1. 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!!

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Fatmop, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    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.
     
  2. Passerbye

    Passerbye Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +8
    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.

    If DNA is created in a laboratory then that will prove one thing… that DNA can be created. Now won’t 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… couldn’t 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.

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

    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.

    Are you in his head? Do you know how someone other than yourself reaches conclusions? Don’t call it a jump unless you know how the conclusions were reached.

    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.

    How did you reach such conclusions from his argument?

    What do scientists do when they see things? Oh yeah that’s right… they JUMP TO CONCLUTIONS! If they didn’t there would be no theories, only raw data.

    Ah, the great and mystical procrastination technique.

    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”.


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

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

    Ever read the Bible?


    Actually the more scientists research and gain knowledge, the more God becomes an answer again. Isn’t that funny. Life comes full circle.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    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. :cool:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Passerbye

    Passerbye Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +8
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  5. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    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.
     
  6. Passerbye

    Passerbye Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +8
    Here ends my posts. This form has become too exhausting. Goodby everyone. Passerbye has now passed.
     
  7. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,000
    Ratings:
    +1,057
    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.

     
  8. Tawn

    Tawn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +107
    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.
     
  9. Tawn

    Tawn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +107
    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? )
     
  10. Tawn

    Tawn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +107
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Hes quite right to call it a jump unless the reasons for coming to that conclusion are presented.
    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'.
    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)
    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:
     
  11. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    I'll try to weather the crisis.

    TVOR
     
  12. kidnic

    kidnic Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2
    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...


    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.
     
  13. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason Doctor of Thinkology

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    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.



    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.



    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.



    Agreed.



    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
     
  14. Tawn

    Tawn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +107
    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..
    Ok im with you if we are talking about first origins.
    If we want to try. Although I personally believe it will be possible - there no proof it will.
    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.
     
  15. Tawn

    Tawn Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    837
    Ratings:
    +107
    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.
     
  16. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,682
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    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. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ceridwen018

    Ceridwen018 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,768
    Ratings:
    +399
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. kidnic

    kidnic Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2
    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.
     
  19. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,751
    Ratings:
    +15,014
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What evidence points to creation?
     
  20. kidnic

    kidnic Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2
    That isn't the question you should be asking...
     
Loading...