28 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillSome people have come to the conclusion that things like the human body are so complicated with systems that require such specialized parts all working together that there had to be an intellegent designer behind evolution.
What is this thing I hear called [b]Intelligent Design ? What is that all about ?[/b]
One guy who used to teach science across the hall from me thought that the human eye was proof positive for ID. He could not see how all the parts of the eye could have simply evolved since without all the different pieces, no piece would be useful.
28 Aug 11
Originally posted by Eladarthe irreducible eye claim has been debunked for a long time. the fact is that a simpler eye could exist and be very useful to the organism. and looking in nature, we do see a wide spectrum of eyes from very simple to very complex, each quiet useful to the organism that has them.
Some people have come to the conclusion that things like the human body are so complicated with systems that require such specialized parts all working together that there had to be an intellegent designer behind evolution.
One guy who used to teach science across the hall from me thought that the human eye was proof positive for ID. He could not see how ...[text shortened]... eye could have simply evolved since without all the different pieces, no piece would be useful.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Aug 11
Plus there is the whole bit where the vertebrate eye has the photo sensitive
membrane UNDERNEATH the nerves and blood vessels that supply them it with
oxygen and carry the visual information to the brain.
This being a pretty monumentally stupid thing for an 'intelligent' designer to do.
28 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIt appears to me that intelligent design is no different from any other belief. As far as I am aware it simply seeks to interpret the very same scientific data in a different way, attempting to find, not proof (the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven nor dis-proven) but to draw inferences about God from an observation of the natural world. The materialists themselves must also realise that certain of their 'beliefs', also hinge on unobservable events about which inferences have been made and in this respect are no different from the intelligent design faculty they seek to distance themselves from. It must be noted that intelligent design and irreducible complexity are not one and the same, although the latter has been espoused by protagonists of the former. Simply to mock the protagonists of intelligent design as some have illustrated through their comments was entirely predictable and Jaywills controlled experiment seems to have been a success.
What is this thing I hear called [b]Intelligent Design ? What is that all about ?[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it ignores scientific data as contradictory to its pre-stated position.
It appears to me that intelligent design is no different from any other belief. As far as I am aware it simply seeks to interpret the very same scientific data in a different way, attempting to find, not proof (the existence or non existence of God cannot be proven nor dis-proven) but to draw inferences about God from an observation of the natural wo ...[text shortened]... ents was entirely predictable and Jaywills controlled experiment seems to have been a success.
Do elaborate on the 'beliefs' materialists have that are no different from
those of ID proponents, You are making a bold but unspecific claim here
that I would like you to justify and explain.
Jaywills original point wasn't to see if people would mock ID or its proponents
but to see if people held ID to be equivalent to theism.
And regardless of what the outcome may or may not be this does not conform
to the standards for a 'controlled' experiment.
For starters the participants were already aware of Jaywills ulterior motive.
Were self selecting, and there was no control group.
Irreducible complexity is a central component and argument of ID, and an often
used one in creationism generally.
The existence of a god could conceivably be proved, but it is probably not possible
to disprove the existence of god. However ID's purpose is not to draw inferences 'about'
god but to infer(prove) god's(the designer's) existence.
Just a little note on readability, if you post as one continuous block of text it is very hard to read.
I would be grateful if in future posts you could break it up at least into paragraphs.
ideally with separate points spaced out individually.
29 Aug 11
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeHave you observed life being born from non life? nope, all you can state with any certainty is that self replicating RNA has been synthesised in a test tube and that Stanley Miller managed to create some amino acids by blasting electricity into a primitive atmosphere yet you are willing to give credence to the theory of materialistic abiogenesis.
No it ignores scientific data as contradictory to its pre-stated position.
Do elaborate on the 'beliefs' materialists have that are no different from
those of ID proponents, You are making a bold but unspecific claim here
that I would like you to justify and explain.
Jaywills original point wasn't to see if people would mock ID or its proponents it up at least into paragraphs.
ideally with separate points spaced out individually.
What about the transmutation of one species into another, have you observed that? Nope, but then again you are willing to give credence to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
What about the drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly experiments, have they produced something new? I cite these because they may be interpreted in different ways, the materialist stating that they demonstrate evidence of adaptation and by extension transmutation, the protagonist of intelligent design stating that no new species have been produced and on the contrary they demonstrate a remarkable resilience to change and that the mutations were in every way inferior. Then the materialist will state, but there may have been an anomaly which passed on something beneficial despite the preponderance of inferior mutations, on an it goes. Thus, these appear to me to be nothing more than beliefs substantiated by unobservable phenomena, for adaptation is not transmutation.
As for the rest of your text, have neither the will nor the inclination to argue. You cannot prove that God exists nor disprove it, all you can state with any certainty is what appears to you to be plausible based on an evaluation with your own mind of the different constituent parts so as to reach some kind of consensus.
you should try reading ancient Greek, it had no punctuation and no spaces between the words, kindoflikethis - regards robbie.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethat's the best anyone can do.
...
You cannot prove that God exists nor disprove it, all you can state with any certainty is what appears to you to be plausible based on an evaluation with your own mind of the different constituent parts so as to reach some kind of consensus.
...
regards robbie.[/b]
29 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritScience knows what all the chemicals are within the eye.
the irreducible eye claim has been debunked for a long time. the fact is that a simpler eye could exist and be very useful to the organism. and looking in nature, we do see a wide spectrum of eyes from very simple to very complex, each quiet useful to the organism that has them.
When someone is born blind the science person can simply get all the chemicals and in his laboratory make a pair of eyes for the blind person.
But he does not.
Dumb cells and dumb matter are making billions of pairs of eyes everyday for all forms of life but the big science person cannot make one pair of eyes.
The eyes are formed within the body along with all the other functions by the supreme intelligence of God.
After conception when the baby is no bigger than a pea, the blue prints for the child's eyes are within that tiny pea size child just waiting to develop by the supreme intelligent guidance of God.
After 9 months and with the continual growth of the baby the child is born with one pair of eyes.
Dishonest science is telling us that the baby in the womb is growing and developing eyes, ears, tongue, nose etc......because all the chemicals under their own volition are mixing themselves together one after another and forming the body.
Then why do not science persons mix all the chemicals and give the blind man eyes?
They cannot do it because they are not God and they do not have the supreme intelligence and creative potency to created even an eye for a little bug.
It is called the big bluff that someday science will create life.
Dishonest science can create pollution, false hope, instruments for war, mechanized slaughter houses to be cruel to animals and falsity...........and some medicine for sickness after science has made everyone sick in the first place.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaLets all wait a couple of hundred years of continuing scientific progress and revisit this conversation. I think there will be a lot less irrational argument on these issues.
Science knows what all the chemicals are within the eye.
When someone is born blind the science person can simply get all the chemicals and in his laboratory make a pair of eyes for the blind person.
But he does not.
Dumb cells and dumb matter are making billions of pairs of eyes everyday for all forms of life but the big science person cannot make one ...[text shortened]... ........and some medicine for sickness after science has made everyone sick in the first place.
I think scientists will make life that reproduces and interacts with its environment within that time frame.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by Dasa Dishonest science can create pollution, false hope, instruments for war, mechanized slaughter houses to be cruel to animals and falsity...........and some medicine for sickness after science has made everyone sick in the first place.[/b]the only thing dishonest here is your analysis and your argument is completely absurd. there are a lot of things science can't do and there are a lot of things science has already accomplished and is still accomplishing.
science has currently progressed to a point where it can perform eye transplants, and create a primitive computerized eye to help the life-long blind see light and basic shapes. this is 100% more progress than that which has been made by religion, barring their fictional (ie: lying) claims of miracle working.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritFalse religion sells miracles a dime a dozen..... that's true and it does this to attract the fools and rascals.
the only thing dishonest here is your analysis and your argument is completely absurd. there are a lot of things science can't do and there are a lot of things science has already accomplished and is still accomplishing.
science has currently progressed to a point where it can perform eye transplants, and create a primitive computerized eye to help th ...[text shortened]... which has been made by religion, barring their fictional (ie: lying) claims of miracle working.
True religion is not about miracles.....never was and never will be.
True religion gives the person true knowledge whereby they can raise their consciousness to the platform of love of God.
Without true knowledge know one can understand God or anything worthwhile.
Dishonest science are like busy little monkeys.
Monkeys are very busy all day long doing many mischievous things.
Dishonest science are the same getting very busy with worthless endeavours meant to cheat the people.
29 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaGive me examples of honest science, then counter examples of dishonest science. In your own words, not cut and paste. Anyone with a computer can do that.
False religion sells miracles a dime a dozen..... that's true and it does this to attract the fools and rascals.
True religion is not about miracles.....never was and never will be.
True religion gives the person true knowledge whereby they can raise their consciousness to the platform of love of God.
Without true knowledge know one can understand God ...[text shortened]... est science are the same getting very busy with worthless endeavours meant to cheat the people.