The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Pah · May 11, 2005

kidnic said:
Aha, so... still using the same argument, we can conclude that since we haven't been able to "create" DNA ourselves, then it requires more intelligence and design than we currently posses. If this is the case, it does nothing to my argument.

You may asbolutely not conclude that. We possess a sufficent degree of inteligence (the design is a minimal requirement) to arquire the knowledge to "create DNA". You confuse knowledge with intelligence. The more KNOWLEDGE we have the less God becomes an answer.

Passerbye · May 11, 2005

Now, I know that these posts were not directed at me but I feel like I should poke my head out and take a bullet or two, since I agree with the attacked statements.

Outstanding!! Let me get this straight - if mankind has been able to create DNA in a laboratory setting, it is evidence in support of intelligent design (we'll just skip the part where it was manmade, and not an act of God). Conversely, if mankind is unable to create DNA in a laboratory setting, then THAT is evidence for intelligent design. If you aren't a lawyer, you have missed your calling. I can't remember the last time I saw someone argue both sides of the fence as well as this.

If DNA is created in a laboratory then that will prove one thing that DNA can be created. Now wont that be a breakthrough! I mean, come on, how often do we get to learn that something that has existed for a long time can be created? Wait a second couldnt we have learned from looking at the DNA that it was created? This would prove nothing except how hard it is to create DNA. This would also show that Intelligence could make DNA.

Even in ignorance, you occasionally brush up against the truth. This is exactly how science works. Science ALWAYS holds open the possibility that there may be a better explanation for natural phenomenon. This is exactly why science is self correcting - because scientists are constantly searching for better ways to explain the laws of the universe.

And thus you disregard God. Nice to hear you and the scientific community are keeping their options open.

You don't need to put the quotation marks around the word "logic". I understand what the word means, and I can apply it to debated positions (correctly). Now, if you could do the same, we would be able to move on with this debate. Unfortunately, EVERY single time you try to apply logic to a position (yours or your opponents), you have mangled it beyond belief. You have totally misunderstood the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance, and you missapply the term as if it were a virtue to do so.

I have not noticed how he is wrongly applying such terms as logic and Argument from Ignorance. If he is wrongly doing such things, please inform us as to how he is doing them and how we may notice when it is happening. That would be a great help, since you use these arguments a lot. It seems to me that everyone that goes against you is misunderstanding such terms. Please elaborate.

I guess I could just "jump" to them as you do.

Are you in his head? Do you know how someone other than yourself reaches conclusions? Dont call it a jump unless you know how the conclusions were reached.

And of course, you immediately demonstrated your inability to grasp the analogy.

I seemed to come to the same conclusion as Steve. Are you sure you can grasp all aspects of your own analogy? Maybe you should look over it again, just to be sure.

And yet, your entire argument for ID is based on your inability to comprehend evolution (what you don't know). Now how ironic is that?

How did you reach such conclusions from his argument?

Of course you will - that is called "jumping to a conclusion" and drawing conclusions based on something that you do not know. Beautiful.

What do scientists do when they see things? Oh yeah thats right they JUMP TO CONCLUTIONS! If they didnt there would be no theories, only raw data.

I would withhold my conclusion until I had some evidence for another theory - while you would automatically attribute it to God, with no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Ah, the great and mystical procrastination technique.

You haven't provided any. All you have done is to try to discredit evolution. The fact that you are unable to grasp that THIS is an Argument from Ignorance does not validate your position - it merely demonstrates your ignorance of the discipline of logic, and how it is applied.

Look at all the past posts in this thread. I think we have.
PS. I Dare you to argue without using the word ignorant or any of its variations (IE: words that mean the same as it or are closely related to it, such as the word ignorance.

I cannot believe I am still trying to explain this to you. You cannot possibly be this thick.

Please refrain from attacking people and kindly explain things to them. Thank you.

Of course, wouldn't we all like to know the answer to that one? I'm certain that if God exists, He will let me know prior to my death. If He chooses not to reveal Himself to me, then either He wanted to keep it a secret, or He never existed (for me). Either way, I will not draw a conclusion until I have some evidence to influence my decision.

I shall answer this with scripture.

24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

John 10:24-26 NIV

Thanks. It is a result of reading and understanding what I read. When enough evidence is presented, I accept the conclusion.

Ever read the Bible?

You may asbolutely not conclude that. We possess a sufficent degree of inteligence (the design is a minimal requirement) to arquire the knowledge to "create DNA". You confuse knowledge with intelligence. The more KNOWLEDGE we have the less God becomes an answer.

Actually the more scientists research and gain knowledge, the more God becomes an answer again. Isnt that funny. Life comes full circle.

angellous_evangellous · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
PS. That last bit is dedicated to you, The Voice of Reason. I know you must have something to say about that statement. How about you start rambling about how everyone that disagrees with you misunderstands logic and is stating an Argument from Ignorance. That seems to get you out of everything and immediately ruin all arguments but yours.

I cannot find any clear line of reasoning in your post above, Passerbye. You obviously have read the Bible - if there were no Bible, would you still insist that God created the world, or that God exists?

Scientists study nature, but God is divine. His actions must be revealed, and they cannot be verified because God cannot be found naturally. If God's actions must be revealed, then we cannot expect any scientist to depend upon it or treat it as if it came from a scientific method. Theological reflection is not scientific evidence... evolution is the best guess so far to explain how life began, and science cannot conclude whether or not a divine person was somehow behind everything. It is simply not possible for science to know anything that is outside of its scope, namely the character, nature, and acts of the divine.

I will also dedicate this post to TVOR.

Passerbye · May 11, 2005

I cannot find any clear line of reasoning in your post above, Passerbye.

I should remove that post. I was a little worked up. He has been using such arguments since I got here and they are getting tiring.

You obviously have read the Bible - if there were no Bible, would you still insist that God created the world, or that God exists?

I don't know. If the information never reached me, or my family, I don't see how. Unless God just revealed it to me.

Theological reflection is not scientific evidence... evolution is the best guess so far to explain how life began, and science cannot conclude whether or not a divine person was somehow behind everything. It is simply not possible for science to know anything that is outside of its scope, namely the character, nature, and acts of the divine.

We argue from what we know. This is true. Science can't reach the point of seeing God, or the past. Thus the only way to prove it is to prove that something else couldn't have happened, or something was revealed in an unexplained way. Another way to prove it is to prove the Bible, the writen word and history of God and his dealing on earth. Dealing from the point of, we don't have proof yet so it is disregarded, is just exausting when there is no disproving proof.

Pah · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
And thus you disregard God. Nice to hear you and the scientific community are keeping their options open.

Are you equating God with the Intelligence? If so, there are two things you must show

That there is credible evidence that God exists - and-
that God has the intelligence to make this whole thing possible.

If you are not equating God, in any way, with the Intelligence, would you swear that, as they say, on a stack of Bibles? If you can do this, then we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.

All this talk about what man can and can not do is superfuous to the central issue of this thread. In order to present evidence of ID you must satisfy those conditions first.

Passerbye · May 11, 2005

Here ends my posts. This form has become too exhausting. Goodby everyone. Passerbye has now passed.

Pah · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
Here ends my posts. This form has become too exhausting. Goodby everyone. Passerbye has now passed.

I think that about settles it for any presentation of evidence for ID. But perhaps Steve or Kidnic would like to answer. But I am surprised that Passerbye didn't think to tell us until after my comments were posted.

pah said:
Are you equating God with the Intelligence? If so, there are two things you must show

* That there is credible evidence that God exists - and-
* that God has the intelligence to make this whole thing possible.

If you are not equating God, in any way, with the Intelligence, would you swear that, as they say, on a stack of Bibles? If you can do this, then we can talk about other means of "begining" with intelligence.

All this talk about what man can and can not do is superfuous to the central issue of this thread. In order to present evidence of ID you must satisfy those conditions first.

Tawn · May 11, 2005

Steve said:
"You cant look at life today, even simple life - even the most basic building blocks of todays life, and say.. how could that 'appear' naturally?"
I agree! Your right, the observable evidence says no. So instead you have to make up ideas(there must have been simpler life forms etc) and then you claim that your theory is based stricly on science??? You cant say you dont have faith, you do - just in the wrong thing

Im not sure you do agree. Thats the point of my statement. You look at life today and go.. oh.. it must have been designed... look at how complicated it is. That seems to be the only basis for ID. That life couldnt have been produced naturally because it is too complex.
My argument wasnt one in support of evolution or ambiogenesis.. it was an argument to cast huge doubt on the tiny piece of 'so-called-evidence' ID stands upon.

Tawn · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
It is DNA being created without intellect and design. If you think a robot is capable of intellect and design then theres no point arguing.. robots dont think - they just follow a routine.
So lets skip all that and go where youre really headed.. who created the routine? I say the routine is based on basic laws of reality. Survival, process of selection. You say its intelligently designed.. Survival and selection is demonstratable. Adaptation is a fact. Its also logically obvious. If something survives it breeds, it it doesnt its genes are culled. However, where is the evidence for ID???

Click to expand...

The intellect for creating the DNA is in the DNA, and without the DNA no DNA could be made. We can't even make DNA. How can random natural occurrences create something that with all our knowledge we can't even create? Oh, and being a Computer Technician I think I would know if the robot required intelligence to make a copy of itself. It does. If it doesn't get the proper commands, it won't do anything. Who makes the commands you ask? Programmers! So, if you won't accept God as your creator this information shows that you should at least accept him as your programmer. I mean come on, Bill Gates made MS-DOS and he is recognized by every one that hears someone say that he made the basis for Windows. This is doubted by very few, if any. Why doubt you have a programmer? What is your reason for so much doubt?

What is the point in having a discussion if you dont read what I type? Who makes the commands/routine? I told you.. I believe it is based on the basic laws of reality. Evolution is my programmer.. and yours for that matter..
(A robot has intellect? Following simple commands requires intellect? )

Tawn · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
If DNA is created in a laboratory then that will prove one thing that DNA can be created. Now wont that be a breakthrough! I mean, come on, how often do we get to learn that something that has existed for a long time can be created? Wait a second couldnt we have learned from looking at the DNA that it was created? This would prove nothing except how hard it is to create DNA. This would also show that Intelligence could make DNA.

I think we should all just agree that whether DNA can or cannot be created by humans, it proves nothing either way. There is often more than one way to do a thing.

And thus you disregard God. Nice to hear you and the scientific community are keeping their options open.

Science should always be open to the possibility of God. Voice didnt state anything to the contrary. In fact what he said was is that science is always searching for better ways to explain the universe. As opposed to your view which is that God created it, end of story, no need to keep trying to search for answers. If science were to accept that God existed, it would still try to search for alternatives. True science never rests at an answer.

I have not noticed how he is wrongly applying such terms as logic and Argument from Ignorance. If he is wrongly doing such things, please inform us as to how he is doing them and how we may notice when it is happening.

He did explain the argument from ignorance. With the coin analogy. If two possibilities presented are A and B, and you conclude that A is not possible this does not make B true, because there could be a C and a D... etc.. In order to accept B as reasonably likely, you have to validate B. Not concentrate on invalidating A alone.

Dont call it a jump unless you know how the conclusions were reached.

Hes quite right to call it a jump unless the reasons for coming to that conclusion are presented.

What do scientists do when they see things? Oh yeah thats right they JUMP TO CONCLUTIONS! If they didnt there would be no theories, only raw data.

Err.. no. Scientists create THEORIES, and then they TEST these theories. Then they RETEST these theories REPEATEDLY. If the theory hold up to scrutiny, science accepts it as truth (until more data is produced). Thats a million miles away from 'jumping to conclusions'.

Ah, the great and mystical procrastination technique.

It would be folly to believe in something based on no evidence except lack of evidence for all counter theories. (by the way this is the argument from ignorance thing again)

I shall answer this with scripture.
John 10:24-26 NIV

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

Hilarious! The bible references to followers as 'sheep' and the 'flock' is so amazingly ironic one would think the writers had a good sense of humour... :biglaugh:

The Voice of Reason · May 11, 2005

Passerbye said:
Here ends my posts. This form has become too exhausting. Goodby everyone. Passerbye has now passed.

I'll try to weather the crisis.

TVOR

kidnic · May 12, 2005

If you think something Godly is happening behind the bacterial process then fine...

Yes perhaps humans will learn to create DNA through design.. but that doesnt mean thats the only way it could have occured.

Nope, nothing Godly. It's just a process set in motion by rules and such.
Of course, you haven't shown where DNA can come about without design either...

Outstanding!! Let me get this straight - if mankind has been able to create DNA in a laboratory setting, it is evidence in support of intelligent design (we'll just skip the part where it was manmade, and not an act of God). Conversely, if mankind is unable to create DNA in a laboratory setting, then THAT is evidence for intelligent design. If you aren't a lawyer, you have missed your calling. I can't remember the last time I saw someone argue both sides of the fence as well as this.

I know, being a lawyer would be fun. Especially being a prosecuter...
On the flipside, you really have twisted my argument around. This is what I am saying:

1. DNA has never been shown to be able to spontaneously form without intelligence or design.
2. DNA has never been shown to be created with our current methods of design.

We can conclude multiple things from this. One being that we need a better method of design than we have now if we want to create DNA. The other being that because of the implications of the senctence directly preceding this one, this is evidence that DNA requires intelligence and design to be able to form.

The Voice of Reason · May 12, 2005

kidnic said:
Of course, you haven't shown where DNA can come about without design either...

That would be because the title of this thread is "Evidence FOR ID Thread". See how that works? We try to stay on topic, by addressing the evidence for ID - which, so far, has been hard to do - since you have produced NONE.

kidnic said:
On the flipside, you really have twisted my argument around. This is what I am saying:
(from post # 11)

kidnic said:

For someone to create DNA in a laboratory, it requires intelligence and design. Namely, the intelligence and design of the scientist working in the lab. We therefore conclude that given some intelligence and design, we can have some DNA.

Click to expand...

-and-
2. DNA has never been shown to be created with our current methods of design.

Now, how in the world could I misunderstand? If I twisted your argument, I apologize - but reading these two statements, it certainly appears that you made the argument that man producing DNA in a lab environment would lead us to conclude intelligent design, and in the next statement, you are saying that we cannot conclude anything from it.

kidnic said:
On the other hand, where have we witnessed the creation of DNA without any intelligence or design involved?

We haven't. What's the point? This is the classic Argument from Ignorance - that your good friend Passerbye was never able to come to grips with. Please understand this - if you could prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that evolution was a complete hoax, with not one iota of truth - it would still NOT be evidence FOR ID. If you get nothing else from this thread (or this post), please learn this one immutable fact.

kidnic said:
We can conclude multiple things from this. One being that we need a better method of design than we have now if we want to create DNA.

Agreed.

kidnic said:
The other being that because of the implications of the senctence directly preceding this one, this is evidence that DNA requires intelligence and design to be able to form.

Not even close.

IF, and when, you understand logic, it's basic categories of fallacies, and how to construct a valid argument, you might have a chance of advancing your position. Until then, you merely persist in repeating your mantra of foolishness. Unfortunately, extreme repetition does nothing to bolster your position - it merely underscores your lack of understanding, and reveals an unwillingness to learn.

TVOR

Tawn · May 12, 2005

kidnic said:
Of course, you haven't shown where DNA can come about without design either...

Youre referring specifically to origins? Not cell multiplication.. No there is no evidence. Abiogenesis theorists are working on it...

Science doesnt work miracles you know

Anyway its off topic like Voice said..

1. DNA has never been shown to be able to spontaneously form without intelligence or design.
2. DNA has never been shown to be created with our current methods of design.

Ok im with you if we are talking about first origins.

We can conclude multiple things from this. One being that we need a better method of design than we have now if we want to create DNA.

If we want to try. Although I personally believe it will be possible - there no proof it will.

The other being that because of the implications of the senctence directly preceding this one, this is evidence that DNA requires intelligence and design to be able to form.

That is so utterly utterly false its laughable :biglaugh:. Youre assuming that there can be only one way to create DNA. When in fact its entirely possible that DNA can be made by both intelligent design (by humans not God

) and natural phenomena.

Tawn · May 12, 2005

I mean its like saying that because the Americans made it to the moon (apparently

) then that proves that the Chinese (and all other nationalities) are incapable of ever reaching the moon.
I hope I havent confused you with that analogy. Its supposed to demonstrate my point more simply to you.

Mr Spinkles · May 12, 2005

kidnic said:
1. DNA has never been shown to be able to spontaneously form without intelligence or design.

Nor has DNA ever been shown to spontaneously form via a supernatural intelligent designer. If it had, this thread would not be 14 pages long.

Ceridwen018 · May 12, 2005

kidnic said:
Of course, you haven't shown where DNA can come about without design either...

Neither have you shown how it has come about with design, but I'll overlook that for now.

The most common scientific theory for the origin of DNA is as follows:

DNA came from archaic RNA, which acted as a simple template of amino acids which coded for different proteins and things in protobionts. If you would like to know where those amino acids came from, or perhaps even how protobionts came to be, check out my thread, "Abiogenesis, explained."

Done and done.

kidnic · May 16, 2005

Tawn said:
Youre assuming that there can be only one way to create DNA. When in fact its entirely possible that DNA can be made by both intelligent design (by humans not God ) and natural phenomena.

Of course I am not assuming that. To illustrate what I am actually saying, here is a short story:

A man takes a look at the pen in his hand and wonders, "How is this ink made?" Before long, his mind wanders and starts wondering what types of naturally occuring inks there are and what they are like.

He postulates that the ink in his pen, since the company that made it has always used the finest ink for their pens, has come from a quality source.

He then looks on the Internet to find that there is indeed no naturally occurring substance that rivals the ink contained in his pen for quality and lasting use.

So he takes stock of what he sees, and makes an inferred assumption that the ink in the pen was made, and was not just harvested as is from the earth or some other natural source.

Now, mind you, the guy's assumption that the ink in the pen was created and not just harvested could be wrong, but all the evidence so far points to the fact that it was indeed manufactured.

Jayhawker Soule · May 16, 2005

kidnic said:
..., but all the evidence so far points to the fact that it was indeed manufactured.

What evidence points to creation?

kidnic · May 16, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
What evidence points to creation?

That isn't the question you should be asking...

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Uber all member

Member

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Member

Uber all member

Member

Uber all member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Member

Doctor of Thinkology

Active Member

Active Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

Member

-- untitled --

Member