Intelligent Design Studies

[rdean]

Possibly we could start with you defining ID correctly, so that you know what it is you're trying to test.

Intelligent Design posits that the complexity of life is such that it could only have been developed by an intelligent outside being, not a random process.

So far, experiments have shown that amino acids and nucleotides can spontaneously be formed by random activities that occur on earth all the time (lightning). The first of these experiments was the Miller-Urey experiment, which is why I referenced it.

If you are not willing to submit your Intelligent Designer to the tests of the scientific method, then keep your Intelligent Design at Sunday School.

Wrong on all counts.

Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself.

Therefore, that means that your amino acid remark is irrelevant and unrelated, particularly since Intelligent Design, so far as I know, doesn't make any claims as to the method an intelligent designer would have used for creating amino acids. Awww, shucks.

If you are not willing to research what you're talking about, then keep your remarks to yourself.

So you agree. Gawd did it!

 

[Father Time]

Ok I'm starting a betting pool on the number of posts Cecillie makes before she provides any sort of evidence that ID is
a. Scientific
or b. True.

I got an over under of 9. Anyone care to take a bet?

 

[Father Time]

You mean you have no idea what features of the universe and living things are pointed to as examples of ID

Let me guess

bacteria falgellum

[youtube]RQQ7ubVIqo4[/youtube]


The eye

[youtube]Yj_lNQerUJ4[/youtube]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution of the Avian Visual System

Integr. Comp. Biol. -- Sign In Page

Blood clotting

[youtube]4K_WrqNiQoU[/youtube]

Did I miss anything?

You should know whether or not you missed anything.

It's not my damn theory nor is it my job to try to debunk it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see here. Intelligent Design Studies is the title, so therefore the burden of proof is on the IDers. No?

 

[Father Time]

Already did that. Try to keep up.

"Intelligent design theory says that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than an undirected, chance-based process. "Certain features". Not "the complexity of life", or life itself."

An intelligent designer, oh ok so it's basically creationism except the intelligent designer might be aliens (where the hell did the aliens come from? never says), and they get to claim it only did specific things.

Now since it's impossible to test or disprove that something was created by an intelligent being it's not science.

Unless you could provide us with some sort of experiment we could use to verify or falsify it.

Last I heard, career Darwin apologist Richard Dawkins accepts the idea of aliens seeding life onto this planet as a possibility, so long as he can view it as ruling out God. Talk to HIM about how stupid that possibility is.

Did he say such an idea was scientifically testable or just that it's possible? Although Dawkins is not a spokesman for science, evolution or whatever so I fail to see how his thoughts are all that relevant.

It is kind of funny though, aliens creating the animals would be intelligent design and yet you think that's a stupid possibility.

Had you bothered to research ID before traipsing in here to display your "vast knowledge" of how wrong it is, you would know what the arguments are in favor of it being viewed as science. Once again, it is not my job or responsibility to conduct classes on the subject for your benefit, and I choose not to do so. Come back when you've done your homework.

I'm going by your definition of ID and I still say it's not science, if you disagree state your arguments, don't expect me to go look for counter-arguments just because you don't have any.

 

[Father Time]

Why exactly would we need to know all the arguments in favor of an idea before knowing whether it's scientific?

All we need to know is what it is and the definition of science.

Like talking to the dead.

Do I really need to hear every argument from every 'psychic' before realizing there's no way in hell we (or they) can prove they're actually having a conversation with a dead person?