Q#3 Why I think ID is not a scientific theory

[cjrose]

I agree with you on the point about not tolerating lies but there in itself is an untruth in that many nonbelievers and athiests think that Christianity is a lie. What then should we do? Roll our eyes and pounce with sarcasm that causes a rise in our fallable human spirit in attempt to have you all see things our way just as you are doing in your attempt for us to see things your way.

No, if somebody is calling you a liar then you prove them wrong.

Agreed.

This forum is called Apologetics. Apologetics is the "field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics) Since particular forum is designated for the defense of Christianity.

If someone says something you don't like about your religion, defend it. This is Apologetics. (If I were religious that's what I'd be doing!) And theologians have been doing it for centuries. It can be done in a formal setting. It can even be done politely! I came to these forums expecting to see a formal defense of Christianity, but what I've seen lately is Christians swatting at nonbelievers like they are pesky flies.

No, you don't have to debate Christianity. You could just sit there and talk about something else, about how Christianity is great, about the weather, about anything other than Apologetics. A debate team could do this in a debate, but they would look foolish. A lawyer could do this in court, but they would lose their case. These examples sound silly, but it's pretty much what happens here.

runners, you have been here long enough and have experienced my very own impulsive corrupt need to reply without thought. Which I have since learned after many aplogy, a lesson was learned. (wish I knew of it in my 20's) but out of that look where we are now, repectfully communicating as we have come to a mutual understanding that has enabled us to speak honestly though it may hit a nerve but without sarcasm or insults and we've grown and I for one have learned a few things though my faith has never waivered. Nor have I ever doubted my belief.

But my point is, you've seen those who come into aplogetics and outer court because they are restricted to those areas so they come on in with a loud thud and bully attitude, their own agenda, and never listen or maybe they do but simply choose not to respond to direct questions but evade, steer in a different direction for their own puffy ego. We have just had an influx the last few days as if they come in phases. Those that are still here such as yourself are those that know how to at least attempt to read our replies, think on it and yes, I know you have had your own thing recently but I believe something good will come out of that. Anyway, yes, we are here to defend the faith. Don't you dare mock God. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr but we plant seeds and do what the Lord guides us to do. It is often a situation that is impenetrable. I do firmly believe in defending the faith but arguing or tossing back and forth insults is not the way and sometimes there comes a point to just sit back, gather thoughts and by the time I'm ready with my reply, they disappear I'm a gardner, not a philospher nor am I good at debates. I will speak my faith and it is their choice to listen. Some seeds fall on fertile soil, some fall on stoney ground and blow away with the wind, some as small as a mustard seed can produce fruitful roots that grow amazingly strong.

Some seeds fall in the weeds and wither away. Yes, defend our faith with love not war. Except well, if you mock God gonna getcha

[sweetycakes]

Evolution and the big bang is not based on science either.

I found this short video interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...6&q=new+age

[Admiral-Bell]

Evolution and the big bang is not based on science either.

I found this short video interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...6&q=new+age

1.Evolution is a science which explains the existance of all species present.

2. The Idea of evolution has been around for about 150 years. It is ridiculous to expect speciation in that tim.

3. Evolution has been observed in the fossil record.

4. A self-replicating molecule requires a mere few hundred nucleotides to form life, out of all the pools of water in all the planets in all the galaxies has to come together in such a fashion and life is formed.

5. Evolution is a theory with kinks still getting worked out of it, many questions will probably be solved withen the next decades.

6. Just because evolution may be wrong does not mean creationism is right.

[sweetycakes]

Evolution and the big bang is not based on science either.

I found this short video interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...6&q=new+age

5. Evolution is a theory with kinks still getting worked out of it

Got a lot of work to do on those kinks, Admiral

[Observer of dreams]

You argument is based on deductive reasoning which is by definition the correct way to state an argument. You arguement is also very solid. I am taking a college course in which we will discuss ID so I am taking this opporitunity to form my ethical foundation. With Intelligent design science is playing a different role than it normally does. Science is usually sought after biologically through use of the scientific method and by witnessing observable events.

With intelligent design however science is playing the role of the "gravity camera." What I mean by this is science is observing the event of the universe and trying to take a picture of causality, much like a camera that can take a picture of the pull of gravity as opposed to a snapshot of a falling object. Science is putting their finger on observable signs of intelligence and saying "ahhaa!" The problem is the question of what intelligence is. The one solid fact in all of this is that we as humans, are a product. "Product of what?" Good question I'll leave that up to you.

I suppose that to make this reply relevant to the subject matter I should propose a refutation.

Intelligent design can be supported by the following arguement, and yes I know there are flaws, keep in mind that something as serious as the exsistance of God proven through scientific fact is not something that 113 years should be qualified for. I expect many flaws on both sides of this issue before something solid can be reached.

This article came from >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_concept and I present this in it's entirity.

Specified complexity

Main article: Specified complexity

The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed by mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski. Dembski states that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously), one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed) rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."[47] He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

Dembski defines complex specified information as anything with a less than 1 in 10150 chance of occurring by (natural) chance. Critics say that this renders the argument a tautology: Complex specified information (CSI) cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus, so the real question becomes whether or not CSI actually exists in nature.

The conceptual soundness of Dembski's specified complexity/CSI argument is strongly disputed by the scientific community.[48] Specified complexity has yet to be shown to have wide applications in other fields as Dembski asserts. John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry characterize Dembski's "explanatory filter" as eliminative, because it eliminates explanations sequentially: first regularity, then chance, finally defaulting to design. They argue that this procedure is flawed as a model for scientific inference because the asymmetric way it treats the different possible explanations renders it prone to making false conclusions.[49]

[Joshua-777]

Abiogenesis - The scientific study of how life originally arose on the planet, presumably from nonliving things and the presence of nonliving organic matter. (Biology Online)

Darwinian evolution

[billie]

Not faith?! *Eeeek!

I love you, Runner!

[Joshua-777]

Well did the beliefe of Evolution spawn the abogenesis theory? Or did the aboGenesis theory Spawn evolution? There is no evidence for abogenesis, by the way, none, there is nothing but faith that it had to happen.

Abiogenesis theories existed long before Darwin. Philosophers as early as the Presocratics, which horizon has mentioned in the past, had naturalistic theories for abiogenesis. So no, evolution certainly didn't spawn abiogenesis theory. But I do think that evolution stands as a strong case for metaphysical naturalism--the idea that the universe can be explained entirely with naturalistic answers, abiogenesis being a naturalistic answer for the origin of life. That isn't to say Darwinian evolution implies abiogenesis; it just supports an outlook of metaphysical naturalism, which favors abiogenesis. So the connection between Darwinian evolution and abiogenesis is more a philosophical one than a scientific one. The fact is, we have a lot of evidence for Darwinian evolution but not enough to confirm any particular theory of abiogenesis.

What fact is there in abiogenesis? There is not one single fact that supports it, except the miller experiment, Now as far as evolution, a species evolving into another species has no obserbable evidence as well. Micro evolution is the only evidence that I've seen which is not evidence at all for macro evolution.

[Questioner]

As you pointed out, a hypothesis may be tentatively accepted if it survives efforts to falsify it. That implies that there must be a way to falsify it, some kind of test that the hypothesis must pass, and that's exactly my point: there isn't a way to falsify ID, so it can't be accepted at all.

You are basicly making the claim, "If you can't think of a way to disprove a theory or hypothesis then it must not be true anyway...."

No, I'm saying that if a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not scientific.

[Questioner]

I would like you guys to stop a second and please read again the first post.

I'm very dissatisfied with the behavior of, well, pretty much everyone. In this post we are working under the assumption that evolution is false; you don't need to argue that it is. If you want to talk about evolution, you can do that somewhere else, there are already tons of threads where you can do that and there's no reason to pollute mine.

I was quite surprised and very pleased, in the beginning, that everyone was talking about ID leaving evolution out of the picture. I was expecting people to go off-topic almost immediately, but it didn't happen and that went to everyone's merit. However, after a few days away fromt he computer, I come back here and find the whole thread has been almost destroyed. This behavior is not polite, doesn't take in account my wishes, goes beyond the scope of the discussion and makes it worthless.

It was my intention to set up a place where ID proponents could prove that ID is a scientific theory or, at the very least, a scientific hypothesis. To do that, ID proponents must show a way to falsify ID; this is not something one can argue, because the definition of "scientific theory" includes falsifiability.

After 10 pages, nobody has been able to explain in any way how ID could be falsified. This is conclusive evidence that when someone on this forum says "ID is a scientific theory" he doesn't know what he's talking about and should simply shut up. It is patently obvious, at this point, that ID exists only to debunk evolution and has no value whatsoever as a theory. As this thread has proved, ID proponents are completely incapable of talking about ID without attacking evolution.

Once again, I am very dissatisfied with the behavior of everyone here and their apparent inability to stick to the topic. As adults, we should avoid stupid quarrels and fistfights and discuss the topic peacefully and politely but most forum members have shown that such a behavior is beyond them. In this thread we have also posts that reflect very badly on this forum's reputation:

- People laughing at other people and making fun of other people's arguments without presenting their own arguments

- People changing the topic

- People misrepresenting other people's positions and twisting their words

I believe that if anyone knew of a way to falsify ID, he would have explained it long ago. The members of this forum do not have the answer to the question I asked, therefore I am now leaving this thread. This doesn't mean I want to have the last word: if you have anything to tell or ask me, you're welcome to do so and I will still answer to the best of my abilities. But I simply don't expect anyone to say anything valuable anymore, because it's obvious nobody has anything valuable to say.