76
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Briancrc
 
  4  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2015 07:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
In fact, if there is an intelligent designer...that probably is the way the intelligent designer would have designed things.


That does not seem probable. If an intelligent designer was involved then he was probably drinking on the job. The design flaws and inefficiencies of biological creatures is enough to embarrass any real intelligent designer. If, as has been documented elsewhere, one were to dissect a giraffe's neck and inspect the recurrent laryngeal nerve, one would trace the nerve from the brain to larynx. If a designer made this nerve, one would also expect that the designer would have made it go straight from the brain to the larynx. After all, many nerves do have direct routes. However, for the giraffe, the nerve comes within an inch of the larynx, but goes straight passed it, down into the chest cavity, and then back up. In a human that would be a detour of about a foot or so. In the giraffe it is a detour of 15 feet or so. No designer in his senses would have ever done that, yet it makes perfect sense when you think back to the giraffe's ancestors and where the nerve attached to the ancestor animal's organs.
Genetic code is universal (i.e., all creatures have the same "machine code"), whereby triplets of DNA are rendered into amino acids. You can directly compare the same gene in one animal to the same gene in another animal; the letters of the protein chains carrying high degrees of replication. When looking at the differences of the same gene on different species you see that they compare beautifully on a hierarchical tree; a family tree. The alternative explanation is that an intelligent designer deliberately set out to deceive us; to make it look as though evolution had happened when it didn't. Why would that be? The trite reply is that the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways. For those with more than a handful of synapses firing that explanation will not suffice.

Quote:
The fact that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer...is not sufficient reason to suggest there is no intelligent designer...something any decent scientist would take into consideration before being fool enough to suggest there is no intelligent design.


Failure to reject the null hypothesis is an incredibly weak argument on which to try and hang one's hat.

Quote:
Yeah...I think I guessed correctly. You are an immature individual...probably a kid pretending to be an adult. Does Mommy know you are using her computer to post stuff like this?


No...and I'll kindly thank you to keep this "on the down low" as I like to say to my peeps.

Quote:
Now you had asked if it were immature...I'd have said: YUP!


Well you wear dresses, stroke your nipples, and pick fights with children. You must be proud.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2015 08:23 pm
@Briancrc,
ha ha. Good one. Im sorry that Frank is too sure of himself to understand sarcasm .

Please dont leave. Frank enjoys annoying valuable members until the members give up and quit A2K entirely. Hes a mean and quite ignorant old fart who probably flunked every course in science , math or logic that he ever took . Still he tries to preach to scientists about "what's wrong" with their thinking and how they SHOULD start their research days.









Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2015 11:43 pm
@farmerman,
I notice you and Brian avoid addressing Frank's basic contention about intelligent design. Have you got the guts to directly refute it or just throw these childish diversions because you know you're on the losing end of that one?
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 02:32 am
@Briancrc,
Briancrc wrote:

Quote:
In fact, if there is an intelligent designer...that probably is the way the intelligent designer would have designed things.


That does not seem probable. If an intelligent designer was involved then he was probably drinking on the job. The design flaws and inefficiencies of biological creatures is enough to embarrass any real intelligent designer. If, as has been documented elsewhere, one were to dissect a giraffe's neck and inspect the recurrent laryngeal nerve, one would trace the nerve from the brain to larynx. If a designer made this nerve, one would also expect that the designer would have made it go straight from the brain to the larynx. After all, many nerves do have direct routes. However, for the giraffe, the nerve comes within an inch of the larynx, but goes straight passed it, down into the chest cavity, and then back up. In a human that would be a detour of about a foot or so. In the giraffe it is a detour of 15 feet or so. No designer in his senses would have ever done that, yet it makes perfect sense when you think back to the giraffe's ancestors and where the nerve attached to the ancestor animal's organs.
Genetic code is universal (i.e., all creatures have the same "machine code"), whereby triplets of DNA are rendered into amino acids. You can directly compare the same gene in one animal to the same gene in another animal; the letters of the protein chains carrying high degrees of replication. When looking at the differences of the same gene on different species you see that they compare beautifully on a hierarchical tree; a family tree. The alternative explanation is that an intelligent designer deliberately set out to deceive us; to make it look as though evolution had happened when it didn't. Why would that be? The trite reply is that the intelligent designer works in mysterious ways. For those with more than a handful of synapses firing that explanation will not suffice.

Quote:
The fact that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer...is not sufficient reason to suggest there is no intelligent designer...something any decent scientist would take into consideration before being fool enough to suggest there is no intelligent design.


Failure to reject the null hypothesis is an incredibly weak argument on which to try and hang one's hat.

Quote:
Yeah...I think I guessed correctly. You are an immature individual...probably a kid pretending to be an adult. Does Mommy know you are using her computer to post stuff like this?


No...and I'll kindly thank you to keep this "on the down low" as I like to say to my peeps.

Quote:
Now you had asked if it were immature...I'd have said: YUP!


Well you wear dresses, stroke your nipples, and pick fights with children. You must be proud.


Baloney.

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

The intelligent design...can be anything...obviously including what we find has happened.

But...just as some people will insist there is a GOD...some will also insist there are none.

Foolish...but there really is no cure for foolish.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 02:38 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

ha ha. Good one. Im sorry that Frank is too sure of himself to understand sarcasm .

Please dont leave. Frank enjoys annoying valuable members until the members give up and quit A2K entirely. Hes a mean and quite ignorant old fart who probably flunked every course in science , math or logic that he ever took . Still he tries to preach to scientists about "what's wrong" with their thinking and how they SHOULD start their research days.


You have become a pathetic shadow of what you once were, Farmerman. I pity you for the loss.

If anyone has ever left A2K because of arguments with me...the problem was not arguing with me...the problem was that the person could not stand the heat.

Best that person run from the kitchen...because that is where the heat is.

Stick with your guess that there can be no intelligent design because there is no possibility of a god. You show that people like you are the mirror image of people who insist there is a god.

I doubt you are able to see the irony of someone like you calling me a mean, ignorant old fart.


farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:04 am
@Leadfoot,
Ive addressed Frank on his "issue" for several YEARS. Hes trying to embody the concept of
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


1. So far as I see it, no evidence exists that even suggests the existence of an intelligent designer. All evidence , instead seems to support a world in which lifes basic information banks respond to ,often, cataclysmic shifts in the planets environment. Life also responds to environmental shifts that are wrought by humans

The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism for all these above responses, has never been shown , by the ID folks,( who are those who actually give a **** about inserting gods into their scince) to even suggest the validity of ID.

Ive let ID research be the sole focus of several national (heavily funded) ID organizations.These organizations, like the Discovery Institute or The Institute for Creation Research have spent HUUUGE amounts of time and money studying and trying to impose "scientific rules" about the presence of a SUpremely Intelligent Designer in the Universe over the last 15 or 20 years ( ever sincePhillip Johnston changed the title of "Scientific Creationism" to "Intelligent Design"), and Ive even cheered them on by suggesting areas of research that they may look into (like convergent evolution or to pursue the fossil record of such organisms as bats).
SO far, all these organizations have not produced anything scientifically compelling as promised (except for very slick ads and sound bites and equally slick blogs all funded by the Ahmanson family in the US).

"Methodological Naturalism" is an assumed baseline by which Ive pursued all my geological research over the years. I would have no idea in hell how we would even go about inserting some sub task by which we "hunt for gods or god-like tracks". Even if we tried, this would violate everything that the scientific method imposes upon us. (Besides, how do we do Poppers review on something like that??-Its so unfalsifiable that wed have to change the very rules of logic to even squeeze in a simple research proposal on ID)
The scientific pursuit of knowledge about the rise of life is quite clear and is all falsifiable (this fact is demonstrated so nicely every time we come in from the field and start hacking away at our samples)



Most recently, in SOuth Africa weve seen the discovery of two new hominid fossil groups. One, a new species of Australopithecus, and another, a new species of Homo. Each fits in a narrow band of cave stratigraphy and each demonstrates the growing fact that the ancestry of humans dont follow a strait line "tree pf life" but seems to follow a "Bush of life" in which any specific branch of the two genera dont seem to follow anything "intelligently based" beyond a physiologico- structural response that can be seen to follow a climate that had become increasingly arid allowed the formation of vast Savannahs beyond a shrinking core of a previous continental sized rain forest that had begun shrinking as a geological response to the breakup of a supercontinent that had begun maybe 200 million years before.

The geology of the pile-ups and breakups of supercontinental masses had gone on in the present "Atlantic basin" for at least 3 separate events that geologists had interpreted in the 1990s . Thee events are still going on today and Ill be damned if I can see any intervention of some god-like creature messin with tectonics

As Will Durant once said
"Everything thats happened on earth has been at the exclusive pleasure of geology"

Theres really no place for any real science to get done if we insert some god into the mix. Once someone does that, his or her research comes to a screeching halt . Really, Franks demand that we search for something that shows that "THIS IS THE WAY AN INTELLIGENCE WOULD DESIGN HIS WORLD" is something that science has no time for because we work under imposed budgets , organizational research strictures, common sense, and only finally -- PEER REVIEW.

Frank has stated about what he feels science should be about and how scientists should proceed. He has no idea of anything hes talking about in that realm. Hes out of his fairway and he has no concept in hell of what he speaks. This has, as far as Ive observed, never been an issue of concern to him, since he is worth an opinion on any subject even though he may know nothing about that .
subject.

Frank is infused with New Jersey Machismo instead of scientific competence. He is, at least highly predictable (he even used to be entertaining when he didnt tie his entire A2K existence on his "Possible existence of gods defining the possibility of ID"

"If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs, if we had bacon"


farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:15 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If anyone has ever left A2K because of arguments with me...the problem was not arguing with me...the problem was that the person could not stand the heat.
You flatter yourself you little douche bag.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:18 am
@Briancrc,
You're not actually considering leaving, are you? I've been enjoying and learning from your posts. I'd like to continue doing so, if you're of a mind.
Briancrc
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.


Are you assuming the possibility of a god based on faith or based on evidence? If on evidence, then what evidence? If on faith, then in what other areas of your life do you rely on belief for decision-making? When you cross a busy street at night do you wear dark clothing, blindfold yourswlf, wear earplugs, and say, "it's God's will that I shall cross this street safely" or do you watch for cars, make observations and predictions with evidence, and arrive at conclusions regarding the probability of safe times to cross the street?

Quote:
But...just as some people will insist there is a GOD...some will also insist there are none.


I insisted on neither. I have asserted that I have no evidence for God so I will therefore not make the assumption that one exists. Going the next step to say that anything is possible, to me, is a lazy way of evaluating what is available to us.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:47 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
If anyone has ever left A2K because of arguments with me...the problem was not arguing with me...the problem was that the person could not stand the heat.
You flatter yourself you little douche bag.


Like I said...you have become a shadow of your former self. Too bad that.

And I was not the one "flattering" myself...you were. You suggested I hounded people until I drove them away...something I would not attempt...nor would I ever think I would be successful at doing.

Get back some of your self-respect, Farmerman.
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:50 am
@farmerman,
You nailed it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a good description of the argument being made.

Code:"If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs, if we had bacon"


Ha! Tasty logic.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:52 am
@Briancrc,
Briancrc wrote:

Quote:
If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.


Are you assuming the possibility of a god based on faith or based on evidence?


I am not assuming it at all.

I am stating as a fact...THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD.

I am not a "person of faith." I am an agnostic. I do not know if there is a god or not...and I am possessed of enough ethics to acknowledge that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.


Quote:

Quote:
But...just as some people will insist there is a GOD...some will also insist there are none.


I insisted on neither. I have asserted that I have no evidence for God so I will therefore not make the assumption that one exists. Going the next step to say that anything is possible, to me, is a lazy way of evaluating what is available to us.


If you truly are not making that assumption, Brian...then you should be agreeing with me...not indulging in schoolyard taunts.

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Agree with that...if you are not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.
Briancrc
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:54 am
@FBM,
Thanks FBM.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 03:55 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Ive addressed Frank on his "issue" for several YEARS. Hes trying to embody the concept of
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


1. So far as I see it, no evidence exists that even suggests the existence of an intelligent designer. All evidence , instead seems to support a world in which lifes basic information banks respond to ,often, cataclysmic shifts in the planets environment. Life also responds to environmental shifts that are wrought by humans

The process of natural selection, which is the mechanism for all these above responses, has never been shown , by the ID folks,( who are those who actually give a **** about inserting gods into their scince) to even suggest the validity of ID.

Ive let ID research be the sole focus of several national (heavily funded) ID organizations.These organizations, like the Discovery Institute or The Institute for Creation Research have spent HUUUGE amounts of time and money studying and trying to impose "scientific rules" about the presence of a SUpremely Intelligent Designer in the Universe over the last 15 or 20 years ( ever sincePhillip Johnston changed the title of "Scientific Creationism" to "Intelligent Design"), and Ive even cheered them on by suggesting areas of research that they may look into (like convergent evolution or to pursue the fossil record of such organisms as bats).
SO far, all these organizations have not produced anything scientifically compelling as promised (except for very slick ads and sound bites and equally slick blogs all funded by the Ahmanson family in the US).

"Methodological Naturalism" is an assumed baseline by which Ive pursued all my geological research over the years. I would have no idea in hell how we would even go about inserting some sub task by which we "hunt for gods or god-like tracks". Even if we tried, this would violate everything that the scientific method imposes upon us. (Besides, how do we do Poppers review on something like that??-Its so unfalsifiable that wed have to change the very rules of logic to even squeeze in a simple research proposal on ID)
The scientific pursuit of knowledge about the rise of life is quite clear and is all falsifiable (this fact is demonstrated so nicely every time we come in from the field and start hacking away at our samples)



Most recently, in SOuth Africa weve seen the discovery of two new hominid fossil groups. One, a new species of Australopithecus, and another, a new species of Homo. Each fits in a narrow band of cave stratigraphy and each demonstrates the growing fact that the ancestry of humans dont follow a strait line "tree pf life" but seems to follow a "Bush of life" in which any specific branch of the two genera dont seem to follow anything "intelligently based" beyond a physiologico- structural response that can be seen to follow a climate that had become increasingly arid allowed the formation of vast Savannahs beyond a shrinking core of a previous continental sized rain forest that had begun shrinking as a geological response to the breakup of a supercontinent that had begun maybe 200 million years before.

The geology of the pile-ups and breakups of supercontinental masses had gone on in the present "Atlantic basin" for at least 3 separate events that geologists had interpreted in the 1990s . Thee events are still going on today and Ill be damned if I can see any intervention of some god-like creature messin with tectonics

As Will Durant once said
"Everything thats happened on earth has been at the exclusive pleasure of geology"

Theres really no place for any real science to get done if we insert some god into the mix. Once someone does that, his or her research comes to a screeching halt . Really, Franks demand that we search for something that shows that "THIS IS THE WAY AN INTELLIGENCE WOULD DESIGN HIS WORLD" is something that science has no time for because we work under imposed budgets , organizational research strictures, common sense, and only finally -- PEER REVIEW.

Frank has stated about what he feels science should be about and how scientists should proceed. He has no idea of anything hes talking about in that realm. Hes out of his fairway and he has no concept in hell of what he speaks. This has, as far as Ive observed, never been an issue of concern to him, since he is worth an opinion on any subject even though he may know nothing about that .
subject.

Frank is infused with New Jersey Machismo instead of scientific competence. He is, at least highly predictable (he even used to be entertaining when he didnt tie his entire A2K existence on his "Possible existence of gods defining the possibility of ID"

"If we had eggs we could have bacon and eggs, if we had bacon"





If there is the possibility of a god, Farmerman...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

And there is absolutely no way the "intelligent design" could not be exactly what scientists are discovering about how we got to where we are.

Try to open that tightly shut mind of yours enough to understand that...and then develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge it.

Then you can reasonably talk about how mean and ignorant an old fart I am.
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 04:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Agree with that...if you are not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.


I agree to follow the data (wherever they take me) . if I was to use the hypothetico-deductive model and assert that God exists, then the null hypothesis of that would be that God does not exist and some valid test would need to be devised. I, however, prefer to take an inductive approach and develop a theory from the evidence. We might, to some extent, actually be having a bit of argument based on scientific method. The hypothetico-deductive approach is the one most commonly taught in US schools. I don't know about elsewhere.
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 07:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
I would say, Frank, that you do make assumptions whenever you say, "no decent, competent scientist.....blah, blah, blah." It would be more accurate to say that decent, competent scientists do not consider intelligent design at all.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 08:33 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
It would be more accurate to say that decent, competent scientists do not consider intelligent design at all.


But that is not true!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 08:34 am
@Briancrc,
Briancrc wrote:

Quote:
Agree with that...if you are not making any assumptions about the existence or non-existence of a god.


I agree to follow the data (wherever they take me) . if I was to use the hypothetico-deductive model and assert that God exists, then the null hypothesis of that would be that God does not exist and some valid test would need to be devised. I, however, prefer to take an inductive approach and develop a theory from the evidence. We might, to some extent, actually be having a bit of argument based on scientific method. The hypothetico-deductive approach is the one most commonly taught in US schools. I don't know about elsewhere.


Whatever.

I prefer to use the truth.

I do not know if any gods exist or not...but the existence of a god is POSSIBLE.

And the the existence of a god is possible...intelligent design is possible.

No getting around that.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 08:36 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

I would say, Frank, that you do make assumptions whenever you say, "no decent, competent scientist.....blah, blah, blah." It would be more accurate to say that decent, competent scientists do not consider intelligent design at all.


Of course I make assumptions, Wandel. Everyone does.

I call my assumptions...assumptions.

I also have opinions...which I share here in A2K.

My opinion is that no decent, competent scientist would ever assert that a god is impossible...which means that no decent, competent scientist would assert that intelligent design is impossible.

And any decent, competent scientist who does not consider all possibilities...probably is not a decent, competent scientist.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2015 08:43 am
@farmerman,
Thanks for the summary of your position. I have a few thoughts for later on what you said about ID but here's the thing I don't get on your comments about Frank. You talk as if he is a defender of the idea where I see no evidence of that. Rather, he has taken the opposite side when batting around the subject with me. Like you, he sees no evidence for it. But unlike you, he sees none against it either.

It's like a murder case with no evidence. You can't rule out any suspects that don't have an alibi. You already have your suspect and consider evolution your smoking gun evidence. Methodological Naturaism works perfectly in the field of geology (after the Big Bang anyway) but when it comes to the origin of life, I don't see it as an open and shut case, even when I put on my science hat.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 08:47:28