Who designed the ID?

leopold99 said:
science has been unable to create life from the elements under natural conditions. good enough?
Click to expand...

A completely under-educated answer. And exactly the point I was making. The issue at hand isn't abiogenesis. It's evolution and the pseudoscience of "intelligent" design, which dictates that everything living today exists just the way the christian god wanted it to. Many of the arguments put forth by "intelligent" design proponents include that complex systems were created to be just as they are, rather than designed (so-called irreducible complexity).

Abiogenesis is an entirely different subject and is off-topic. But it is a frequent and cowardly straw man used by creationist nutjobs (present company excluded, of course) to argue since they have absolutely no argument at all that they could hope to win against the mountain of evidence called evolution. Evolution is what is taught, rightfully so, in public schools as the best explanation to date for life as we know it today. Abiogenesis, if mentioned at all in a high school class is presented only briefly to provide context and to demonstrate that there are simply many things left to learn and understand about how life began. But evolution and 'intelligent' design are a science and pseudoscience about how life exists today.

All other references to abiogenesis will either be deleted or moved to the correct thread.
 
The thing with science is, that the answers aren't just 'right there'. We have to give enough time for people to develop the techniques to find the answer. For example, flight. People have been trying to fly since at least the middle ages and probably far before that. I took everyone until the early 1900's to figure out how to do it. It took them hundreds of years. It's the same thing here, we could find out how to do it tomorrow or a hundred years from now, it doesn't matter, science will still figure it out.
 
This is the absolute last word on abiogenesis in this thread. Its off-topic and a deliberate strawman. I'll delete all other references to it, so don't waste your time. Fair warning.

leopold99 said:
i don't know of any either but i'm sure that high school biology curriculums are approved by scientists.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're approved and dictated by school boards and state advisory committees that rarely include actual scientists.

how many times have you personally corrected someone in regards to evolution and the origins of life being two different concepts?
Click to expand...

Every single time it comes up. And if it comes up again in this thread, I'll delete it.
 
leopold99 said:
knowing the students will follow the evolution train of thought and apply it to the origins of life.
Click to expand...

No, they won't. Evolution deals with, in no way, the origin of life, and that should be clear, and IS clear.

But let me ask you...why, if these "scientists in high schools" are such liars, and so dishonest, are you only concerned with them? Where are your complaints about the IDers, who are trying to push their lies on people in school?

Or is it that you only care about your own viewpoint, and wish to eliminate everything that opposes it?
 
In light of all this bickering, I think we've kinda missed the point of the topic:
If an ID has to create life, then doesn't that ID have to have been made by another ID? If so, then who is the other ID and how did he come about?
 
To answer your question, logic would state that yes, our maker would require a maker of its own. And so on and so forth.
 
Indeed, an 'intelligent' designer must, by definition, be complex enough to create complexity. Therefore, such a complex being must have had a designer. This, then, creates a paradox of infinite regress.

A more viable solution is that the universe evolved slowly over time due to just the right conditions that existed to begin the process of evolution. There may be billions upon billions of universes in a multiverse; or this may be the billionth upon billionth cycle of a universe that continually expands and contracts. Either way, the conditions are right in this universe -the laws of physics are such that evolution is possible.

Intelligent design, therefore, isn't logical nor is it viable.
 
I have no idea what is going on... but all i know is, Leopold, I didnt see your answer to my question, so do you mind showing me it? I don't see it. it's not a matter of what I want, I'm simply asking you a yes/no question: Does ID require a supernatural being? If so, then its not science, if not, then for it to be taught in science classes it needs evidence. Where is the evidence?
 
SkinWalker said:
Indeed, an 'intelligent' designer must, by definition, be complex enough to create complexity. Therefore, such a complex being must have had a designer. This, then, creates a paradox of infinite regress.

A more viable solution is that the universe evolved slowly over time due to just the right conditions that existed to begin the process of evolution. There may be billions upon billions of universes in a multiverse; or this may be the billionth upon billionth cycle of a universe that continually expands and contracts. Either way, the conditions are right in this universe -the laws of physics are such that evolution is possible.

Intelligent design, therefore, isn't logical nor is it viable.
Click to expand...
But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....

Intelligent Design makes so much sense....
 
VitalOne said:
But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....
Click to expand...

Why? I could say, for the same reason, that the universe by definition is causeless, eternal, etc. Therefore, your nonsense is thus discarded as a viable explanation since we have evidence for the existence of the universe but none for your god.

VitalOne said:
Intelligent Design makes so much sense....
Click to expand...

Only if you're predisposed to accept a delusion about gods or other supernatural and untestable poppycock.
 
Okay, Vital One, answer the question I posed to leopold:

Does Intelligent Design take a supernatural "being"?
 
SkinWalker said:
Why? I could say, for the same reason, that the universe by definition is causeless, eternal, etc. Therefore, your nonsense is thus discarded as a viable explanation since we have evidence for the existence of the universe but none for your god.
Click to expand...
Why is it easy for atheists to accept all the other concepts in science that are causeless, eternal, etc...? I know why, it doesn't contradict their faith-based belief system...

SkinWalker said:
Only if you're predisposed to accept a delusion about gods or other supernatural and untestable poppycock.
Click to expand...
You can go ahead and believe that nature-did-it and some how the genetic system just magically formed (even though there's no empirical evidence for this)....its all your choice....causeless chance is the solution to all the atheists problems...
 
VitalOne said:
But God by definition is causeless, eternal, etc...thereby falsifying everything you said to the highest degree....
Click to expand...

This is why there's no place for people like this in a discussion. There is no debate to be had here...just one side saying "Nope, don't care about evidence" while the other side pulls their hair out one by one.
 
VitalOne said:
Why is it easy for atheist to accept all the other concepts in science that are causeless, eternal, etc...? I know why, it doesn't contradict their faith-based belief system...
Click to expand...

I didn't say I accepted it. Indeed, I don't know. But I'm not the kind of person that imagines explanations when faced with the unknown. The explanation above is more plausible than yours for the simple reason that evidence for the universe existing is apparent. Evidence for the existence of [insert favorite god(s)] isn't. So, not having any faith-based system to rely on, I stick to explaining the nature by using that which can be observed or truly experienced. One might argue that one's imagination is "an experience," however, I'm referring to those experiences that can be quantified and qualified with our senses not our fantasies.

I don't know if the universe is eternal or if its one of an infinite number in a greater set of multiverses. Maybe there's only one universe and it has an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction. Perhaps during these infinite cycles or among the infinite universes of a multiverse, we live in the only one that conditions are capable of creating life as we know it. Maybe the laws of physics were different in different universes or cycles and a different kind of existence occurred.

All I know is that it makes no sense whatsover to suggest that this universe was created by a benevolent, omniscent, and omnipotent being who has apparently abandoned us and left absolutely no trace of its existence. Indeed, such a complex creature must, if 'intelligent' design nutbars are true to their beliefs, have a complex and 'intelligent' designer. And there must, therefore, be an infinite regression of designers.

VitalOne said:
You can go ahead and believe that nature-did-it and some how the genetic system just magically formed (even though there's no empirical evidence for this)....its all your choice...
Click to expand...

The cowardly and intellectually dishonest, argument from ignorance fallacy again. I wasn't expecting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top