Not even God can judge me. - [bastard_earth]
Captain Cynic Guides
Administrative Contact
Talk Talk
Philosophy Forum
Religion Forum
Psychology Forum
Science & Technology Forum
Politics & Current Events Forum
Health & Wellness Forum
Sexuality & Intimacy Forum
Product Reviews
Stories & Poetry Forum
Art Forum
Movie/TV Reviews
Jokes & Games
Photos, Videos & Music Forum

Intellagentdesign - Page 6

User Thread
 60yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that okcitykid is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
And you'll find no evidence that us and all this was created by accident.

We don't know - we can't know and neither makes it science or non science, its all a matter of preference and that's why both theories should be taught.

What I don't understand is all this anger against it.

| Permalink
"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."
 68yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that cturtle is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
Intelligent design claims that an "intelligent designer" created everything. So where's the evidence of the designer? I'll save you some research, There isn't any.
Strange but I had not heard of an ID movement?
Granted those whom favor creationism would tend to support aspects of ID but it is not just a fundamental christian movement any more than evolutionist is a thinly vailed anti-christian movement? Those who seek to understand will seek it out, where they may find it.
Which is different from seeking justification of personal preceptions. I would remind you that it was sceintist, who debated the views of particle & wave aspects, both promoting their view with known aspects of physics. Neither is clearly [absolutely] the correct theory, rather aspects of both are seen in nature of existence.

| Permalink
"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
 31yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that St. Jimmy is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
True, but can you really call something science when part of the "theory" entails that you beleive in the intelligent designer? There's nothing wrong in beleiving in creationism, or intelligent design, but only science should be taught in a science classroom, and science is based on fact, not beleif.

| Permalink
"He who does not question is lost."
 33yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that summit is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
Okcitykid your within a religious neutrality so its rather odd why you remain confused. The only explination I have is perhaps your slightly naive about evolution. Just to fill you in, DNA originated through the laws of phyics, chemistry and biology, not just merely 'chance'. Physics provide(d) the nuclear force to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141

... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos. To juxtapose the "Bridge" metaphor to the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy: the probability of life "evolving" rather than having been "created" may appear unlikely, but the evidence that this is the case is so widespread and well understood. The probability can't be proved wrong under logical and evidential reasoning. Another gap in the ID arguement.



Cturtle, one reason why perhaps I seldomly respond to your questions/discussion is because to me it seems you provide vague, misunderstood, irrelevent material which consequently will rely on a confused reply. And as you said so yourself, you often make a tangent and go off topic. Which leaves little to expect from this thread, hence which is why a reply is absent. Many of your assumptions about evolution are incorrect. If you wish to encounter a biology lesson perhaps write in another thread, read a book, rather than in an ID thread.


Patrish: Macro and micro are well understood. Your a bit behind time now, because it is now known that random genetic drift plays a major role. Evolutionary changes fall into two categories micro and macro. Oh and as eliasan mentioned, dirt is abiotic. Dirt constitutes of primarily compounds and elements from eroded rock, not primarily biological material.

quote:
we are no longer as capable as our ancestors to with stand cold dungeon type castles
trying to figure if this is a joke

You make reference to the appendix being useless. Yes this is because human diet has changed over time due to adapting to ever changing environments. Your example represents the term 'Intelligent design' as rather poor design. If you haven't already, read the bottom of the 1st page of this thread.

quote:
logic is that an Intelligent Designer put it together

Wow what a strong claim. Interesting, so where is the logical and evidential reasoning of ID?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --
In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not.

The main justification of ID is the notion of irreducible complexity. This is the idea that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, so they must have been deliberately designed. Its proponents gloss over the fact that no one arrives at this conclusion unless they just happen to have been raised in a Judeo-Christian religious environment. They also gloss over the fact that it is flawed on philosophical grounds: it assumes that if we cannot easily find a reason for a phenomenon, then there must be no rational explanation at all, thus requiring divine intervention. And finally, they are deliberately prudent about the identity of this "intelligent designer", because they want to convey this "theory" into the school system in defiance of constitutional church/state separation guarantees, even though everyone knows that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" name for God.


Its vastly obvious that intelligent design serves as a feeble proxy for the religious believers in their efforts to advance their religious point of view within society.

Intelligent design is neither observable nor repeatable. You can't prove ID by experiment. As far as anyone is concerned the case is clear, intelligent design doesn't and cannot provide logical and evidential reasoning beyond its farcical claims. ID reflects its failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse. To ignore this is to reject the very foundation of ID and its intentions as a theological belief system.




| Permalink
"The summit is just a halfway point"
[  Edited by summit at   ]
 60yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that okcitykid is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
and science is based on fact, not beleif.


No its not - it starts out as a theory, and you set out to prove that theory, and once it is proven it is no longer a theory. Evolution has been a theory for about 200 years now. It remains a theory, and an ever more complicated theory, never-the-less a valid theory.

I still understand why ID isn't SCIENTIFIC - I keep hearing people say that. Just because you say that, it does not make it true and just because most scientists say that, it does not make it true. It is only true if there isn't an intelligence, but if there is an intelligence, then it is very true. And says intelligence is a single entity?

quote:
invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer


I cannot show you the designer - if I could show you the designer, how then could it be a theory, then it would be a fact. I can only logicaly beleive in a designer based on the fact that DNA is so complicated that we don't even fully understand it. That's my logic for believing in a designer, - now - What is your logic in believing that DNA was created by random chance? It has to be more than your lack of belief in intelligent design.

While your knowledge of science is good, an explination of DNA is not evidence that it was created by random chance, only evidence that you know science very well.

I realize that DNA is different than evolution, but I'm using it as an example in explaining my believe.

quote:
... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything....................


True - that might be the case if I had been the only thing dealt that hand - but it seems that billions of things on this earth seem to be very complicated and surprising the more you look upon it, and even more surprising is how each works together with the other.

quote:
In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not.



You are right, and this might be the very reason this recieving so much resistence. But evolution was also (not as vague) as ID and it also received a great deal of resistance. You will find as I found all of my life, nobody likes change, anything different is resisted - some natural defense mechanism in our head that sometimes hinders us.

The ID theory needs a great deal of work, but you have to realize it hasn't had as much time or funding to be near as polished as evolution, and I believe should not even compete with evolution - they, at least I heard one of their representatives on NPR had admitted that they made a mistake for attacking evolution and that's why they believe they ended up in court.

quote:
church/state separation guarantees, even though everyone knows that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" name for God.


This is probably the whole basis for you not wanting this taught in school. I do believe that there is a group who want GOD in school. I am one of them, and I don't apologize for it. When I was in school, we didn't have security guards and metal detectors and some of us believe that taking God out of school has caused this. When I was in school, public prayer was acceptable and a lot of us are still shocked that prayer has become a crime. This is probably what we should be discussing rather than ID and evolution. Now we are getting to the meat of the problem, I would welcome a discussion on this.

The argument of I.D. and Evolution being taught or not taught in school is simply a covering for a deeper discussion that we should be discussing.


| Permalink
"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."
 31yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that eliasan is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
quote:
The ID theory needs a great deal of work, but you have to realize it hasn't had as much time or funding to be near as polished as evolution


I must say you made me laugh when you posted that. Now that aside are you FREAKING kidding me the ID theory has had time and funding to be polished just no one has proven anything.

quote:
I can only logicaly beleive in a designer based on the fact that DNA is so complicated that we don't even fully understand it.

Understandble becouse our brains are not evolved enough to handle the comprehension of DNA.
quote:
quote: In order to criticize a theory it must first be explicitly defined, and "intelligent designer" theory is not.

yes it has, the ID theory states a higher power or Intelligent designer created the universe. Can it be more clear then that.

| Permalink
"Fear nothing for fear is the mind killer."
 60yrs • M •
A CTL of 1 means that okcitykid is a contributing member of Captain Cynic.
well your FREAKING kidding me - if it was proven, it wouldn't be a theory now would it?

| Permalink
"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."
Intellagentdesign - Page 6
  1    2    3    4    5    6  
About Captain Cynic
Common FAQ's
Captain Cynic Guides
Contact Us
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
General Forum Rules
Cynic Trust Levels
Administrative Contact Forum
Registration
Lost Password
General Discussion
Philosophy Forums
Psychology Forums
Health Forums
Quote Submissions
Promotions & Links
 Captain Cynic on Facebook
 Captain Cynic on Twitter
 Captain Cynic RSS Feed
 Daily Tasker
Copyright © 2011 Captain Cynic All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy