Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Roustabout]

So your answer is no, without a competing natural theory, ID is not falsifiable?

Your going to have to explain what mathematically refuted means. Seriously man, the math is correct or it isn't. The assumptions going into the calculations is one thing, but the math is either right or it isn't.

Straight up, show the universe isn't expanding and Big Bang is falsified. Show genes advantageous to reproducibility aren't passed to offspring and evolution is falsified. These are very specific things that are observable and would falsify these theories.

If the only thing ID has to stand on is "evolution seemingly can't explain this" then it doesn't belong in a science course, at least not along side evolution. Pick me out one tenet of ID that is falsifiable on its own. You can't, and I'm going to continue to watch you and roust tap dance around this with chargers of fallacies, wording, and other philosophical nonsense.

Tap dance? No. This is not a gaps argument. ID is an argument based on what we know. Designed things have a designer. We've provided the best answers to this point, and you aren't satisfied.

Again, this gets back to an issue of what is ID arguing for? Show that functional systems do not exhibit design, and ID in that case is falsifiable. Considering that ID also holds that reproducibility is passed on would indicate that perhaps the terminology is being equivocated to suit the objection. In other words, what is being falsified?

So, let's say you are walking down the sidewalk when you see some leaves lying on the ground. You notice that the leaves are lying in a way that they spell out the letter "A". Are you suggesting that we should ignore what is apparent? Should we be forced to ignore that these leaves present the appearance that they have been intelligently arranged? And that this is an improper starting point for a hypothesis?

 

[Orange_Crush]

What an incredible cop out. Flaws in design can be explained because we don't understand the intent? And this is supposed to be serious science?

Let me continue to show what I meant. I guess I'll have to (for some reason) explicitly state that I am not an ID scientist, so this should not be considered an official part of intelligent design theory. I guess rjd thought he was conversing with Michael Behe or something...


Again... This is my philosophical response to show how illogical the poster was in his critiques, and to show examples of my claims above.


We are poorly designed against predators. OK. What if we were designed for an environment with no predators?

We need clean drinking water. What if we were designed to drink clean water?

Opposable thumbs, not much help in extreme heat or cold. What of we were designed for a sub-tropical garden?

Our eyes, nose and hearing are weak. (relative judgment by the way). What if we were designed with no predators, and we weren't designed to hunt?

Lot's inferences in these judgments.

Edit: I guess I could add that there is the inference that we are in the state that we were originally designed in-- as opposed to a slow genetic drift from our original state.

In essence that would equate to saying that a rusty Ferrari wasn't designed because it eventually rusted.

 

[Roustabout]

If ID was scientific in any way whatsoever the scientific community wouldn't have a problem with it being taught in schools. It's just the paranoid stricken crazies who think they have this terrible anti-god agenda and their life purpose is to rid all youth of any faith, probably because Satan or something. Lol.

Sure, the history of human behavior really backs you up here. :good!:

 

[rjd970]

"It wasn't designed because I don't like the design..." is science? Since the ID does not seek to say who or what the designer is, I'm not sure how you could consider my response an "ID scientific" response. It was my personal response showing how illogical the poster was being.

"Poor" design proved no design? Is that logical?


How can you call something a flaw when you don't know the intent? You are blind to your own inferences.

No, if the answer to the question of flawed design is we don't know the intent, while in the same breath explicitly suggesting intent by attributing the beauty and irreducible complexity of design of the eye or the flagellum as only being the product of a designers, or how the ban banana is perfectly designed for primates (Kirk Cameron popularized that doozie) is incredibly disengenous, to say the least. And not the least bit scientific.

If you really think about it, you can figure out why ID isn't falsifiable on its own and evolution is. It's a very simple idea that you seem to be lost on.

 

[MercyPercy]

Sure, the history of human behavior really backs you up here. :good!:

So you believe there is a conspiracy, a secret agenda against god perpetuated by the most well respected members of the scientific community.

Fantastic.

 

[Septic]

Tap dance? No. This is not a gaps argument. ID is an argument based on what we know. Designed things have a designer. We've provided the best answers to this point, and you aren't satisfied.

I like how you've disengaged creationism mode and gone full throttle on ID. I'm guessing this isn't your first rodeo, you've skillfully maneuvered your argument from the biblical version to one that you believe more logically defensible.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, if the answer to the question of flawed design is we don't know the intent, while in the same breath explicitly suggesting intent by attributing the beauty and irreducible complexity of design of the eye or the flagellum as only being the product of a designers, or how the ban banana is perfectly designed for primates (Kirk Cameron popularized that doozie) is incredibly disengenous, to say the least. And not the least bit scientific.

If you really think about it, you can figure out why ID isn't falsifiable on its own and evolution is. It's a very simple idea that you seem to be lost on.

Kirk Cameron is an ID scientist? Wow...

I read Behe's book, as well as Dembski's. Neither one of them relied on such subjective criteria. Behe went into the complexities of the cell, as well as complex biological systems. Dembski used mathematical formulas.

But it's all a red herring to the greater point. Your perception of the design does not speak to whether it was designed or not. It was an illogical statement of preference.

(Edit: ID is not proposing a divine creator God, so they don't speak to the quality of the design. Just that it is noticeably designed.)

 

[VOLatile]

I used small words so even LG could understand.

Is there something else that confuses you?

Wrong. LG would have no idea what harbinger means.

 

[VOLatile]

Kirk Cameron is an ID scientist? Wow...

I read Behe's book, as well as Dembski's. Neither one of them relied on such subjective criteria. Behe went into the complexities of the cell, as well as complex biological systems. Dembski used mathematical formulas.

But it's all a red herring to the greater point. Your perception of the design does not speak to whether it was designed or not. It was an illogical statement of preference.

(Edit: ID is not proposing a divine creator God, so they don't speak to the quality of the design. Just that it is noticeably designed.)

ID scientist? Does not compute.

 

[rjd970]

Darwin didn't say from the start "life evolves" and then formulate his theory from that. He made a series of falsifiable observations and formulated a theory based on those observations.

ID proponents are stating up front that biological systems are irreducibly complex, so there must be a designer. We know there must be a designer because biological systems are irreducibly complex.

Where am I wrong? And do you not see the difference?

 

[Roustabout]

I’ll agree Dawkins comes off as an ass, I don’t know and don’t care to look up Provine. What’s your point? They’re not trying to get atheism into the school curriculum. DI is still a fraud.

They are claiming that Darwinism teaches those very things.

Don't really care, but sure let’s hear your great Lucy conspiracy theory.

The Lucy find has been lauded in museums and texts as evidence of Darwinian evolution. Artistic renderings and sculptures have been used as evidence. In this case we have evidence and then someone's Darwinist's conclusions being artisically represented and presented as evidence. Where I come from, this is called manipulation. Here is one that was in the St. Louis Zoo.

When I was at UT, there was one in the McClung museum that I would walk by on my way to anthropology class. Hmmm, do you think they are trying to 'influence' anyone's philosophy?

This is Lucy.

This thread is about evolution, by all means, spit it out.

Here is what the Smithsonian spit out.

The black pieces are artistic representation. Sure, no one is imposing their Darwinist presuppositions onto the evidence are they.

 

[rjd970]

Kirk Cameron is an ID scientist? Wow...

I read Behe's book, as well as Dembski's. Neither one of them relied on such subjective criteria. Behe went into the complexities of the cell, as well as complex biological systems. Dembski used mathematical formulas.

But it's all a red herring to the greater point. Your perception of the design does not speak to whether it was designed or not. It was an illogical statement of preference.

(Edit: ID is not proposing a divine creator God, so they don't speak to the quality of the design. Just that it is noticeably designed.)

Dude, for real. I never called Kirk Cameron a scientist, or that he even came up with it. I said he popularized it.

The greater point of the perception of the design being flawed is if you could point to one falsifiable observation to refute it you would. You can't. You just fall back on "we don't know intent". Oh? Really? Wow. That is some incredible falsifiable evidence for the rest of us to sink our teeth into. Really, fascinating stuff from the ID people.

 

[MercyPercy]

They often don't have the entire skeletons of dinosaurs yet one familiar with phisiology can extrapolate based on the other bones.

You're reaching.

 

[Septic]

Dude, for real. I never called Kirk Cameron a scientist, or that he even came up with it. I said he popularized it.

The greater point of the perception of the design being flawed is you could point to one falsifiable observation to refute it if you could. You can't. You just fall back on "we don't know intent". Oh? Really? Wow. That is some incredible falsifiable evidence for the rest of us to sink our teeth into. Really, fascinating stuff from the ID people.

Kirk Cameron is an ID scientist and I'll fight anyone who says different. No seriously, just ask him or his Nobel Prize winning boyfriend Ray Comfort. They probably got their ID Scientist certificate at the same "University" that Hovind banged one out on.

 

[VOLatile]

Kirk Cameron is an ID scientist and I'll fight anyone who says different. No seriously, just ask him or his Nobel Prize winning boyfriend Ray Comfort. They probably got their ID Scientist certificate at the same "University" that Hovind banged one out on.

I had to Google to make sure that Comfort didn't win a Nobel Prize. Thanks, Obama. /s

 

[VOLatile]

Dude, for real. I never called Kirk Cameron a scientist, or that he even came up with it. I said he popularized it.

The greater point of the perception of the design being flawed is if you could point to one falsifiable observation to refute it you would. You can't. You just fall back on "we don't know intent". Oh? Really? Wow. That is some incredible falsifiable evidence for the rest of us to sink our teeth into. Really, fascinating stuff from the ID people.

But why hasn't bacteria evolved in my peanut butter yet?!?!

 

[Orange_Crush]

Dude, for real. I never called Kirk Cameron a scientist, or that he even came up with it. I said he popularized it.

The greater point of the perception of the design being flawed is if you could point to one falsifiable observation to refute it you would. You can't. You just fall back on "we don't know intent". Oh? Really? Wow. That is some incredible falsifiable evidence for the rest of us to sink our teeth into. Really, fascinating stuff from the ID people.

What the heck are you even talking about? Let's get a few things straight, since you seem to be arguing from ignorance and are having trouble following the conversation...


ID theory does not speak to the veracity of the design, except to say that poor design does not negate design-- any more than the Ford Pinto negated its design. ID theory does not seek to say who or what the designer was, thus doesn't propose a perfect designer. The fact that you equate ID theory to Norm Geisler, Kirk Cameron and the rest of the YE Creationists... All that tells me is that you don't even know ID theory.

I answered the critique of design from my theological and philosophical position. Believing that I know who the designer was, and believing that I have His revelation to us, I can speak to His motives and intents where:

1. ID theory does not, and can't
2. The unbeliever making the critique can't.

Edit for addition: From a theological and philosophical perspective, I don't need to refer to falsifiable evidence to refute the philosophically void critique. I just need to refer to:

Philosophy to show that it is vacuous.

My theology to show that what we see in in accord to what my theology would predict. My theology states that humanity was created for a perfect world, and both the world and our form has devolved since the creation.

 

[Septic]

I had to Google to make sure that Comfort didn't win a Nobel Prize. Thanks, Obama. /s

Lulz.

 

[Roustabout]

ID theory does not speak to the veracity of the design, except to say that poor design does not negate design-- any more than the Ford Pinto negated its design. ID theory does not seek to say who or what the designer was, thus doesn't propose a perfect designer. The fact that you equate ID theory to Norm Geisler, Kirk Cameron and the rest of the YE Creationists... All that tells me is that you don't even know ID theory.

Just to clarify, Geisler is not YEC, and I think he'd cringe a little to be lumped in with those guys.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

And still nothing.

I would start off by saying this is another theory of how everything came to be as we know it. I would say that God created the universe, space, time and all life. I would teach that all of the complex life on earth did not evolve from single celled organisms residing deep in the ocean. I would also teach that there are plenty of things evolution cannot explain about the complexity of life. I would also teach all of the errors and falsities that have been brought up by scientists who disagree with evolution. I would also encourage the students to examine both theories and let them choose which one they believe in.

These are just a few things that I would teach.

 

[Septic]

I would start off by saying this is another theory of how everything came to be as we know it. I would say that God created the universe, space, time and all life. I would teach that all of the complex life on earth did not evolve from single celled organisms residing deep in the ocean. I would also teach that there are plenty of things evolution cannot explain about the complexity of life. I would also teach all of the errors and falsities that have been brought up by scientists who disagree with evolution. I would also encourage the students to examine both theories and let them choose which one they believe in.

These are just a few things that I would teach.

Where would you fit Velociraptors into that lesson plan?

 

[VOLatile]

Where would you fit Velociraptors into that lesson plan?

Didn't exist. God placed fossils in the mantle to test our faith.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just to clarify, Geisler is not YEC, and I think he'd cringe a little to be lumped in with those guys.

I thought I had heard that he had used the banana illustration. My bad.

Edit: On second thought, I had him confused with someone else. I'm a big fan of Geisler's body of work.

 

[VOLatile]

I would start off by saying this is another theory of how everything came to be as we know it. I would say that God created the universe, space, time and all life. I would teach that all of the complex life on earth did not evolve from single celled organisms residing deep in the ocean. I would also teach that there are plenty of things evolution cannot explain about the complexity of life. I would also teach all of the errors and falsities that have been brought up by scientists who disagree with evolution. I would also encourage the students to examine both theories and let them choose which one they believe in.

These are just a few things that I would teach.

Did you know that theory of evolution doesn't explain where life came from? That abiogenesis is just one theory of many that attempts to explain how life began?

As far as the bolded sentence goes, why teach something in which has very little scientific support behind it? I assume as a major basis of your teachings...

 

[VOLatile]

I thought I had heard that he had used the banana illustration. My bad.

Edit: On second thought, I had him confused with someone else. I'm a big fan of Geisler's body of work.

Pretty sure Ray Comfort uses the banana BS.

PS - humans eat bananas wrong.