and protons and matter being mostly empty was limited to the academics. Who had use for numbers and ideas that could only be shown on paper?

Yet those theories and numbers, being backs by a ton of smaller experimental peices, has certainly changed the world.

It seems to me that on the day when life "explodes" from the lab, you will be as surprised as most of the world was in 1945 - seeing theory in practice. My question is, why wait to be hit over the head with it, when the progress is so evident?
Click to expand...
The problem is that these theories were verified to be true by objective evidence (and some were verified as false) in a relatively short amount of time as for how these theories on how the genetic code and structure developed...there's no objective evidence verifying any of it really...

The problem with you people is that you'd never believe in things like God, an afterlife, a soul, etc...without objective evidence but for things like this, who cares if we don't have objective evidence...I just don't understand...
 
This is just another typical anti-IDer argument. The argument isn't "I don't understand so it must be impossible" the argument is that "No naturalistic explanation is sufficient so an intelligent cause is viable".
Click to expand...
The actual argument is "At the moment no naturalistic explanation is sufficient with what we know NOW" - i.e. I don't understand it now and I'm so dumb I want everyone to stay as dumb as me forever rather than keep looking for answers. Science is gradual process of discovering things, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Just like how no naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains how the Egyptian Pyramids formed, so they must have been intelligently designed....you don't conclude that the Egyptian pyramids were formed by natural dust and wind blowing overtime do you?
Click to expand...
But we have evidence that the pyramids WERE manufactured, so that sort makes your comparison rather silly doesn't it?

Ofcourse I could show lots of calculations and theories of how the Egyptian pyramids formed naturalistically...but without any objective evidence its useless
Click to expand...
Calculations? Go ahead, this should be amusing....
 
Oli said:
The actual argument is "At the moment no naturalistic explanation is sufficient with what we know NOW" - i.e. I don't understand it now and I'm so dumb I want everyone to stay as dumb as me forever rather than keep looking for answers. Science is gradual process of discovering things, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Click to expand...
And we've been trying to find naturalistic causes for more than 50 years now with nothing...when you will admit that an intelligent cause is viable instead of biasely only favoring a naturalistic cause?

Also your last statement about I'm so dumb and want to stay dumb is just stupid, the actual supporters of ID encourage people to try to find naturalistic causes for abiogenesis, but currently they've got no real empirical evidence just spurious speculations and theories....this is how science is supposed to work, not "your way is wrong you're a fool who cares"

A naturalistic cause would completely disprove the intelligent design idea, and if someone proves a naturalistic cause tomorrow I would say a naturalistic cause is true and it would be great....this however is not the attitude of anti-IDers they want to unfairly censor anything leaning towards an intelligent cause...

To quote the renown famous Atheist Antony Flew:
"I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it", "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design" - http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm

Oli said:
But we have evidence that the pyramids WERE manufactured, so that sort makes your comparison rather silly doesn't it?

Calculations? Go ahead, this should be amusing....
Click to expand...
It doesn't make it silly...imagine that we didn't have evidence that humans built the pyramids, how could you conclude that it was intelligently designed as opposed to a natural formation?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Like what?
Click to expand...
The lack of any naturalistic explanation explaning how genetic system of the first reproducing species...remember this is an overly complex system where genetic code is stored, read, interpreted, translated, and instructions are carried based upon this "code". No naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains how this code had formed...right now they're saying self-replicating polymers some how turned into protobacteria without any empirical evidence backing it up....

People like Darwin and others knew nothing about DNA, instead they referred to simplest forms of life as nothing more than simple chemical reactions...

Take what Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist) says about abiogenesis:
"Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen...it had to happen only once.."

There you have it, causeless chance is the solution as opposed to an intelligent cause....
 
VitalOne said:
The lack of any naturalistic explanation explaning how genetic system of the first reproducing species...remember this is an overly complex system where genetic code is stored, read, interpreted, translated, and instructions are carried based upon this "code". No naturalistic explanation sufficiently explains how this code had formed...
Click to expand...

Sufficiently explains? To who? Creationists?
No naturalistic explanation? How can that be? I heard of several of them.
Let's be honest here. You are just making it all up along the way aren't you`?


VitalOne said:
right now they're saying self-replicating polymers some how turned into protobacteria without any empirical evidence backing it up....
Click to expand...
Who is they? And why wouldn't self-replication polymers have no empirical evidence backing them up? I've seen evidence for self-replicating molecules.




VitalOne said:
People like Darwin and others knew nothing about DNA, instead they referred to simplest forms of life as nothing more than simple chemical reactions...
Click to expand...
May I remind you that Darwin is actually dead. However, modern researchers know quite a lot about DNA.


VitalOne said:
Take what Richard Dawkins (the famous atheist) says about abiogenesis:
"Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen...it had to happen only once.."

There you have it, causeless chance is the solution as opposed to an intelligent cause....
Click to expand...

ah ja. Quoting a paragraph from Dawkins is proof nowadays. How times have changed since I last did research.


In conclusion:
1. You fail to mention anything on DNA research.
2. Your argument seems to consist further out of disbelief and ignorance.
 
And we've been trying to find naturalistic causes for more than 50 years now with nothing...when you will admit that an intelligent cause is viable instead of biasely only favoring a naturalistic cause?
Click to expand...
How about when we're absolutely sure that we really know everything and STILL don't know? 50 years? Pfft, a drop in the ocean.
ID encourage people to try to find naturalistic causes for abiogenesis, but currently they've got no real empirical evidence just spurious speculations and theories
Click to expand...
Nope, they say "We don't know how it happens, therefore it must be a supernatural cause"
 
Last edited:
Kind of interesting that for the creationist there is real empirical evidence and empirical evidence. The first being the bible probably.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Sufficiently explains? To who? Creationists?
No naturalistic explanation? How can that be? I heard of several of them.
Let's be honest here. You are just making it all up along the way aren't you`?



Who is they? And why wouldn't self-replication polymers have no empirical evidence backing them up? I've seen evidence for self-replicating molecules.
Click to expand...
Again adding your bias in this instead of objectively looking at the argument. This another typical anti-IDer argument, when they can't address the claim they resort to personal attacks "this is just creationism" "this is just religion", etc...

I'm not making up shit, and you know it, but go do your own research into abiogenesis. Sure they have evidence of self-replicating molecules, do they have evidence of genetic code in this molecules....do they have evidence of machines translating, interpreting, reading, etc.....NO THEY DON'T..get over it and stop lying to yourself...

spuriousmonkey said:
May I remind you that Darwin is actually dead. However, modern researchers know quite a lot about DNA.
Click to expand...
Yeah they do...ask any one of them about the complexity of it....

spuriousmonkey said:
ah ja. Quoting a paragraph from Dawkins is proof nowadays. How times have changed since I last did research.


In conclusion:
1. You fail to mention anything on DNA research.
2. Your argument seems to consist further out of disbelief and ignorance.
Click to expand...
It isn't disbelief from ignorance. The argument is that "No naturalistic explanation is sufficient or probable, so an intelligent cause is viable". This isn't an argument from ignorance, this is argument from logic, like someone saying a computer was a natural formation...

Tell me, assuming that you had no evidence humans built computers, pyramids, etc...how could you conclude that they were intelligently designed as opposed to natural formations?
 
Oli said:
How about when we're absolutely sure that we really know everything and STILL don't know? 50 years? Pfft, a drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...
50 years with nothing is reason to look at other options while still considering a naturalistic cause also viable...I don't see whats so unreasonable about this to you all...

Oli said:
Nope, they say "We don't know how it happens, therefore it must be a supernatural cause"
Click to expand...
Say that we didn't know how a computer was built, or we had no evidence that humans built it, your statement is equivalent to saying "Who cares if there's no naturalistic explanation, the computer must have formed overtime through some unknown processes we just don't know about yet, there's no need to even consider an intelligent cause"
 
VitalOne said:
Again adding your bias in this instead of objectively looking at the argument. This another typical anti-IDer argument, when they can't address the claim they resort to personal attacks "this is just creationism" "this is just religion", etc...

I'm not making up shit, and you know it, but go do your own research into abiogenesis. Sure they have evidence of self-replicating molecules, do they have evidence of genetic code in this molecules....do they have evidence of machines translating, interpreting, reading, etc.....NO THEY DON'T..get over it and stop lying to yourself...


Yeah they do...ask any one of them about the complexity of it....


It isn't disbelief from ignorance. The argument is that "No naturalistic explanation is sufficient or probable, so an intelligent cause is viable". This isn't an argument from ignorance, this is argument from logic, like someone saying a computer was a natural formation...

Tell me, assuming that you had no evidence humans built computers, pyramids, etc...how could you conclude that they were intelligently designed as opposed to natural formations?
Click to expand...

blabla...just tell us about the DNA research.
 
VitalOne said:
The problem is that these theories were verified to be true by objective evidence (and some were verified as false) in a relatively short amount of time as for how these theories on how the genetic code and structure developed...
Click to expand...

Short amount of time??? compared to 50 years?!!

Democritus suggested that matter was made up of tiny uncuttable bits (atoms) in 450 BC - so it took 2395 years to get the bomb. Along the way there were hundreds of experiments with light, gold, photo-paper, and other materials which allowed us to understand the atom enough that Einstein, Oppenheimer, et al. could build that bomb. They didn't think it all up in a 50 years - it took over 2,000 to go from the original suggestion to splitting a single atom.

It may be 3900 AD before we can create life from scratch, but we've already got TONS more research, testing, and emperical evidence under our belts RE: evolution than atomic thoery had for the first 1000 years. We've got self replicating molecules, light-reactive self-forming spheres, the mechanics of DNA transcription and replication pretty well mapped out. We've got mutation rates for different areas of DNA fairly well mapped, and we have the entire human genome of a few people written down. We've not only selectively bred corn, silkworms, dogs, cats, horses, wheat and other domesticated life forms, we have also inserted the genetic material from one type of living thing into another and created suddenly different living things. We have created medicines based on the genetic variation within viral populations.

Atmoic theory gave us nuclear power, the bomb, particle physics, and a hell of alot more in it's 2457 years; we've probably surpassed those benefits with what we have created using evolutionary theory over the past 100 years. That's quite an impressive track record!

vitalone said:
there's no objective evidence verifying any of it really...
Click to expand...
You seem to miss the fact that 50 years ago, much of what you accept as knowns in the lab (self-replicating molecules, etc) were unknown; only theorised by those who were studying biology under the guidance of parts of evolutionary theory.
That you now accept that self-replicating molecules exist is evidence of how far that theory has brought us.


VitalOne said:
Say that we didn't know how a computer was built, or we had no evidence that humans built it, your statement is equivalent to saying "Who cares if there's no naturalistic explanation, the computer must have formed overtime through some unknown processes we just don't know about yet, there's no need to even consider an intelligent cause"
Click to expand...
This is extrememly faulty logic. You already KNOW that the computer was build by man, so you are begging the question. It only seems absurd to you because you already know the answer.
You only find the idea of evolution absurd because you have already assumed a different answer.
 
Last edited:
The comments about missing links in the fossil record is interesting. It requires science to find a lot of fossils.

You might need thousands of fossils to show a smooth transition from one species to another.

BTW: they recently found some dinosaur protein. Analysis shows that dinosaurs were similar to birds at the protein level. More ammunition for those who consider modern day birds to have evolved from dinosaur-like predecessors.
 
The comments about missing links in the fossil record is interesting. It requires science to find a lot of fossils.

You might need thousands of fossils to show a smooth transition from one species to another.
Click to expand...

In fact, no number of fossils will satisfy creationists. Whenever a transitional fossil is found between two species with a "missing link", according to Creationists that just means there are now two missing links instead of one.
 
James R said:
Whenever a transitional fossil is found between two species with a "missing link", according to Creationists that just means there are now two missing links instead of one.
Click to expand...

How do you id a 'transition fossil'?:)

oh, nevermind. it is a transition fossil and the other is a fossil, all these fossil's/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top