The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Jayhawker Soule]

Luckily, the sequence of events was not: Primitive Soup-Fully Formed Functional Cell

It was more along the lines of:

Simple Chemicals -> Polymers -> Replicating Polymers -> Hypercycle -> Protobiont -> Bacteria.​

BUT WAIT! The cell you're referring to (fully-formed) is a eukaryote! Guess what many of the organelles of eukaryotes are made of! That's right, prokaryote communities! What are unicellular bacteria? That's right, prokaryotes!

Precisely! Very well done - and welcome!

 

[Tawn]

Yes your responses were well considered PhoenixDeity..

 

[Fatmop]

Good golly! PhoenixDeity went to town!!!
I had to bring this thread back up for just 2 reasons:
1) The case against the ID movement being what it is, I thought people might like to browse through here and watch IDists get owned.
2) To ask how many IDists are still left around these forums. Anyone? Still willing to bring up your 'evidence' for design?

( 3. to find out what the maximum post limit on a thread is. the longer it goes, the better...)

 

[Fascist Christ]

OK, I'll bite.

Evolution is evidence of Intelligent Design.

The design is in the system, not the results of the system. We have underlying Laws of Nature that everything in the Universe must abide by. This system of laws allows the developement of celestial bodies, bacteria. and everything else.

 

[JerryL]

Evolution is evidence of Intelligent Design.

How does evolution show intelligence and design?

 

[Fascist Christ]

How does evolution show intelligence and design?

Evolution is the result of the Laws of Nature. Everywhere else we see a law, we assume that there is/was a lawmaker. Why should Nature be any different?

The intelligence is evident in the effectiveness of the design. Can you think of a better design than one that allows adaption? Another option would be keeping everything the same, but that would not be nearly as impressive. Another would be to constantly interact, changing things to help the creatures adapt. But a system involving constant maintenance would be a poor design. Evolution allows each species to improve itself, based on its own needs and specific environment.

 

[painted wolf]

and yet the 'laws' of nature arn't always solid and absolute.

wa:do

 

[JerryL]

Evolution is the result of the Laws of Nature. Everywhere else we see a law, we assume that there is/was a lawmaker. Why should Nature be any different?

1. You are equivocating "law"
2. It's not a good assumption.

The intelligence is evident in the effectiveness of the design. Can you think of a better design than one that allows adaption?

Sure, one that proactively adapts.

Evolution allows each species to improve itself, based on its own needs and specific environment.

And this proves a designer how?

 

[Fascist Christ]

1. You are equivocating "law"
2. It's not a good assumption.

So?

Sure, one that proactively adapts.

How do you mean?

And this proves a designer how?

Oh, you wanted proof? I thought we were just coming up with evidence. Sorry, there is no conclusive proof, only evidence.

 

[Fascist Christ]

and yet the 'laws' of nature arn't always solid and absolute.

Can I have an example?

 

[JerryL]

So?

So if the basis for your argument is false, it's likely your conclusion (ID) is similarly false.

How do you mean?

I mean adapt proactively rather than reactively and respond intelligently rather than through chaotic mutation. Mutation is way too random, and natural selection is way too imprecise.

Oh, you wanted proof? I thought we were just coming up with evidence. Sorry, there is no conclusive proof, only evidence.

The definition of "evidence", per Mirriam Webster.

1 a : an outward sign b : something that furnishes proof

Would you like to respond to the question again? Would it really make a difference if I changed the symantics of the sentance to use the word "evidence"? OK.

"In what way doe s the fact that mutation, selection, and reproduction often serve to specialize a species provide evidence of a designer?"

 

[Fascist Christ]

So if the basis for your argument is false, it's likely your conclusion (ID) is similarly false.

Maybe my basis is not false. Maybe you are taking my statements too literally.

I mean adapt proactively rather than reactively and respond intelligently rather than through chaotic mutation. Mutation is way too random, and natural selection is way too imprecise.

It sounds like you are looking for a more perfect result. Less chaotic mutation would require some type of guidance incorporated into the system, which I have already stated would be a poor design. And the imprecision allows for slower and more thorough changes. But we speak in generalizations. It might do better to show an example of what you mean - how something works now and how you think would be better.

The definition of "evidence", per Mirriam Webster.

1 a : an outward sign b : something that furnishes proof

See? It furnishes proof, but does not in and of itself prove. The words are not interchangeable.

Would you like to respond to the question again? Would it really make a difference if I changed the symantics of the sentance to use the word "evidence"? OK.

"In what way doe s the fact that mutation, selection, and reproduction often serve to specialize a species provide evidence of a designer?"

Because it is so admirably systematic. Does any of this provide evidence against design or disprove it? I don't think either of us has enough evidence to come to any definitive conclusion.

 

[Ryan2065]

Fascist Christ...

If you were to take someone who had always lived as the tribal cheif of a small village that had no benefits of technology (besides wooden spears and simple huts) and asked him how was life, would he not think that it was perfect (if, from his perspective, everything was going right?)

It is easy to be inside the system and say, hey, this system is perfect, when we have nothing to compare it to... While it is the most perfect system I know of, it is also the worst system I know of. Would not a more perfect system be to change the "laws of nature" to make it so in order to sustain life we did not need to intake food, and to create it so we could not feel pain, yet the laws of nature still dictated to us to be nice? We would still have "free will" well, we will still have free will from our own perspective, and we would have no pain and no hunger, it would, in fact, be "perfect"

 

[JerryL]

FC:Evolution is the result of the Laws of Nature. Everywhere else we see a law, we assume that there is/was a lawmaker.

Jerry: It's not a good assumption.

FC: So?

Jerry: So if the basis for your argument is false, it's likely your conclusion (ID) is similarly false.

FC: Maybe my basis is not false.

I just asserted it was false and you asked the relevence. When I explain the relevence then you dispute the assertion.

You've already claimed it was an assumption (something supposed true without checking). Now you make a positive claim that it is true. OK. Establish that all laws (as used in "law of nature") have a lawgiver.

Maybe you are taking my statements too literally.

I don't think so, but invite you to elaborate. Taking it overly literally, would be discussing the actual law rather than the reality that the law explains. (techincally speaking, someone did make the laws of nature; Newton, for example, made the law of gravity; but we are, I assume, discussing the nature or reality rather than the concieved law).

It sounds like you are looking for a more perfect result. Less chaotic mutation would require some type of guidance incorporated into the system, which I have already stated would be a poor design.

According to you. You don't get to arbitrate. I say it would be a better design.

And the imprecision allows for slower and more thorough changes. But we speak in generalizations. It might do better to show an example of what you mean - how something works now and how you think would be better.

If people adapted to not get skin cancer from too much exposure to the sun prior to exposure.

Because it is so admirably systematic. Does any of this provide evidence against design or disprove it? I don't think either of us has enough evidence to come to any definitive conclusion.

I don't need to disprove design. That would be a negative claim. You have the positiv claim and therefore carry the burden of proof. All I need to do is invalidate your proofs.

It helps if I can show that there's a naturalistic way to get there; and generally I can show that, though there are limits to knowledge.

 

[Quiddity]

*takes a peak and see's atheist and agnostics talking to themselves in anticipation that some ID will post..good luck...:biglaugh:

~Victor

 

[Ceridwen018]

Everywhere else we see a law, we assume that there is/was a lawmaker. Why should Nature be any different?

I learned how to do this in kindergarten--put the square object into the square hole, and the triangular object into the triangular hole. As I grew older, however, I began to learn that in reality, things are actually much more abstract than that. Not all square things belong together, (a sandwich and a garage door, for instance). In reality, there are many different kinds of square things that have nothing to do with each other. You are making the mistake of associating two things based on one characteristic, and neglecting to see the differences between them. They both say "Law" so you group them together, when in fact they are quite different.

The intelligence is evident in the effectiveness of the design. Can you think of a better design than one that allows adaption?

What about one that allows for terrible diseases and flesh-eating bacteria? What about the design that creates all sorts of horrendous weather patterns, resulting in such nightmares as tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis?

Of COURSE our "design" allows for adaptation--if it didn't, we'd all be dead! You are making the mistake that ID'ers all over the world make in excess: Adaptation does not exist because it is what we needed to evolve. We evolve because adaptation exists! If adaptation didn't exist, we would either exist as little bacteria, or not at all. In fact, there's just as much of a chance that adaptation wouldn't exist, as there is for it to exist. Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

Another option would be keeping everything the same, but that would not be nearly as impressive.

As well as IMPOSSIBLE, according to the laws of nature. The universe wasn't thinking about what it should do in order to better impress you--all of this just sort of happened.

But a system involving constant maintenance would be a poor design. Evolution allows each species to improve itself, based on its own needs and specific environment.

Each species has to improve itself every so often? That sounds an awful lot like "constant maintenance" to me...

 

[greatcalgarian]

*takes a peak and see's atheist and agnostics talking to themselves in anticipation that some ID will post..good luck...:biglaugh:

~Victor

Serious scientists at work, not a joking matter. Not asking for ID supporter to post.:149:

 

[painted wolf]

the speed of light... gravity... chaos theory... most of quantum physics shows that many of these laws can be bent and even out right broken under the right circumstances.

wa:do

 

[Fascist Christ]

It is easy to be inside the system and say, hey, this system is perfect, when we have nothing to compare it to... While it is the most perfect system I know of, it is also the worst system I know of.

I guess you can call me an optimist.

Would not a more perfect system be to change the "laws of nature" to make it so in order to sustain life we did not need to intake food, and to create it so we could not feel pain, yet the laws of nature still dictated to us to be nice? We would still have "free will" well, we will still have free will from our own perspective, and we would have no pain and no hunger, it would, in fact, be "perfect"

food - Life feeds on life. It is all interdependent. Remove food intake, and it destroys this link we all have to everything else in Nature. We are a community.

pain - Aids in the learning process. It may not be as obvious of a use to us now, but imagine a primitive man experimenting with fire. Or any animal doing something it shouldn't. If we were to adjust the laws to make it so this would not happen, in puts a big damper on free will. Same goes for pleasure. It's a form of discouragement and encouragement.

 

[JerryL]

food - Life feeds on life. It is all interdependent. Remove food intake, and it destroys this link we all have to everything else in Nature. We are a community.

Tell that to lunch.

Of course, it's not univeraslly true. The bottom of the food-chain does not feed on living things.

Aids in the learning process. It may not be as obvious of a use to us now, but imagine a primitive man experimenting with fire. Or any animal doing something it shouldn't. If we were to adjust the laws to make it so this would not happen, in puts a big damper on free will. Same goes for pleasure. It's a form of discouragement and encouragement.

If we took out something that causes conditioned-response it would damper free will?

Impossible as there's no such thing as free will.