Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[SpidermanTuba]

Hobbit has 2 b's, and I never mentioned irreducible complexity anywhere in that post. The post was simply to throw off the notion that the appendix is a totally useless anachranism. Learn to read...and spell.

So you don't believe in ID theory?

 

[Hobbit]

So you don't believe in ID theory?

Well, I do, but I don't see how irreducible complexity relates to what I said. You're dragging me out to define a term I didn't use in this discussion. When talking to somebody about economics, and they say "I think lower taxes benefit the economy," do you instantly demand a thesis on Reagenomics and classical economic theory? I know what the term means and I believe it to be true, but I don't think I should have to define points I haven't made.

 

[Powerman]

Well, I do, but I don't see how irreducible complexity relates to what I said. You're dragging me out to define a term I didn't use in this discussion. When talking to somebody about economics, and they say "I think lower taxes benefit the economy," do you instantly demand a thesis on Reagenomics and classical economic theory? I know what the term means and I believe it to be true, but I don't think I should have to define points I haven't made.

But how can you believe in ID theory without also believing in the irreducible complexity hypothesis? You may have not brought it up in this discussion. But answer this honestly please. Have you EVER brought it up in any discussion concerning evolution? Because if you did it's irrelevant whether or not you brought it up THIS time.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, I do, but I don't see how irreducible complexity relates to what I said. You're dragging me out to define a term I didn't use in this discussion. When talking to somebody about economics, and they say "I think lower taxes benefit the economy," do you instantly demand a thesis on Reagenomics and classical economic theory? I know what the term means and I believe it to be true, but I don't think I should have to define points I haven't made.

Is the definition of "irreducably complex" longer than you above statement? Because if it isn't you just wasted a lot of time.

This thread is about ID. I think its reasonable to ask the ID'ers what a term that they like to throw around - "irrreducably complex" - actually means.

You don't have to do anything, Hobby. But I'd like to know what 'irreducably complex means". You claim it to be "true" - well, OK, I don't see how a word in itself can either be true or false. Is "apple" true or false? Is "football" a true or a false word? I dunno.

Perhaps you could provide a more detailed explanation.

 

[Hobbit]

Is the definition of "irreducably complex" longer than you above statement? Because if it isn't you just wasted a lot of time.

This thread is about ID. I think its reasonable to ask the ID'ers what a term that they like to throw around - "irrreducably complex" - actually means.

You don't have to do anything, Hobby. But I'd like to know what 'irreducably complex means". You claim it to be "true" - well, OK, I don't see how a word in itself can either be true or false. Is "apple" true or false? Is "football" a true or a false word? I dunno.

Perhaps you could provide a more detailed explanation.

Evolution's just a word, too. So is 'asinine,' 'annoying,' and 'badgering.'

I am still trying to figure out why you started this whole line of questioning. I came in here to point out that it's not a proven fact that the appendix is useless, then leave, but instead, you came right out of left field and instead of asking me something relevant to what I said, you asked me the definition of a term that has been defined on this site several times and which I'm positive you're familiar with, not to mention that it had nothing to do with my post. That's not debate, it's a baiting tactic, and I'm insulted that you think I'm dumb enough to go along.

Once again, do you demand a full outline of classical economic theory from anyone who suggests a tax cut?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's it in a nutshell. It's a complete waste of time to be bringing in supernatural theories into science class and it is not the role of science to be pondering theology. Teach science in science class and leave all the supernatural tales to be taught at home.

you never answered my question ."why are you so afraid of ID being brought up in science classes?"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

True. But I don't think that most schools have a theology class. So why not just let the parents teach them whatever they believe at home?

Because some parents want it taught at school!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Certainly there are many situations where logic can lead you to multiple conclusions, no?

no, logic would lead you to mulitple possibilities sometimes, but not multiple conflicting conclusions. If there is more than one possiblity that are not conflicting, then there is no conclusions.

Logic leads us to belive that either life evolved, or was created. there is no other possibility. That also is why there is no other competing theory with evolution other than ID.

If a fatal flaw can be shown in evolution, then it would lead one to conclude ID is the answer. But thats a problem for atheists, so they want to argue against ID, for evolution, and that other possibilities may exist, but they dont.

Its like, you can logically deduct that person A, either, DID steal the candy, or DIDNT steal the candy. There really isnt a third alternative.

I have a supcion why Powerman doesnt want ID even MENTIONED in science as a possible alternative. But certainly if one were teaching a science class, they should not be afraid of alternative theories, scientific or not. I mean, they do mention that some thought the earth was flat at one time, and there still is a flat earth society.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This is where you are confused. Competing theories are allowed in. There just isn't one right now. And if there is it's not mainsteam yet.

As far as evolution goes there is no competing theory. There isn't even a close second. In the minds of people who know little of science you might think that ID is a competing theory but it's not.

Sorry, but evolution and ID are the only two possibilities. There are more gaping holes, and a few fatal flaws in evolution, none in ID. So, by default, I find ID more believable.

There never has been, nor ever will be any other competing theories.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So your argument is introduce a competing theory, even one with no evidence, so that evolution isn't the only theory?




Are you so desperate for an alternate theory to evolution that you think putting forth notions derived from stories is an acceptable solution?
Without evidence, such notions are nothing more than guesses.



Well, hey! Maybe we ought to force Sunday Schools to teach evolution as an alternate theory for Genesis.

Im not desperate for anything. I find some very, very fatal flaws in evolution that leads any open minded truly thinking person to realize evolution, as the creation of the original life, is impossible. My notions on ID do not come from stories. After reading the stories, and accepting God as my creator, I still believed in evolution, I have no problem with that, per se, untill certain other information, FACTUAL SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION was presented to me. And it had NOTHING to do with religion, spirituality or anything like that, it was biological information from encyclopedias.

But those who oppose ID have always got to assume people who belive in it do so only as a fairy tale.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Which begs the next question. Why are Christians only interested in meddling with science theories that are in conflict with Genesis and not interested in anything else?

They arent. Many Chrisitians are interested in many sciences.

WHich begs the question, why do you always only look at the negative side of religion?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

It isn't close minded to keep non-science out of a science class. Science isn't a forum for the debate of every idea under the Sun - its a forum for the debate of SCIENCE. ID, as a theory, is unscientific. It is experimentally unverifiable as well as unfalsifiable.


Suppose I proposed to you this theory - that the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago and all of our memories implanted in our heads to make it seem as if we've been around longer. Try as you might - you couldn't prove me wrong! In fact, it would be impossible to prove such a theory either right or wrong, making it not a scientific theory. The same applies to ID.

Actually, that is a very real possibility. But, that means there is a creator. It could not have happened on its own, as it was designed, implanted. So, you would simply be making an arguement for creationism, or ID.

Ok, now what? Oh, its simple, now its time for you to provide some proof of your statements, either by direct proof, or by logical deduction. IN fact, Powerman likes to use logical deduction, but then claim its invalid when used for religion. Deduction is used all the time in science. They see the universe expanding, hence, prior to our observation, its logical to deduct that ....it was closer to gether than it is now.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The problem with ID is that there is zero evidence. There is nothing that you can possibly test that would lead you to believe that there must be an intelligent designer. Even if you were right you couldn't scientifically prove it.

But moving along. Can you test continental drift? No but we all know that it happened. If evolution didn't happen then maybe you can explain to me how according to all geological evidence that we have to date life over time has become more complex. Also why over such time periods do we see transitional forms of creatures that get closer and closer to us and eventually we get to us?

If evolution didn't occur then there must be some explanation for these fossils which no longer have living members. There must also be an explanation of why there are no human fossil remains that predate or coexist with the oldest hominids. There is a lot more explaining needed on the anti-evolution side than the evolution side. Only a fool would disagree. All of the evidence we currently have points towards evolution.

How do we know contininental drift occured?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well good luck finding fossils of complex beings that coexist with the earliest life forms... :rotflmao:

I need to get lunch and do some shopping. We'll resume this later if you folks are online.

I dont think ID proponents, or creationists claim all forms of life were created at the same time. In fact, Genesis starts out with the simpler forms and works its way up to the most complex,,,hmmmmm

there are many other things in Genesis that they couldnt have possibly know about, but science has since shown to be true.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Irreducible Complexity as defined by Behe who is a proponent of ID:

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.


That's funny because I had my appendix removed a couple years ago and I'm still alive. This sounds like the epitome of nonsense to me.

you sure it wasnt your brain?

 

[MissileMan]

Sorry, but evolution and ID are the only two possibilities. There are more gaping holes, and a few fatal flaws in evolution, none in ID. So, by default, I find ID more believable.

There never has been, nor ever will be any other competing theories.

You don't consider the lack of proof of a creator to be a gaping hole? ID starts with a hole the size of the Grand Canyon and ID'ers attempt to fill it with two small words, "irreducable complexity". You can fill it with those words a trillion times over and you know what you've got? An empty hole the size of the Grand Canyon.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Obviously. So maybe you can explain what he actually meant. Since what he actually meant didn't apply to my situation. Even though he said if you remove even one of the parts it won't work.

What he is talking about is, take all of the components of the item that is absolutely necessary for it to function, and you have arrived at its irreducible complexity.

You have a tv set. It has color controls, it can function without them. It has a power cord, it cannot function without it.

The power cord is part of its irreducable complexity.

If a person tells me they invented the tv, but cannot explain what a power cord is, then I know they are lying.

If a person tells me they invented the tv, but cannot tell me what a color control is, they may still be telling the truth.

A single cell has a point of irreducable complexity. At that point, it is so highly complex, it could not have come into being by random accident.

Some damns are so complex they were obviously built by beavers, some are natural damns created by leafs and twigs falling into an obstruction. It is easy to see the differnce between many of them.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But how can you believe in ID theory without also believing in the irreducible complexity hypothesis? You may have not brought it up in this discussion. But answer this honestly please. Have you EVER brought it up in any discussion concerning evolution? Because if you did it's irrelevant whether or not you brought it up THIS time.

Its quite possible to believe in ID and not believe in Irreducable complexity.

 

[MissileMan]

Its quite possible to believe in ID and not believe in Irreducable complexity.

Wouldn't you have to say that ID without irreduceable complexity would be plain-old-ordinary creationism?

 

[KarlMarx]

One thing is for certain....

Scientists have not yet been able to find a way to create DNA in the laboratory.

DNA is necessary to life, and the scientists are intelligent. Yet these intelligent beings have not been able to create the building blocks for DNA. So, are we to assume that Nature, which has no intelligence, did create DNA?

That seems like a stretch.