• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs Non-intelligent/materialistic evolution

I'm still stuck on someone proving something only if the listening party will agree to it already, in whole or in part.

?

That's like walking into a courtroom and telling everyone you'll prove you're innocent if they agree to trust you first.

Just state the case, already. ID ID ID
 
bwinwright said:
:cool:I don't know how to prove, scientifically, that intelligence was responsible for natural selection, evolution, etc. However, philosophy is always ahead of science.
Click to expand...
Actually no. Philosophy without proper backing is just wild guess work.
 
bwinwright said:
:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.
Click to expand...

Good point, I now posit the philosophical theory of "Intelligent Weight". In which God puts invisible and extremely heavy backpacks of his love on us, which we also can't feel, and this is true because I can't feel gravity acting on me. And if just makes sense, I mean how else do you explain flying birds, planes, and ships that just won't sink. Or why the moon, the Sun, and all the stars and planets don't crash into us if the Earth is giving off some invisible energy! Witchcraft I say! Atheists can't keep their fairy tales straight!Science can't explain anything! Did you know atheists don't believe in God? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You know, it's kind of like how in order to truly understand God's love, you already have to be willing to drop your drawers, bend over, and close your eyes. Whatever you feel, have faith, it's God. No peeking now.

Anyway--

The BWINWRIGHT UNANSWERED QUESTION (DODGE) LIST:
1) Justify and explain why order requires intelligence? Provide a mathematical proof or evidence to support his assertion.
2) Describe and explain the mechanism for how "god" directs ID or evidence for ID.
3) How exactly is natural selection intelligently guided? If it's THE controversial point, it's something we should know.
4) Name at least one observed instance of the design process in action.
5) Propose a way in which intelligent design can be experimentally tested.

To everyone else, please feel free to add to this list.
 
Tricky said:
There are lots of examples in the animal kingdom of less-than-moral behavior. Several times I've witnessed Mallard drakes gang-raping a female duck. As I understand, sometimes they wind up killing the female.

Oh, yeah, and those noble Lions? The leader of the pride will often kill any offspring that are not his own.

Boy, that intelligent designer was sure one mean bastard.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Schla Fly, which brainwashes the offspring of others and kills any others who do not act in the same way as it.
 
Brian-M said:
Intelligent direction is not required to produce order. This is not just an opinion, but a firmly established scientific fact, backed up by thousands of examples. If your 'proof' of intelligent design is based on the claim that order requires intelligent direction, then it has already been thoroughly disproven an there is nothing more to discuss.
Click to expand...


It's one of those strange non-arguments. I'm not sure if it passes the Turing Test. I gave a well known example of an ordered structure being produced by natural means. I was actually complimented, and my observation was used as the springboard for another observation. But the actual point wasn't addressed in any way.
 
I think bwinwright has acknowledged a good ass-whupping and has shyed out of this discussion. Oh well.
 
KingMerv00 said:
6) Please give an example of how ID is falsifiable.
Click to expand...

7) Show us how I.D. can be applied to real scientific problems, to help us understand or resolve them, in more precise detail; such as treating diseases, saving wild animals, or increasing farming yeilds.

These pages will show you how Evolution is applied to those things:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/conservation_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_01
 
Wowbagger said:
7) Show us how I.D. can be applied to real scientific problems, to help us understand or resolve them, in more precise detail; such as treating diseases, saving wild animals, or increasing farming yeilds.
Click to expand...
8) When two advocates of Intelligent Design disagree on a point, e.g. who the designer is, how do they settle that disagreement?
 
Crundy said:
I think bwinwright has acknowledged a good ass-whupping and has shyed out of this discussion. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I notice that creationists have two simultaneous points of view. On the one hand, they take it for granted that all the evidence will continue to support evolution indefinitely, and that the evidence that might disprove evolution entirely - a beast descended from a combination of species, say, or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur - will never be found.
 
westprog said:
I notice that creationists have two simultaneous points of view. On the one hand, they take it for granted that all the evidence will continue to support evolution indefinitely, and that the evidence that might disprove evolution entirely - a beast descended from a combination of species, say, or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur - will never be found.
Click to expand...

I would say that it's more of a situation that... no matter how much evidence is provided to support evolution, they can rest on the idea that no fossil will ever be found of an "intermediate" species.

Of course, even if such a fossil was discovered, the flawed system of "belief" will always allow for a new excuse. The advantages of "common sense" and "belief" include the ability to always fabricate a new story to deny the evidence. This ability is quite convenient for upholding a flawed belief system.
 
A fossilized man -in- a fossilized dinosaur would be Nirvana for the C guys.
Last meal before drowning in the Flood... :)
For "intermediate species", they always point to a "gap" on both sides of the new one.
 
bwinwright said:
:)I like the way you think. I can only prove ID using common sense or logic, providing you will first agree that orderliness requires intelligent direction. If you don't believe that order requires intelligent direction, you and I will always disagree about this particular matter.
Click to expand...
And I guess you are still going to avoid explaining why you think intelligent direction does not require orderliness.
 
I think that the only intelligent direction for bwinwright is to go back and start again in an orderly manner
 
Personal Grudge said:
I would say that it's more of a situation that... no matter how much evidence is provided to support evolution, they can rest on the idea that no fossil will ever be found of an "intermediate" species.
Click to expand...

A creationist - someone who when introduced to your grandfather, refuses to believe it unless your father is there too.

Of course, even if such a fossil was discovered, the flawed system of "belief" will always allow for a new excuse. The advantages of "common sense" and "belief" include the ability to always fabricate a new story to deny the evidence. This ability is quite convenient for upholding a flawed belief system.
Click to expand...

There are many flawed arguments used by creationists, but they always revert to nit-picking the theory of evolution. They never discuss their own "theories" and the evidence supporting them. It's always the "flaws" in evolution. Point out a logical fallacy and they revert to "What about the laws of thermodynamics?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom