• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Fatmop

Fatmop

Active Member
So far we have:
1) A mantra repeated by Vash, kbc, etc. that "life is complex, and could not possibly come about by random chance, so must be by design."
2) Minor holes in evolutionary theory.
3) Large gaps in understanding of abiogenesis.
4) The Bible.

So post more evidence for ID, please. This does not mean evidence against evolution or evidence against abiogenesis; it has been repeatedly shown that the refutation of such evidence is either misinterpretation, lies, or irrelevant, and that still doesn't solve the basic flaw of the 'either/or' fallacy.

Don't assume I am close-minded - I'm still young. In all honesty, I would appreciate more elucidation on the part of IDers.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
I was thinking of starting a thread where we could discuss intelligent design without relating to evolution or abiogenesis.

Maybe the ID proponents could pretend neither theory exists and convince us of ID's merit here?
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
truthseekingsoul said:
Maybe the ID proponents could pretend neither theory exists and convince us of ID's merit here?
Click to expand...
I certainly hope that they can - goodness knows that we haven't given them any opportunity in the 80 plus pages of the other threads. :rolleyes:

TVOR
 
Ceridwen018

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of starting a thread where we could discuss intelligent design without relating to evolution or abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
Been there, done that. Shockingly enough, it didn't work.
 
Pah

Pah

Uber all member
The evidence for ID, if you consider God is the designer, is Genisus. There is no scientific evidence.


Shall I close the thread now?
 
Faust

Faust

Active Member
I'm afraid the only "evidence" you will receive in favor of ID will be untestable and therefor unprovable

Faust.
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
The silence is deafening. Perhaps I should take up the cause?

Okay - here goes:
Evolution is wrong, therefore ID is correct. If you need any evidence, I will gladly point to the fact that no one has ever seen a dinosaur turn into a man.

Need more? Okay - the earth is 6000 years old, and all of the scientists are lying to you.

More? Try this - the odds of life forming from a primordial soup is ten gazillion to one - and since the earth is only 6000 years old, that would obviously not be possible in such a short time frame.

Even more? - Alright - I once read in a book authored by none other than the Right Reverend Jerry Falwell that clearly proves that the fossils that the scientists are lying about are only found on a mountaintop because God was testing us.

Still not convinced? - Dig this - Logically speaking, I will PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt that ID is correct.
All yellow jets can fly (I'll call this proposition A).
Some crustaceans are heavy (I'll call this conclusion 2).
No Universe can have existed without my approval (I'll call this Premise X).
Therefore, bananas cannot have descended from nucleotides or protiens, and Evolution is a myth (I'll call this my evidence).
I will reduce this to it's syllogistic form, for all to peruse:
IF A, then C2 (taken straight from Heisenberg's Principle)
All B, some 4 (based on the Principle of Causality)
Not X, therefore maybe A (as set forth by the Principal)

The evidence is indisputable, and the argument is airtight. Anyone that disagrees is a closed minded, knuckle dragging evolutionary apologist that can only argue from ignorance.

As for substantiating my claims, I reference the noted author William P. Smudgrast - who holds an Associates Degree in Divinity from Bob Jones University (okay - he still needs 26 hours to get the degree, but he is pretty smart). He writes (and I quote) "Evolution is the playground of fools, so stay away from the teeter-totter."

Okay Evolutionists - take your best shot!! I have all the hyperlinks ready (I only need one - to Answers In Genesis), and I will laugh as you are smitten down by my foolproof argument.

Let the games begin,
TVOR
 
Ceridwen018

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Also, this one time, my uncle fell and split his head open and had a vision that the lord was creating everything and stuff.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
but I like the teeter-totter. :(

Anyway, I have to amit that I am disapointed that the ID proponants haven't been able to come up with more substanical evidence.
They want so badly to be taken seriously as a scientific option but thus far have been unwilling, or unable to move from revelation to indipendant scientifically viable evidence.

The misrepresentation and intententional misaplication of science doesn't help the cause any. :(

All in all I'm sympathetic to thier 'cause' but you can't mix science and the supernatural. The 'rules' of science are there for a good reason. They make or break a theory, and that is part of the beauty of it.

wa:do
 
The Voice of Reason

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Painted Wolf -

I cannot overstate how much I appreciate your posts, and how very often I agree with your positions, but this is one time that I find myself on the other side of the aisle (at least partially so).

I have some sympathy for the following group of ID proponents -
I do believe that there is a small handful of ID proponents that do not have a scientific background, are not inclined to (or have not been exposed to) logic, and honestly believe in ID - from a basis of ignorance. Ignorance that we all share - their's just happens to be in two disciplines that would allow them to discern that ID is bunk. For these individuals, I do have hope.

I have no sympathy for the other group of ID proponents -
This would be the overwhelming majority of ID proponents that are intellectually astute enough to know that ID is a bill of goods being sold in a back alley. These people are the ones that are foisting their political agenda onto those in the first group, playing on their ignorance and desire to do "God's will". These people have no shame - they are a cross between cockroaches and snakeoil salesmen, preying on the undereducated. They deserve nothing but contempt, and an exposure to strong sunlight.

It is one thing to be ignorant of science or logic - many, if not most, people share one or both of these failings. It is another thing altogether to intentionally misrepresent scientific findings and knowingly twist logic in a transparent attempt to mislead those without the ability to discern the difference. It would be a far better thing indeed to teach those that are ignorant - that is one of the best things about your posts, PW - you teach all of us new things everday.

Thanks,
TVOR
 
michel

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
[PART QUOTE=The Voice of Reason]"The silence is deafening. Perhaps I should take up the cause?

Okay - here goes:
Evolution is wrong, therefore ID is correct. If you need any evidence, I will gladly point to the fact that no one has ever seen a dinosaur turn into a man."....

TVOR[/PART QUOTE]
maybe not into a man, but when I use the wrong cloth for cleaning, my wife turns into a monster!!!! Now that should be sufficient proof.:jiggy:
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
I looked around the threads. This was, by my judgement, the best evidence on offer. I encourage anyone to find better as this is poor. At least Lisa was prepared to offer something other than "evolution is wrong".

LISA63 said:
[font=AdvPS_TTR]
......Recent examples of designed molecular systems capable of self-replication include nucleotide-based oligomers,​
[/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]conjugates of adenine and Kemp s triacid, [/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]peptides, [/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]and micelles.......[/font]​


[font=AdvPS_TTR]-[/font]​
[font=AdvPS_TTR]-[/font]​
[font=AdvPS_TTR]......In this way they created a novel artificial enzyme, namely a peptide ligase that can form a long peptide from two short ones. Moreover, if the target is identical to the template, the reaction is producing more templates and is therefore autocatalytic (see Fig). In other words, the researchers created the first self-replicating molecule ......[/font]​
-​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]......Jean Chmielewski's group at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, developed a similar system of their own and incorporated switch functions sensitive to pH or other chemical parameters......[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]This is proof that by use of intelligence we can form self replicating peptides. In both cases the formation of the self replicators was caused by intelligent manipulation. So proving that intelligence can overcome natural laws and rules is a non problem and backs the idea that lifes systems will soon be able to be formed exactly as we see them now by force of intelligent manipulation.[/font]​
-​
-​
[font=AdvPS_TTR]Now I have backed my assertion with evidence, do you have any evidence to add to this thread? do you have evidence that these formations are attainable by random chance?​

[/font]
Click to expand...

It is a pity that the I.D. squad have abandoned us. I personally blame TVOR and his evil use of logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top