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.

The seeds have been planted and that is the important thing. Let me ask you this, how would you prove them wrong about Christianity? I've been interacting with non believers long enough to know they don't listen. Well, the majority anyway and have yet seen one come to Jesus. It isn't through proof which we all know is right before their eyes and they choose to deny it.

Can you rephrase this I'm not understanding?

It's their choice, their salvation. There comes a point of impass for the most part and then it's just mincing words.

So, how would you proove them wrong? Curious to your insight.

Well I'd get a bunch of christians together to pray for a healing. The healing of an amputee right in front of everybody.

You have to admit that there are a lot of hucksters and charlatans out there. And the immunity that people develop to protect themselves from these opportunists is going to apply directly to your religion. So if you're going to bring in a thinker you're going to have to show them something. Or if you lived a completely blissful and content life and they didn't then you could probably get them to convert. Otherwise I would saythat your chances are slim.

I am sorry but this makes no sense to me. I'm not following you at all.

You asked to rephrase what?

[SaturnV]

SV

Since this thread seems to have gone somewhat off topic, I'll add that ID's status as a scientific theory was on trial, and it seems to have lost.

Does

[Questioner]

Sorry I promised I would have answered yesterday but something came up, I'll be back either tomorrow or Monday.

[Questioner]

--double post--

Edited January 27, 2007 by Questioner

[Admiral-Bell]

So what about you Admiral

[Jesus Admirer]

I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak about design science as well as Creation Scientists might. But I can give a few simple observations which anyone should be able to reason.

1. Design one: Male and Female: Question: How much faith would it take to believe that a puddle of primordial soup eventually grew into living organisms, which adventually evolved into male and female human beings?(The myth & faith of evolutionists) To believe that a puddle of primordial soup would become living cells and organisms would require a leap of faith in the first place, but then for these simple organisms to evolve into complex cells and organisms would require another giant leap of faith, but then to believe these complex organisms divided themselves into male & female organisms, which is required to produce new life would require gigantic leaps of faith, which is what evolution really is based on by many atheistic Scientists who don

Edited February 13, 2007 by Jesus Admirer

[Questioner]

So, what part of ID is science rather then philosophy and, specifically, what part of it is falsifiable?

Help me out here Questioner - Darwinists boast that Darwin

Edited January 28, 2007 by Questioner

[Questioner]

OK, I found it, finally.

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]

What did I ask for? A way to falsify ID. What did you give me? A way to test ID. Not only, you pointed to one of the most evident failures of ID supporters. I wouldn't expect anyone, today, to point to something like Dembsky's filter. It's embarassing. That wikipedia page already links to the most relevant sources, so there is no reason for me to explain why Dembsky's filter is nonsense.

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.

No, it can't be supported by it. Dembsky's filter is 100% nonsense and totally useless. There won't me any more "flaws on both sides of this issue" because the issue is already closed.

[sweetycakes]

This is also a good video, if you can be bothered to watch it.

It is well worth watching in my opinion:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...mp;hl=undefined

[SaturnV]

SV

Galileo wasn't the best example to use...

But the point remains - losing a trial does not a theory disprove.

However, the point of this thread was to show that ID is a scientific theory. It has been established that it is not, specifically because it cannot be disproven. If you choose to believe in an intelligent creator, go ahead. Just don't call it a "theory" and try to label it as science, which it is not.

Well SV, maybe we have some common ground. As I have mentioned earlier I am opposed to the passing off of philosophy as science just as I am opposed to politicizing science