The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Passerbye]

Oh, and to "The Voice of Reason": Who ever said I thought I was wrapping something up. As far as I know I could just be getting started. Besides, I like challenges like these.

 

[Tawn]

To Tawn: I am sorry for sounding like I was trying to bully you into believing something. I was simply stating a musing and a question. I liked your response to it.

A standard phrase a lot of Theists use is 'Do you know what the consequences are if you are wrong?'. I get tired by this remark, please consider not using it on others in the future . Consequences are not important - its the process we go through to find the truth that is. I can always 'invent' alternative threats.. so its not really a worthwhile argument But thank you for aknowledging my response.

The laws I was speaking of are the laws (as people call them) of thermodynamics and such. The things that we attribute to the way things behave in the world.

You appeared to be referring to something different..
(The laws of the universe state basically that everything in the universe gets more chaotic in order to balance everything out.)
Well they dont really say that. That is just what you understand to be happening from these laws of nature..

The thing is people think it is the sun that gives them cancer and many other things, but the fact is in the days before, not as many people died of these reasons, and yet the sun was there. Now people may explain it as, chemicals in the atmosphere, or river poison from a factory, ozone depletion, and so on but the fact is man is weaker than before, at least that is my speculation, and the bible seems to confirm it.

Possibly, but I dont accept your explanation. As an aside, do you know roughly what cancer is exactly? Ozone depletion, chemicals and pollution and very valid and strong explanations for an increase in cancer.
In any case, I might agree that humans genes are getting weaker. Though I see no proof as such.. but from an evolutional point of view it makes a lot of sense. (Things dont always get better in Evolution)
We (Mankind) have started controlling our environments to a ridiculous level. Our medicine is getting better and better.. and our ability to care for the disabled is also better than ever. However, our strengths are our weaknesses. In being able to cure people of diseases that would have otherwise killed them, nature is less-able to weed out humans with poorer genes. i.e. people with weaker immune systems are not dying.. and so the human gene pool in general is getting weaker.
Of course our total disregard for our environment is probably making a greater impact. Asthma is on the rise - but this has strong links with our use of the internal combustion engine... etc...
This is a good alternative explanation is it not?

but you don’t seem to realize that nuclear physics is thought of by expanding on already known things of the universe, from different angles.

Oh really, dont I? I think thats a rather obvious concept. (One you missed )

Knowledge can be taught and expanded on in your own mind. Solutions come about when already known data is presented in a different manner, so as to allow it to more easily be reviewed and put into practice.

Yep.

Also, lets not forget that DNA is like knowledge in the fact that it can be reviewed, by what ever reads it and uses it, and data can be thrown out if seen as a hindrance, and can be shared.
When I was referring to the sharing of DNA I was referring to bacteria transferring threw lateral gene transfer. I was not speaking of some new idea but what has already been observed.

I dont suppose any of this is important really.. the point where we disagree is that you believe no new information can be added. Perhaps I could come back briefly to the cancer point. The DNA of a single cell in your body can be damaged by external sources - and perhaps even internal 'errors' when cells replicate themselves.
This is essentially what cancer is (although a rather simplistic explanation which leaves much stuff out). A cell becomes malignant and goes out of control.
Now if errors can occur in the DNA sequence, which do not come from other life forms or from parentage, is that not 'new information'? There is a chance that such changes could occasionally be beneficial.

PS: I don’t know how to describe what is alive. I am sure humans and animals are alive. That would mean cells are alive and thus bacteria and viruses as well, but further than that I don’t think I have the intellect to describe it. A dictionary says: has comprehension, and I don’t think I can argue with that unless further prompted.

I only ask because you state so strongly you cant see how life can come from non-life. However, if the difference between simplistic life and non-life is so vague.. then it puts your strong statement in some doubt.

I only know of two ways it can happen. Either intelligence made life or non-intelligence. I don’t know how proving one is wrong could not prove that the other is right.

I think what he may have been suggesting is that there are multiple possibilities within each of those two broad categories. There may be many different ways life could have occurred through non-intelligent creation - so proving one explanation wrong doesnt prove your intelligent-creation correct.
i.e. If you could prove Evolution false, It doesnt prove ID true. There may be something else none of us have considered.

 

[Passerbye]

What I am saying is that life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong thus the whole category is taken out. If you take out a category does that not take everything in the subcategories out? I didn't think I was just proving evolution wrong, I thought I was proving Non-ID wrong and thus the only option is ID. What ID’er did it can be discussed; the fact is there still needs to be one.

Your explanations for disease are very valid, and yes I know that cancer is basically "out of control", messed up DNA. Are you saying cancer is the cause of evolution? Messing up DNA still doesn't prove natural selection, and it still can't make new information, just scramble information already there, and dispose of information, making it almost impossible to read correctly and thus: cannot make a more complex creature, just a less complex mold or disease.

 

[Passerbye]

Oh... and Tawn, I would love to here these "'invented' alternative threats".

One thing that amuses me is people like to say they have a rebuttal and leave it at that. If it is there... use it. I am not saying that I have not done that before, and it does save time, but I would still prefer it if it were not done (even by me). Old habits die hard. :tsk::banghead3:bonk:

 

[Tawn]

Oh... and Tawn, I would love to here these "'invented' alternative threats".

One thing that amuses me is people like to say they have a rebuttal and leave it at that. If it is there... use it. I am not saying that I have not done that before, and it does save time, but I would still prefer it if it were not done (even by me). Old habits die hard.

Oh ok if you really want me to. Though there isnt an Atheistic one..

Lets say there is a God, but in actual fact all current religions are totally wrong. In fact God hates it when we waste our lives praying to him wrongly. He would prefer us to get on with things and learn about the wonders of our universe and fend for ourselves.
He decides to promptly punish anyone who follows Christianity by sending them to some form of hell for wasting their lives.

So who knows? You could be damning yourself for following Christianity.

Unlikely. Yes. But then remember that I consider your Christian God to be just as unlikely.

 

[Tawn]

What I am saying is that life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong thus the whole category is taken out. If you take out a category does that not take everything in the subcategories out?

Well you cant prove the entire category of non-intelligent creation wrong. You can only try to disprove the sub-categories that have been presented to you.

Your explanations for disease are very valid, and yes I know that cancer is basically "out of control", messed up DNA. Are you saying cancer is the cause of evolution? Messing up DNA still doesn't prove natural selection, and it still can't make new information, just scramble information already there, and dispose of information, making it almost impossible to read correctly and thus: cannot make a more complex creature, just a less complex mold or disease.

No im not saying cancer causes evolution. Though the process through which cancer happens might contribute.. though thats speculation.
Of course it can make new information. If a beta particle of radiation collides with the DNA of a cell and fuses itself to the existing molecular structure then you have added some random information. Likewise when a cell replicates and a new DNA stand is created, what if a part is over-produced? or excess elements from the surroundings are added? Besides which, scrambling existing particles is adding new information. Genetic information isnt so much about physical material as it is about patterns. You shake something up you get a new pattern. Voila, new information.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Why is it that every time you try to eradicate ignorance, just as you think you are wrapping up, a new challenge walks in the door?

Oh, and to "The Voice of Reason": Who ever said I thought I was wrapping something up. As far as I know I could just be getting started. Besides, I like challenges like these.

I was not implying that you were wrapping up - I was referring to the fact that many of us on this site have now engaged an ongoing string of ID proponents over the last 6 or 7 months. Each new member that is a proponent of ID comes in with the same set of misconceptions about evolution, makes the same claims about ID, and commits the same fallacies along the way. We actually had about two weeks that we didn't have to repeat ourselves - leading me to make my statement that it looked like we might be "wrapping up". It was a reference to us, not you. I am sorry for the confusion.

To The Voice of Reason: I only know of two ways it can happen. Either intelligence made life or non-intelligence.

Exactly. This is the very reason that your argument fails - you are arguing from a position of ignorance (logically speaking). Understand that I am not saying that you are ignorant regarding what you are saying - that would be another point altogether. The rules of logic apply to all debates equally. The bottom line of the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance is that discrediting position A is NOT the same as providing evidence for position B. Every one of these threads discussing ID is based on someone's misunderstanding of this basic rule of logic. If you (or anyone else) wishes to argue for ID, then please, by all means, do so. Show us some evidence FOR ID - IN SUPPORT OF ID. Neither you, nor any other proponent of ID has ever shown us one shred of evidence in support of ID - because there is none.
The clearest example of the converse of your argument would be if someone makes the claim that the presence of chaos in the universe indicates that there was no intelligence involved in the design of the universe. Now - if I make that statement and then claim that it proves evolution - you would laugh me out of the room - as you should. I would be arguing that since chaos "disproves" ID, evolution must be correct. That would be utter hogwash, and you would know it.
Notice the difference between citing evidence in support of evolution (fossil records, closely allied species, micro-evolution, etc.) and an argument from ignorance based on my attempt to discredit ID. Very clearly, arguing against ID is not the same as arguing for evolution.
Hopefully, this will clear up the use of the fallacy of attacking evolution, then trying to automatically claim victory for your alternative theory of ID.
On a side note - one of the main reasons that an Argument from Ignorance fails is that it inherently relies upon artificially limiting the options in the premise of the argument - whether one can conceive of other possibilities or not.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What I am saying is that life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong thus the whole category is taken out. If you take out a category does that not take everything in the subcategories out? I didn't think I was just proving evolution wrong, I thought I was proving Non-ID wrong and thus the only option is ID. What ID’er did it can be discussed; the fact is there still needs to be one.

This is exactly what I am referring to - you insist on committing the same mistake, even after it has been shown to be incorrect. If you repeat your argument from ignorance five more times, you will still be wrong five more times. Simply rephrasing it, or cloaking it in new terms will not help - it will still be a logical fallacy on which you hang your hat.

On top of that, your claim that "life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong" is absolutely ludicrous. First, it is impossible to prove a universal negative - and your claim is actually a universal negative. Even if "life from non-intelligence" had been disproven at this time, it would not negate the possibility that it might be shown to be possible in the future, as more knowledge is gained. The truth of the matter is that "life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong" is an outright lie. Whether you have been deceived and are merely parroting this garbage, or you know better and are intentionally trying to deceive, I do not know. Either way, your statement is erroneous.


TVOR

 

[Passerbye]

How is the Christian God unlikely? What more proof would you need? Do you think he should rain fire down from the sky once every 7 years? Do you think he should come down and let us see him and make an idol of him? Do you think it is unreasonable to do all that he "claims" he as done and not expect you to follow him? What would convince you? You want tangible evidence, try disproving anything in the bible, or can you not handle such a challenge? Do you just not have the time? Do you expect the newspaper to be dropped on your doorstep to read "CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE"? What would you ask of God for him to prove himself to you?

 

[Passerbye]

Yes, scientific data changes over time, but that would mean nothing could be proven right by it, or wrong. Therefore you are building a house of straw on a foundation of sand. Why does it stand? Possibly ignorance, or mis-information, same reasons you say I have for saying what I say. What is proven of the past is only what we are told. You can't go back and see it, and you can't replicate it. If the proven facts at the time, which do state that life can't come from non-life, are nothing to go by; and if you are always waiting for something to be proven, then the truth will escape you. You will be lost trying to catch up "with the times". The current known things today, not theories, is that life cannot come from non-life. Look it up. Lots of evolutionists only look up evolution and thus only know about evolution. If you want to know what scientists have proven look for it. Everything that is proven still has a small chance of being wrong (even E=mc2). This margin of error put aside it has been proven.

 

[Pah]

What I am saying is that life from non-intelligence has been proven wrong thus the whole category is taken out. If you take out a category does that not take everything in the subcategories out? I didn't think I was just proving evolution wrong, I thought I was proving Non-ID wrong and thus the only option is ID. What ID’er did it can be discussed; the fact is there still needs to be one.

Your explanations for disease are very valid, and yes I know that cancer is basically "out of control", messed up DNA. Are you saying cancer is the cause of evolution? Messing up DNA still doesn't prove natural selection, and it still can't make new information, just scramble information already there, and dispose of information, making it almost impossible to read correctly and thus: cannot make a more complex creature, just a less complex mold or disease.

You have not "proved" anything.

 

[Passerbye]

Your entire premise is wrong. I am not intentionally trying to deceive. That is a fact. I am only presenting my arguments. I am not a parrot either. Presenting arguments taken from the basis of scientific evidence, books of research or other literature does not make one a parrot, if it did everyone here would be a parrot. If you say that my information is false without looking for proof against it then are you not just a parrot?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

How is the Christian God unlikely? What more proof would you need?

I'll take one piece of empirical evidence - that is all I need. Since not one piece of empirical evidence is forthcoming, I will withhold my belief. Your faith in God's existence is based on revealed faith - not logic, rational thought, or reason. You believe in God because you have been raised to do so, you accept the Bible as the word of God because that is what you were taught, and you do all of this based on FAITH. I (and many others) do not share your ability to believe in a revealed faith. Ranting about this will not change either my inability to believe as you do.

Therefore you are building a house of straw on a foundation of sand. Why does it stand? Possibly ignorance, or mis-information, same reasons you say I have for saying what I say. What is proven of the past is only what we are told. You can't go back and see it, and you can't replicate it. If the proven facts at the time, which do state that life can't come from non-life, are nothing to go by; and if you are always waiting for something to be proven, then the truth will escape you. You will be lost trying to catch up "with the times".

What house of straw did I build? What part of my position is based on ignorance? Ignorance of what? What am I mis-informed about? Your claims that "life cannot come from non-life" is a proven fact, is bullsnot. It has not, and cannot, be proven. You (nor anyone else) cannot prove a universal negative - and claims that you can are a clear demonstration of ignorance.

The current known things today, not theories, is that life cannot come from non-life. Look it up. Lots of evolutionists only look up evolution and thus only know about evolution. If you want to know what scientists have proven look for it. Everything that is proven still has a small chance of being wrong (even E=mc2). This margin of error put aside it has been proven.

You wish to claim that "life cannot come from non-life". Okay. Please provide some evidence to support your claim. Painted Wolf has repeatedly demonstrated that it has been done in a laboratory setting - and has provided links to sites that demonstrate the experiment, and peer reviewed work supporting it. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing of the kind - you simply keep reiterating your claim, as if we should all accept it at face value. Not happening. You make an absurd claim - you provide the evidence to support it. I will politely decline the burden of searching for evidence to support your claim.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Passerbye]

So... pah... what have you proven? I have shown my argument. Life requires a creator. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive. Look at the past posts of this thread and you will see the facts have been presented. If anything has been left out... bring it back up.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Your entire premise is wrong. I am not intentionally trying to deceive. That is a fact. I am only presenting my arguments. I am not a parrot either. Presenting arguments taken from the basis of scientific evidence, books of research or other literature does not make one a parrot, if it did everyone here would be a parrot. If you say that my information is false without looking for proof against it then are you not just a parrot?

I'll accept your claim that you are not intentionally trying to deceive others. That leads me to believe that you are, yourself, deceived by those that you follow. As I said earlier, you are making claims that science has proven that "life cannot come from non-life". You have not provided a link to any scientific studies or given us anything to consider. If you wish to be taken seriously, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence backing up your statements.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Fatmop]

You guys are bastardizing my thread. Seriously. I will restate the first post:
POST EVIDENCE FOR ID.
DO NOT POST EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION - IT WEAKENS YOUR POSITION, DISCREDITS YOUR LOGICAL ABILITIES, AND DOES NOT FURTHER YOUR ARGUMENT.

Have you ever seen God make a human?
Were you there when God made the world?
Did God pop into your living room, sit down, and have a nice long chat with you about why evolution was false?

 

[Passerbye]

Ok "The Voice of Reason" I will look up such things and get back to you. I have heard of self-replicating molecules but this sounds different. I'll get back to you after I have found the information you are referring to.

 

[Passerbye]

Oh and "The Voice of Reason" please state to me what empirical evidence you want, or the empirical evidence you have on anything you know of the past.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ok "The Voice of Reason" I will look up such things and get back to you. I have heard of self-replicating molecules but this sounds different. I'll get back to you after I have found the information you are referring to.

Excellent. I am looking forward to seeing whatever evidence you can provide.

Oh and "The Voice of Reason" please state to me what empirical evidence you want, or the empirical evidence you have on anything you know of the past.

For me, personally, if God were to appear before me, or speak to me, or bring someone in my family back from the dead... something along those lines would be empirical proof that would satisfy my needs.

Your question regarding "empirical evidence of the past" is misleading. I was not present on D-Day, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it occured. I do not doubt this because of the thousands of eyewitness accounts, the rusting ships at the bottom of the ocean, the film that was shot as the invasion occurred, the people that lost family members during the invasion, the shattered bunkers that the Germans occupied, the maps for the invasion, etc. Your belief in God is based on what you have been told as a child - and the existence of a book that is held in high esteem by a portion of the occupants of this earth. Nothing wrong with that at all - just be honest enough to admit that it is a revealed faith. Then, be mature enough to understand why not everyone else will have the ability to embrace it. Just as you claim that the Bible is the word of God, so do the Muslims claim that the Koran is. Although I doubt it, one of you may be correct. Then again, you may both be wrong. Either way, you have no evidence that God exists - much less that He inspired or wrote the Bible. Claiming that the Bible is the word of God, based on scriptures in the Bible is a textbook case of Begging the Question.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have shown my argument. Life requires a creator. Life doesn't come from something that is not alive.

By that reasoning, this creator that is himself alive must have come from yet another life.