Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Please explain how ID is a valid, credible Scientific claim? Using your argument, Astrology and Alchemy should also be valid scientific arguments, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Then what is your issue with the Theory of Evolution?

 

Then perhaps....you might avoid claiming fact when those who do know...explin otherwise.

 

See!....that's the same point I made pages ago. I'm not the only one!

Whew!....thought I was losing it.

 

Hey if you are never proven wrong, then anything you say is correct. See how it works?

 

You know...when I first heard someone in the Media say the words...INTELLIGENT DESIGN....I was hopeful....but little did I realize at the time that this theory of Intelligent Design would neither be Intelligent....or have a Design!!

Intelligent Design....as the current Copy written Intelligent Design Books dictate their theory.....is quite possibly THE SINGLE MOST IDIOTIC, UNSCIENTIFIC, UNINTELLIGENT, SELF SERVING, STOMACH CHURNING....which happens anytime anyone with half a brain reads it.....and...and....actually I do not think there exists a word in the English Language that can describe the absolute revulsion I almost every person who has an IQ above 100....feel every time we have to read someone talking about the virtues of Intelligent Design!!!!

Now if Intelligent Design was designed as a theory the way it should have been....it would read....Intelligent Design is the THEORY that there exists some unknown...entity, conscious energy, interconnection between all Quantum Particle/Wave Forms both in and as a part of Matter and Energy of Living and Non-Living Forms....or possible what some call a GOD....that is possibly responsible if existing for the creation of a possible Multiversal System or at the very least our known Universe by using or creating or being responsible for both Quantum Evolution and then Biological Evolution...as both these processes are responsible for the existence of our Universe and everything and everyone...Human or NOT...in it!!!

Now if Intelligent Design Books said THAT.....we could actually call that theory Intelligent Design.

Instead we have to call it BULL S#!%!

AboveAlpha

 

Accurate but deceptive.....as "Wrong" is subjective, and thus opinion.

 

The PROBLEM with ID is, first and foremost, its bad science. It identifies the destination and then cherry-picks and or distorts information to arrive at that destination...rather than following the evidence to where it leads.

It's completely, intellectually dishonest.

 

It's worse than that.

Intelligent Design is a BLATANT LIE that most Christian Sects including the Roman Catholic Church have deemed as FICTION!

AboveAlpha

 

To steal a quote for the Panda's Thumb site, "It's like staring at the sun, but it's made of stupid."

 

dis·cern·i·ble (d-sûrn-bl, -zûr-)
adj.
Perceptible, as by the faculty of vision or the intellect. See Synonyms

Yes, it sure is.

 

We used to believe that the Sun orbited the Earth. We now know that Earth orbits the Sun without a doubt. We don't have positive proof that the Big Bang happened without a doubt. There are other scientist that think the Big Bang is in fact wrong. They would say that there are alternate explanations for the evidence used as tangible and physical evidence of the Big Bang. Because we don't have absolute proof or a means of testing the theory, one must belief in something that there is no absolute proof of. In that regard, it is much like a persons faith in God. They would say that there is evidence that God exists, such as coming of the Messiah Jesus and the resurrection, the miracles he and the apostles performed as well as other miracles, and other biblical events.

Like I said in a previous post, looking at scientific phenomenon over the last several hundreds of years and using that information to hypothesize events that occurred 13 billion years ago is like looking at the last two frames of Gone With the Wind and from that predicting how the other 4 hours of the movie unfolded. Really it is an exercise in futility to try with such little information. Perhaps in a thousand years or 10 thousand years we will have the scientific know how to figure things out better. For now the Big Bang is mostly conjecture.

So in that sense my point is not moot.

 

What fact are you both talking about?

 

Try putting it in the form of a statement and/or a question and not misquoting me and then I'll be glad to discuss whatever it is.

 

Although I don't actually disagree with the general gist of your argument here... I thought you were done talking about 'proof'. To take it to an extreme, if you are aware of the so-called 'brain in a jar' type theories then it's fair to say that nothing can be absolutely proven, scientifically or otherwise. We may of course still use the term 'absolute' in a colloquial sense, and as long as, if it is pointed out, we admit that we are not being completely rigorous, then that's fine.

I have no doubts that Earth orbits the sun. I have no doubt that the supernatural does not exist. I have no doubt that the universe came from some kind of singularity at some point. (no pun intended) But 'not having doubt' isn't the same as having absolute proof.

 

Didn't misquote you. Have asked the question 5 times. I can repost them all to show you are simply avoiding the embarrassment if you want. Would you like that?

 

So, if we have 90 pieces of a 100 piece puzzle, you won't acknowledge what the image is, until the 100 piece is in place, right? You god lives in the last 10 pieces.

How sad.

 

All of science requires a preponderance of evidence; there is no such thing as "absolute proof" in the scientific field. Go look up the problem of induction. It has been a part of scientific philosophy for the past few hundred years or so, it's time you caught up. And if you're saying that the Big Bang theory isn't falsifiable, that's wrong as well.

 

The level of evidence that supports that a Big Bang occurred is on the same level as say you have a 3 year old son....and you placed him in a room that was lit and had no windows and just had 4 white walls and a ceiling and lamp and you left on the floor of that room 3 Magic Markers one Red...one Blue and One Green....and you locked him in that room for 2 hours and stood by the only door and that was the only way in and out for that 2 hours and then you opened that door to find red, blue and green drawings upon those white walls and red, blue and green marks on your son's hands and body.

THAT....is the level of evidence existing that a Big Bang Occurred.....the same as the evidence your son drew those drawings in that room.

AboveAlpha

 

Cite or retract. If you can't or won't, that makes you the liar I believe.

They warn people for personal attacks, then ban them. As I said, for many of you that process would take about a week. Maybe you've already been banned over there?

 

The parts left out don't contradict Morris' point, if anything they reinforce them. How you call that some kind of 'lie' is bizarre.

You are free to criticize the Discovery Institute, just as scientists criticize naturalistic evolution proponents. To some degree, the quotes I posted critical of evolutionary thinking show this is not a science vs. religion debate, but a science vs. science one.

 

Over where?

 

The criticism of "Discovery Institute" has to do with their fraudulent behaviour, which is rather different from the criticism of one scientists work by another.

There are no scientists who "criticize naturalistic evolution proponents" with
any actual facts or data to present. The factual nature of the criticism of DI
lies distortions and misrepresentations is entirely different in kind and content, it is most disingenuous and misleading to say "just as"

There is always debate among scientists about some details of how evolution works, how certain organisms are related, etc.

There is no debate among scientists as to whether the ToE itself is valid; at least none that are conducted on a basis of data.

There are no facts known that would indicate that ToE is false.

Suggesting that there is a debate in science over that is false too.

 

Your reading of that quote shows the problem.
You can't comprehend English. You can't understand that quote at all and how the edit of it reverses the point it makes. It's sad, but there are remedial classes.
He busted you on the Discovery Institute, didn't he?

 

Lets see how long it takes for an occasion to challenge you with your own words here.