16 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are many many reasons why ID is unscientific....
If you think science is the pursuit of reality and truth, the way things
are without "agenda" or anything else that may alter either truth or
reality from how we should perceive it; why wouldn’t that search for
it not include ID if the evidence took you or whoever there?
As a creationist I see both the atheistic and theistic views about
ID and evolut ...[text shortened]... em down thereby ruining ID by their characterization
assassination of that individual.
Kelly
Here are a few.
1. It cannot make verifiable predictions.
2. It invokes the supernatural, although some say I needn't, it does have to invoke some intelligence beyond our own to work. This is unscientific, its like saying "I don't understand it therefore something more intelligent than me must have created it"
3. It has never made it into a peer reviewed scientific journal. Although this doesn't directly mean its not science it does show that although its been repeatedly presented to the scientific community, not once has even a little bit of it been accepted as good verifiable science.
4. I cannot be tested.
5. Most of the arguments for ID come from the holes in evolutionary theory rather than from an actually independent standpoint. Actually do you believe that if creation was widely accepted instead of evolution that ID would even exist?
I gotta go have lunch will continue later
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusWhen we (people) build something very complex such as an airplane
Very well, please suggest an expirment (or a set thereof) that will be able to prove or refute ID.
or a CPU there are several independent systems and parts that work
in unison to do things that are required for the entire system to
function properly, The thing I'd like to see is you show me how the
something like the circulatory system could arise with all the
interdependences required throughout a living system occurring,
without anything or one directing the entire process! Keep in mind
that energy required to do any work cannot be robbing any other part
of the living system without the possibility of dying, and if fails badly
there is dead end there are no redo’s each attempt that fails can take
away a very limited amount of opportunities to archive that goal.
Let’s see that level of played out so we can see it can be done,
and I’ll have to rethink my views on the whole process. If the answer
is it takes billions of years I will have to put that statement in the
same box I do the “God did it” and we can both look at ID again and
see if it is any different than anything else people come up with.
Kelly
16 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadCome on I have begged people here to tell me what they mean when
The problem is that the letters ID mean different things to different people.
1. To some people it means a bunch of creationists who tried to get some nonsense taught in school classrooms in the hope that they could discourage the teaching of evolution.
2. To others - as you apparently do - it means the concept that it might be possible to show that w ...[text shortened]... e currently studying it in a scientific manner it is likely to get rejected or at least ignored.
they say they want to talk about evolution because that too is a very
broad word as well. The fact that different people view a topic as this
and others as that, only means we have to be very clear on the
foundation of what we are discussing to avoid confusion. I can say I
believe in evolution and be a creationist, I can say I believe in
evolution and be an atheist too, and the way we view it will have some
parts we could agree about the other parts we do not.
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayFirstly it does take billions of years, the earth is 6.5 Billion years old. This is proven science, 100% independently verified, I've actually done several of the experiments that prove it myself. If you choose not to accept this then there is no point in even trying to explain anything scientific to you because you clearly have the ability to ignore data you don't like.
When we (people) build something very complex such as an airplane
or a CPU there are several independent systems and parts that work
in unison to do things that are required for the entire system to
function properly, The thing I'd like to see is you show me how the
something like the circulatory system could arise with all the
interdependences require ...[text shortened]... look at ID again and
see if it is any different than anything else people come up with.
Kelly
Taking your circulatory system example: (This is from memory so nobody rip me to shreds for discrepancies please). I'm not going demonstrate the evolution of the system. I'll give examples of ever increasingly complex systems and allow you to make the jump (or not which is what I expect you'll do)
Earth worms: very simple, several pairs of blood vessels and the motion of the worm itself as a source of energy
Fish: simple heart, 2 chambers very simple circular blood travel
Frogs: Slightly more complex, 3 chambers, separates oxygenated and de oxygenated blood few more things I cant remember.
Human: 4 chambers, separation very efficient.
Now there are many steps between these creatures each with ever more efficient circulatory systems. However There can be seen a clear progression from single cell based systems right through to ours. Each growing ever more efficient.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by eamon oIf you are in your car driving down the highway and you see a bunch
Can anyone identify an example of true intelligent design please.
of large rocks laying there and there no pattern to them as you can
tell, is that ID or random chance? If you see large rooks put into a
pattern that spell out "Welcome to Hoopeston Illinois" is that ID or
random chance?
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by Mexico1. You are of the opinion that an answer to a question if it does not
There are many many reasons why ID is unscientific....
Here are a few.
1. It cannot make verifiable predictions.
2. It invokes the supernatural, although some say I needn't, it does have to invoke some intelligence beyond our own to work. This is unscientific, its like saying "I don't understand it therefore something more intelligent than me must have c ...[text shortened]... stead of evolution that ID would even exist?
I gotta go have lunch will continue later
give you a prediction is not science?
2 It does not invoke the supernatural, again if humans create life
does that make man gods and science the supernatural from that
point on?
3. You are reaching for an agreement here for truth, a couple of guys
around a table saying this can be published, and that cannot is the
only thing stopping anything from being "scientific"? Wow, editors have
that kind of power now, that is amazing.
4. It makes a claim, show it wrong, create life! Oh wait if you create
it by hard work, you prove ID! Instead you must just look for some
place where no one is, and then wait for life to appear.
5. Yes so
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoI rest my case.
Firstly it does take billions of years, the earth is 6.5 Billion years old. This is proven science, 100% independently verified, I've actually done several of the experiments that prove it myself. If you choose not to accept this then there is no point in even trying to explain anything scientific to you because you clearly have the ability to ignore data you ...[text shortened]... ion from single cell based systems right through to ours. Each growing ever more efficient.
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoThan thank you for nothing, you saying it is so, just doesn't do it for
Firstly it does take billions of years, the earth is 6.5 Billion years old. This is proven science, 100% independently verified, I've actually done several of the experiments that prove it myself. If you choose not to accept this then there is no point in even trying to explain anything scientific to you because you clearly have the ability to ignore data you ...[text shortened]... ion from single cell based systems right through to ours. Each growing ever more efficient.
me. Showing me different systems where some are different than
anothers but doing the same thing does not mean one came before
the other, through evolution, it only shows we have different systems
doing nearly the samething in different ways, and some could be
more complex than others. You are making a jump here, or better
said in my opinion a leap of faith in making claims. This isn't an
experiement to show me you can get from the simplier one to the
complex ones, you are only telling me it can be done in your opinion,
and you may 'BELIEVE THAT' to be true, but show me! I grow tired of
people saying this is true trust me we just cannot see it, "God did it"
is just like that statement and it gets the theist no where when
when they make a claim, so why should I accept your view that it takes
billions of years? Just because you believe it to be true, I have to
take your word for it! I do not and will not take your word for it, if
you got no more than that you have nothing more than the any
theist has on "God did it" because they believe that is true too.
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoI think you're off by 2 billion; the earth is only 4 1/2 billion years old. And I'd be interested in knowing just what experiment you did to get your findings.
[b]Firstly it does take billions of years, the earth is 6.5 Billion years old. This is proven science, 100% independently verified,
16 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOk I didn't want to go into every step along the way because it will take millions of steps. Instead I tried to show 4 distinct steps which show a development from an extremely basic easy to understand system, i.e. annelids. Right through 2 and 3 chambered systems into a fully developed human cardiovascular system. Because I never studied this material in depth, I was using the examples (there was actually about 30 in the progression I saw) that made it clear to me. You'd need a Paleobiologist and biologist to give a true and accurate account. Me I'm a geologist who specialises in Structure, tectonics and some radiometric dating. I asked you this once before and you never answered. What age do you believe the earth is? if you accept the age of 4.5(+-0.5) BA then I'll keep talking to you. If you believe anything less than 2 billion then there is no point because it instantly clear that you don't accept modern sciences.
Than thank you for nothing, you saying it is so, just doesn't do it for
me. Showing me different systems where some are different than
anothers but doing the same thing does not mean one came before
the other, through evolution, it only shows we have different systems
doing nearly the samething in different ways, and some could be
more complex than oth e than the any
theist has on "God did it" because they believe that is true too.
Kelly
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydExcuse me I do apologise your actually correct. 6.5 is another which I nearly always confuse (its something that lost me a bunch of marks actually). Its actually the error I got on one of my first labs. The experiments we did were U/Pb dating correlated with Ar/Ar ages and a few other systems. All of which provide correlated dates to within an acceptable margin of error.
I think you're off by 2 billion; the earth is only 4 1/2 billion years old. And I'd be interested in knowing just what experiment you did to get your findings.
16 Apr 08
We did the dating not on meteors which is what gives a better age with tighter error margins but on Pre Cambrian gneisses from below the Dalradian supergroup in the West of Ireland. generally zircons but some monazite and a few others. The objective of the experiment was to gather the oldest possible age of the rock, then date the structures and metamorphisim of later mineral forming events. It took 8 weeks and was my final year project in college, which was 4 years ago, hence my numbers being a bit rusty.
16 Apr 08
I am a Christian who happens to believe the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. But I know a lot of fine people who put the age at only about 6000-10000 years. They believe in a "young earth", and like it or not, there ARE scientists who back them (not many, I'll grant you, but they are out there.)
I guess I'm saying that there is room to agree to disagree among intelligent people.
16 Apr 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI'm sorry but the young earth theory has no actual data behind it. And those that try to discredit the 4.5 BA age simply aren't correct. The dates can be argued within a .5 BA but anything beyond that is undermining the basis of much atomic physics. I will also give you that certain ages of specific rocks can be argued but the oldest meteors and the oldest detrital zircon ages is 100% certain to be over 4 BA. This is more proof than is needed. to be honest I've seen the data, I understand the data better than most, and these ages cannot be scientifically disputed beyond their error margins because if the arguments used against them were true then Hiroshima wouldn't have happened. It's all based on the same atomic principals.
I am a Christian who happens to believe the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. But I know a lot of fine people who put the age at only about 6000-10000 years. They believe in a "young earth", and like it or not, there ARE scientists who back them (not many, I'll grant you, but they are out there.)
I guess I'm saying that there is room to agree to disagree among intelligent people.