forrestkc Posted January 10, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 10, 2007 Well in the Begining God made Male and female, this has not been changed and can be tested that only male and female, can reproduce naturaly, can it be tested that God created them male and female, if you know God yes, but if you don't know him personaly it is impossible, but The fact that life comes from pre-existing life, and humanity needs a male and a female can reproduce, shows that we where created this way and is evidence for ID, rather than evolved this way. You should do a little reading on the Evolution of Sex then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carrielles Posted January 10, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 255 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/09/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/29/1974 Share Posted January 10, 2007 A great dvd to check out is Creatures that Defy Evolution, it points to creation or ID as you put it. Another dvd is Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, recently come to DVD is it excellent for those who really do want the other side's facts. Know Jesus before it's too late my brother. He loves you so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) Well in the Begining God made Male and female, this has not been changed and can be tested that only male and female, can reproduce naturaly, can it be tested that God created them male and female, if you know God yes, but if you don't know him personaly it is impossible, but The fact that life comes from pre-existing life, and humanity needs a male and a female can reproduce, shows that we where created this way and is evidence for ID, rather than evolved this way. Sure, but I didn't ask for evidence. I have already stated clearly that there are tons of evidence in favor of ID. What I want to know is if there is a way to falsify it that I'm not aware of - because if ID is not falsifiable, then it is not a scientific theory. It seems that some of the people who posted here are still confused about this. Let me repeat it: if I wanted to find evidence for ID, I would simply look in the mirror or at a tree. As things are now, ID is not falsifiable. A theory to be called scientific must be falsifiable. Since the only thing I have against ID is that it is being presented as a scientific theory while it is not, what I'm asking for is a way to prove that ID is false. That would be the first step toward proving that ID is a scientific theory. I also wish to remember everyone that I'm already working under the assumption that evolution is nonsense. You don't need to attack evolution in this thread, as far as I'm concerned we can forget it ever existed. edit: to the other atheists: if you don't mind, I would like you to help me keep evolution away from this thread. I know that you feel compelled to, but please avoid discussing it here, I'm sure you can understand what i'm doing. Edited January 11, 2007 by Questioner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted January 11, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,867 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,122 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted January 11, 2007 While I don't enter into long winded arguments on these kinds of things, as I like to keep things simple, direct, and to the point if I can, there's something I should say. There are those who KNOW God created them. There are those who think God created them. There are those who think maybe God created them. There are those who don't believe God created them. Everybody falls into one of the above categories. Granted. But what you've got to remember, and eventually come to terms with, no matter what category you fall into yourself, is that there are a group of people who KNOW God created them. It's on the list. It won't go away. And you will have to come to terms with these people. Eventually. Some people 'think' Some people 'know' Bear that in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 11, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 ... Noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdrehfal Posted January 16, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 207 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2007 First of all let's get a few things out of the way. Since I wish to focus on ID, in this thread and in this thread only I will be working under the following assumption: "Evolution is not science, there isn't any evidence to back it up, it's not testable, it's not falsifiable; it should be dismissed as nonsense" If you want I can add to it any number of additional statements about evolution, just ask. If you want me to say that evolutionists go to hell or that evolution is the work of the devil, this is your chance. Now that that's out of the way, we can talk about ID. This thread will only deal with falsifiability; any submission of evidence in support of ID is off-topic and irrelevant anyway: I already know that ID accounts for the complexity we detect in the natural world. That's not the point. The point is that it is not scientific and only objections to what I'm going to say in the next few paragraphs are on topic and relevant. Thanks in advance for staying on topic. By definition, a scientific theory must be falsifiable. This doesn't mean that it must be proved wrong, of course, but there must be a test that if carried out successfully would prove the theory false. If a theory is shown not to be falsifiable, no amount of reasoning will save it from being declared pseudoscience. No amount of evidence in support of it will ever matter because a non-falsifiable theory doesn't respect the definition of scientific theory. So let's see how we can test and falsify ID. 1 - The design process carried out by the Designer is not repeatable nor observable; it isn't, in short, testable. 2- Since the design process is not testable, the only other part of the theory left is the Designer. However, the Designer is not defined by ID; indeed ID proponents have made it perfectly clear that ID doesn't make any assumption about who the Designer is, where he/she/it is and so on. The Designer doesn't currently have a definition and is therefore not testable. We have already used up all our options. Nothing in ID is testable. Therefore, ID is not falsifiable. Therefore, ID is not a scientific theory. Objections? Nope. It's not, because science is what's limited here. The scientific method can't examine a concept that's only capable of being PERCEIVED (but not tested) by intelligent beings. You can't scientifically prove, by this method, that the great pyramid had a designer, either, though. because the design process is not testable. (we still can't figure out a good way to build this amazing structure with our own modern science, despite the pathetic attempts to prove otherwise!) Nor do you have a time machine to go back and see the designer, we don't know who, specifically, the designer was, and there's really no way to prove the designer existed, either. If the designer DID exist, he/she/it would be long dead. But, we as humans will PERCEIVE by common sense it had a designer. Even recognizing the intelligent design of a watch on the ground is still a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL CONCEPT. (although in the watch case, we could find the designer and compare company products and use the scientific method to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that THEY designed it.) The only thing that comes close to proving ID is the Perry Marshal DNA-IS-A-LANGUAGE (and according to information science, language must come from a concious being, and thusly have a designer...) I subscribe to this, but people refuse to recognize DNA for what it really is, and will deny this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Questioner Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 92 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/10/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 18, 2007 Nope. It's not, because science is what's limited here. The scientific method can't examine a concept that's only capable of being PERCEIVED (but not tested) by intelligent beings. You can't scientifically prove, by this method, that the great pyramid had a designer, either, though. because the design process is not testable. (we still can't figure out a good way to build this amazing structure with our own modern science, despite the pathetic attempts to prove otherwise!) Hey,that's my point! Don't steal it! Nor do you have a time machine to go back and see the designer, we don't know who, specifically, the designer was, and there's really no way to prove the designer existed, either. If the designer DID exist, he/she/it would be long dead. But, we as humans will PERCEIVE by common sense it had a designer. Even recognizing the intelligent design of a watch on the ground is still a HUMAN PERCEPTUAL CONCEPT. (although in the watch case, we could find the designer and compare company products and use the scientific method to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that THEY designed it.) The only thing that comes close to proving ID is the Perry Marshal DNA-IS-A-LANGUAGE (and according to information science, language must come from a concious being, and thusly have a designer...) I subscribe to this, but people refuse to recognize DNA for what it really is, and will deny this as well. I'll overlook the DNA-is-a-language silliness for the sake of staying on topic. All you said about ID supports my point: ID is not science and must not be called science. Well, it seems nobody on this forum knows of a way to falsify ID. I'll make sure I'll point it out whenever someone calls it science in other threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Some people revere science so much that they may as well bow down to it as it has become their god. The tragedy is that God is the God of science. It is his work that constitutes what science is, and all scientists spend their time doing is uncovering what God has done! Too bad they don't see it that way. Their worship stops at the feet of the created and fails to go beyond it. Such short-sightedness. I have no regard for that, but I do rejoice in my God everytime scientists discover more of His glory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maguschris Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 73 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted January 18, 2007 Some people revere science so much that they may as well bow down to it as it has become their god. The tragedy is that God is the God of science. It is his work that constitutes what science is, and all scientists spend their time doing is uncovering what God has done! Too bad they don't see it that way. Their worship stops at the feet of the created and fails to go beyond it. Such short-sightedness. I have no regard for that, but I do rejoice in my God everytime scientists discover more of His glory. Whats wrong with looking at other options. Can you prove (without using the bible) that God created the earth and everything here? no? well then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted January 18, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted January 18, 2007 Some people revere science so much that they may as well bow down to it as it has become their god. The tragedy is that God is the God of science. It is his work that constitutes what science is, and all scientists spend their time doing is uncovering what God has done! Too bad they don't see it that way. Their worship stops at the feet of the created and fails to go beyond it. Such short-sightedness. I have no regard for that, but I do rejoice in my God everytime scientists discover more of His glory. Whats wrong with looking at other options. Can you prove (without using the bible) that God created the earth and everything here? no? well then... I don't have to prove it. God already has. Just look around you. It is overwhelming proof, and because I know God and He speaks to me, He tells me that He is the Creator, and so...I believe Him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts