3
   

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:44 am
dyslexia wrote:
about the only argument that can be presented to support ID is the "first cause" argument, and it totally begs the question of "first cause."

As do they all....

Quote:
In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was GodÂ…


I view the Big Bang as the primordial Ohm....
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:58 am
from a science point of view "big bang" is a descrition of an event within a sequence of events. It is not an attempt to define a first cause. Creationism is a leap of faith attempt to define a meta-physical (non-real) cause with the sole motive of justifing a supra-natural cosmology.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:59 am
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?


Inferences, yes. Observations of evolution taking place........ah, no.

Quote:
that have lead to evolution


You are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point has validity.

Er...

I'm not trying to argue the validity of evolution. I'm trying to understand why, exactly, some find ID to be more persuasive than evolution. Insert "evolution theory" in place of "evolution" and see if it reads better to you.


Evolution theory says: we have this huge mass of data. We've looked at it, and we find that the best explanation we can derive is that species evolve.

ID theory says: you think you have a huge mass of data, but but I'm not convinced of evolution. Instead, I'll maintain a superstitous bellief that an invisible entity is causing what others perceive as evolution.


Neither creationists nor IDers in general ignore evidence as you seem to suggest. (There may be exceptions, just as there are among evolutionists. I've had evolutionists tell me straight out that if the data collected doesn't "fit" with the theory, the data is tossed out as unreliable. I'm sure this doesn't happen in every instance, but he stated it , not I. )

Creationists/IDers recognize that evidence, especially the type of circumstantial evidence that predominates evolutionary theory, is open to a variety of interpretations.

Evolutionists often try to insist that this is a settled issue that no one should dare dispute. Woe to him who dares dissent. Scientific history is filled with famous dissenters who were ridiculed by their contemporaries. Is this history repeating itself? Could be. Or not. But why don't we have an open discussion in our schools, universities, etc and admit that these inferences may not be correct?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:01 am
dyslexia wrote:
from a science point of view "big bang" is a descrition of an event within a sequence of events. It is not an attempt to define a first cause. Creationism is a leap of faith attempt to define a meta-physical (non-real) cause with the sole motive of justifing a supra-natural cosmology.

I know, but unless our theories are completely wrong, we will never know what happened prior to the Big Bang.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:04 am
dyslexia wrote:
from a science point of view "big bang" is a descrition of an event within a sequence of events. It is not an attempt to define a first cause. Creationism is a leap of faith attempt to define a meta-physical (non-real) cause with the sole motive of justifing a supra-natural cosmology.


If yours is a scientific view, then you must have some type of data or evidence to back up the answer to this question: Where did the matter/energy involved in the supposed Big Bang come from?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:05 am
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?


Inferences, yes. Observations of evolution taking place........ah, no.

Quote:
that have lead to evolution


You are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point has validity.

Er...

I'm not trying to argue the validity of evolution. I'm trying to understand why, exactly, some find ID to be more persuasive than evolution. Insert "evolution theory" in place of "evolution" and see if it reads better to you.


Evolution theory says: we have this huge mass of data. We've looked at it, and we find that the best explanation we can derive is that species evolve.

ID theory says: you think you have a huge mass of data, but but I'm not convinced of evolution. Instead, I'll maintain a superstitous bellief that an invisible entity is causing what others perceive as evolution.


Neither creationists nor IDers in general ignore evidence as you seem to suggest. (There may be exceptions, just as there are among evolutionists. I've had evolutionists tell me straight out that if the data collected doesn't "fit" with the theory, the data is tossed out as unreliable. I'm sure this doesn't happen in every instance, but he stated it , not I. )

Creationists/IDers recognize that evidence, especially the type of circumstantial evidence that predominates evolutionary theory, is open to a variety of interpretations.

Evolutionists often try to insist that this is a settled issue that no one should dare dispute. Woe to him who dares dissent. Scientific history is filled with famous dissenters who were ridiculed by their contemporaries. Is this history repeating itself? Could be. Or not. But why don't we have an open discussion in our schools, universities, etc and admit that these inferences may not be correct?

Again, I don't care about your critique of the theory of evolution.

I want to know why ID is more persuasive. Are you a creationist or and IDer? Or both? What led you to your conclusion?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:12 am
I'm going from memory here so if this is wrong then it's my fault but I read where Einstein is alleged to have said that "curiousity has its own reasons for existence."

Works for me.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:30 am
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
real life wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Here's why I find ID absurd. ID says, as I understand it, that all of the observations and inferences that have been made that have lead to evolution have not actually been made because there's a man behind a curtain making all of the changes and fooling us into believing in evolution.

WTF?


Inferences, yes. Observations of evolution taking place........ah, no.

Quote:
that have lead to evolution


You are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point has validity.

Er...

I'm not trying to argue the validity of evolution. I'm trying to understand why, exactly, some find ID to be more persuasive than evolution. Insert "evolution theory" in place of "evolution" and see if it reads better to you.


Evolution theory says: we have this huge mass of data. We've looked at it, and we find that the best explanation we can derive is that species evolve.

ID theory says: you think you have a huge mass of data, but but I'm not convinced of evolution. Instead, I'll maintain a superstitous bellief that an invisible entity is causing what others perceive as evolution.


Neither creationists nor IDers in general ignore evidence as you seem to suggest. (There may be exceptions, just as there are among evolutionists. I've had evolutionists tell me straight out that if the data collected doesn't "fit" with the theory, the data is tossed out as unreliable. I'm sure this doesn't happen in every instance, but he stated it , not I. )

Creationists/IDers recognize that evidence, especially the type of circumstantial evidence that predominates evolutionary theory, is open to a variety of interpretations.

Evolutionists often try to insist that this is a settled issue that no one should dare dispute. Woe to him who dares dissent. Scientific history is filled with famous dissenters who were ridiculed by their contemporaries. Is this history repeating itself? Could be. Or not. But why don't we have an open discussion in our schools, universities, etc and admit that these inferences may not be correct?

Again, I don't care about your critique of the theory of evolution.



Of course you don't. How dare I question anything.

It's ok for you to express your doubts about ID/ creation, but NOT ok for me to express my doubts about evolution, right?

Go ahead. Express your doubts. Just don't mischaracterize a difference of opinion in the interpretation of evidence as a rejection or refusal to acknowledge evidence. They're not the same thing.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:39 am
real life wrote:
Of course you don't. How dare I question anything.

Touchy much?

My point, is that you expend all of this energy trashing evolution. OK, I know your doubts about evolution now. I know that opinion already, and it is not relevant to the question I am asking. Which is why I don't care in this particular instance. I'm trying to ask a different question.

I'm asking about your beliefs now. And trying to understand why you hold them. Is there relevance behind ID other than attacking evolution?
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:56 am
Of course their is relevance to ID...it reads like this, natural random selection cannot account for all that exists. That's it, it doesn't imply anything else.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:10 am
That isn't a theory.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:11 am
Or even an hypothesis.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:12 am
But it negates what is said in a previously established theory.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:13 am
No, it critiques an established theory. But it does not provide an alternative. Or at least what you posted does not provide an alternative.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:47 pm
Either blind chance and random forces were responsible for assembling the intricate and microscopic order and complexity we see in every organism and in the physical systems of the universe...........

..........or they were not.

Can you suggest a third alternative, DrewDad?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 08:51 pm
You seem stuck on the dark side of a mobius loop RL.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:44 pm
real life wrote:
Either blind chance and random forces were responsible for assembling the intricate and microscopic order and complexity we see in every organism and in the physical systems of the universe...........

..........or they were not.

Can you suggest a third alternative, DrewDad?


Maybe it was Bumba
http://paulag.home.coastalnet.com/gifs/bumba.gif
the African creator god of vomit.
Better known as the Big Bumba theory.
In the beginning, in the dark, there was nothing but water. And Bumba was alone. One day, Bumba was in terrible pain. He retched and strained and vomited up the sun. After that light spread over everything. The heat of the sun dried up the water until the black edges of the world began to show. Black sandbanks and reefs could be seen. But there were no living things.
Bumba vomited up the moon and then the stars, and after that the night had its own light, too. Bumba was still in pain. He strained again and nine living creatures came forth: the leopard, the eagle, the crocodile, a fish, the tortoise, the goat, the heron, and a beetle. Last of all, came forth men.
The creatures then all created creatures like themselves. The heron created all the birds, the crocodile made all the reptile and snakes, the fish produced all the fish, the beetle produced all the insects.

Getting rid of evolution won't make the god of the bible right by default.
P
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 09:50 pm
Pauligirl, Now, that is f-u-n-n-y! LOL
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:34 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Of course their is relevance to ID...it reads like this, natural random selection cannot account for all that exists. That's it, it doesn't imply anything else.


First of all, it's not natural random selection, it's natural selection. The whole point of selection is that it's not random.

Secondly, you're getting Irreducible Complexity mixed up with Intelligent Design. ID doesn't challenge the functions of evolution at all, it only says that a designer must have started the whole process (and possibly tweaked it along the way). It concludes this because of IR, but the fundamental arguments of IR have been demonstrated to be incorrect.

Lastly, it's not "their is relevance to ID", it's "there is relevance to ID". 'Their' is a possessive pronoun and 'there' ... uuggggh, can't believe I'm trying to explain evolutionary theory and possessive pronoun usage in the same post.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2005 10:40 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
But it negates what is said in a previously established theory.


No, it doesn't negate anything. The assumption made by IR is incorrect. It's wrong, bogus, flawed, it's a non-theory. We've been through this before.

Just because you choose to believe those who tell you that IR invalidates evolutionary theory, doesn't make is so. You have to understand both theories well enough to decide for yourself, or you have to pick somone to trust.

Do you understand both theories? I do.

If you don't understand it yourself, then who do you trust? Any why?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 06:11:17