The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

Atlantis001> I’m still to figure that out. Why some people actually believe in this.
However… You can say, that in a way religion is a “culturally accepted delusion”. If I really believe and claim that I am Marie Antoniette I’ll be locked up at a mental institute. It’s not accepted to walk around claiming to be a historical figure.
However millions or even billions of people around the world all believe in something which cannot be proven: A god, or several deities.
If I started talking to an imaginary friend, Lilly, I’d be locked up. But people talking to God or Jesus or Mary (whose existence is not proven) are not locked up.

Our cultures accept this kind of delusion. I suppose that’s why we have conspiracy theorists like Deano. He cannot prove his claims of aliens and NWO, but he and many others, believe it.
So I guess that if enough people share the same delusion (in this case ID), it’s accepted that they do it?

its simply not enough to say that because something in nature is complex that it must have been designed...

yes there are complex mathematical elements that occur in the simplest of items...take this variety of cauliflower...

fractals and the fibonacci sequence...but just because people discovered these things and humans are supposed to be intelligent doesnt actually mean that it was intelligence that brought these things about

life has had billions of years to evolve the most efficient ways of perpetuating...in fact that is the whole driving force of evolution...a species that has an efficiency over its predecessor will flourish while its predeccessor will die out

try something simple...standing under a tree in the middle of the summer and looking uppp...very little direct sunlight gets through because the leaves has evolved to spread out to achieve maximum photosynthesis...its not a design...it just happens that way because its efficient

http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

Fractals are one thing, but that can't be cauliflower! It's green, and looks intelligently designed!

Originally posted by The Omega
Intelligent design is NOT a scentific theory.
It is a religious hypothesis.

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html

How is it a religious hypothesis, what religion does it conform to?

Edit: The problem with ID is identifying the designer.

Originally posted by jaden101

life has had billions of years to evolve the most efficient ways of perpetuating...in fact that is the whole driving force of evolution...a species that has an efficiency over its predecessor will flourish while its predeccessor will die out

How can something random lead to efficiency, this is my problem with evolution.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How is it a religious hypothesis, what religion does it conform to?

Edit: The problem with ID is identifying the designer.

How can something random lead to efficiency, this is my problem with evolution.

the mutations themselves maybe random...but the characteristics that they lead to have an effect on whether a single animal can survive to pass on its mutation

every living thing needs energy to survive in whatever form it derives that energy...directly from the sun or by eating other living things or however it gets it

the species that utilises its energy source most efficiently has a far better chance at survival...even within a species when a mutation occurs which gives an animal/plant an advantage over others of its own species then it has a better chance of survival and passing on its own characteristic that made it more successful...hence driving evolution

many mutations occur, obviously, that dont give favourable results and these organisms die young and in many cases (especially in mutations in humans) arent even born at all

this can give the impression that because only improved characteristic carry on and less favourable ones die off, that it is somehow done so through a form of intelligent choice...not so...its merely NATURAL SELECTION

Originally posted by jaden101
the mutations themselves maybe random...but the characteristics that they lead to have an effect on whether a single animal can survive to pass on its mutation

It still hasn't been proven mutations create new characteristics I don't have to remind you of that, and let's say they did how can they handle survival traits when one random mistake means extiction.Ironically a mutation generally is a mistake, yet accidently created complex systems?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
It still hasn't been proven mutations create new characteristics I don't have to remind you of that, and let's say they did how can they handle survival traits when one random mistake means extiction.Ironically a mutation generally is a mistake, yet accidently created complex systems?

you're missing the point entirely

one unfavourable change in a single animal means that single animal dies off because it has a less chance of passing on its DNA...

one favourable change in a single animal allows it to pass on its DNA (and the subsequent favourable change)

look at many of the species on the planet that have social systems that allow only the alpha male to mate with the females...if that alpha male has a genetic change that gives him an advantage over the other males then its his characteristics that are passed on

proof of mutation causing the passing on of traits is well documented and in the case of bacterial species, in very short time scales

take MRSA...its merely a mutated version of staphylococcus aureus but because a mutation occurred that gave it resistance then all those non resistant bacteria die and the resitant strain in allowed to flourish because of lack of competition

that about as much of an influence of intelligence has had on a species...namely human intelligence showing its utter lack of said intelligence in helping artificially select super bugs

The problem with ID is identifying the designer.

you said that earlier on...and you're completely wrong

how about starting with proving that there even is a designer before trying to identify who that designer is

any evidence at all for a designer other that the completely ridiculous

"its complex therefor it must have been designed" ..or the even better argument of "mathamatics says there is only a small chance"

They found the missing link anyway... the whole in the proof has been filled in... This is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist... we are living in it.

Originally posted by jaden101

take MRSA...its merely a mutated version of staphylococcus aureus but because a mutation occurred that gave it resistance then all those non resistant bacteria die and the resitant strain in allowed to flourish because of lack of competition

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Right, but these bacteria never become an entirely different species,Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by micro organisms to fight other micro organisms. Yes there are bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics but it doesn't prove evolution; The mechanism works like this, A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.There exist two reasons for this and none of them constitute evolution.

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

you seem to think that evolution needs to happen within an entire species within a generation...and with that kind of thinking its no wonder you dont think that evolution happens but the fact remains that it does and there is a mountain of evidence to support it

now instead of trying to make spurious points against evolution...i suggest you actually post some evidence FOR intelligent design

the fact is that you cant...because there is none, which makes the fact that you believe in it despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence all the more bizarre

as for your issue about resistance genes being passed on...those resitance factors come about through mutation be it from a radiation source, a chemical mutagen or whatever...

thats the way it works

what doesn't happen is that some almighty being waves his big ol' hand and bellows "I MAKE THIS BACTERIA RESISTANT TO ANTIBIOTICS THROUGH MY OWN DESIGN"

do you see how utterly ridiculous that concept is?

Originally posted by jaden101
you seem to think that evolution needs to happen within an entire species within a generation...and with that kind of thinking its no wonder you dont think that evolution happens but the fact remains that it does and there is a mountain of evidence to support it

No, my problem is I don't get how people accept speculation as solid evidence, saying "We cannot witness it because it takes millions of years" Doesn't prove it happens, speculation is not evidence.

Originally posted by jaden101

as for your issue about resistance genes being passed on...those resitance factors come about through mutation be it from a radiation source, a chemical mutagen or whatever...

thats the way it works

A mutation that removes a trait, not add one like you evolutionist claim.

Originally posted by jaden101

what doesn't happen is that some almighty being waves his big ol' hand and bellows "I MAKE THIS BACTERIA RESISTANT TO ANTIBIOTICS THROUGH MY OWN DESIGN"

do you see how utterly ridiculous that concept is?

Right, "An almighty being waves his hand" why do evolutionist believe that every concept of "GOD" is the same, it makes you sound ignorant when you post something like that.

Originally posted by jaden101

the fact is that you cant...because there is none, which makes the fact that you believe in it despite the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence all the more bizarre

ID argues, complexity and purpose prove well ID, It's a simple logic
take the circulatory system it's purpose is to supply blood to various organs in the body, that's it's purpose. If something is created with a purpose then it has one, according to evolution the first cell (despite being extremely complex)was created by accident and these accidents stayed consistent with random mutations which created more complex organisms, now how can accident's with no purpose create systems with definite purpose that depend on other systems. that's like a tornado appearing in a junk yard and creating a bus with the purpose of transportation. does that make sense?

EDIT: Futhermore these systems change little by little and become more efficient, yet have no purpose in the first place.

No, my problem is I don't get how people accept speculation as solid evidence, saying "We cannot witness it because it takes millions of years" Doesn't prove it happens, speculation is not evidence.

there is documented evidence of short term evolution in larger species...ive given several examples...i suggest you take some time to actually look up the facts before making incorrect claims...simply because you're ignorant of these facts doesn't mean they aren't true

A mutation that removes a trait, not add one like you evolutionist claim.

so its adding the trait of antibiotic resistance...the resistant strain survives because it has changed (evolved) through a mutation

so how you see the addition of a resistance factor to be the removal of a trait i just dont know

Right, "An almighty being waves his hand" why do evolutionist believe that every concept of "GOD" is the same, it makes you sound ignorant when you post something like that.

why?...given that there is absolutely no evidence for the existance of a god never mind what that god might look like then my guess is as good as anyone elses...so if you're accusing me of being ignorant of what God looks like if he exists then i guess i and so are you along with everyone else on the planet

ID argues, complexity and purpose prove well ID, It's a simple logic

but its a flawed argument...complexity doesn't prove anything...particularly in nature...look at the examples i gave only 2 days ago...simply because something has an apparently complex mathamatical pattern and just because humans had the intelligence to notice and give a name to these patterns, doesn't actually prove anything

take the circulatory system it's purpose is to supply blood to various organs in the body, that's it's purpose. If something is created with a purpose then it has one, according to evolution the first cell (despite being extremely complex)was created by accident and these accidents stayed consistent with random mutations which created more complex organisms, now how can accident's with no purpose create systems with definite purpose that depend on other systems. that's like a tornado appearing in a junk yard and creating a bus with the purpose of transportation. does that make sense?

now you're showing complete ignorance of the chemistry involved in the creation of proto-cells

and as i've already stated...while mutations and there results are random (seeing as no-one can forsee how a mutagen will affect a segment of DNA) the forces on the organisms that dictate whether it's mutation is helpful or not aren't random...

it's quite simple and i've stated it several times...if the change is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of survival and passing on the change...and life has had billions of years and many different enviroments which act on life forms to dictate which changes are better suited to those enviroments

and i'll ask once again...show me some EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN

any piece of evidence will do

show me any evidence of say a single insect being designed by a higher intelligence...preferably on earth and not on starship troopers

Originally posted by jaden101
there is documented evidence of short term evolution in larger species...ive given several examples...i suggest you take some time to actually look up the facts before making incorrect claims...simply because you're ignorant of these facts doesn't mean they aren't true

Then post them please.

Originally posted by jaden101

so its adding the trait of antibiotic resistance...the resistant strain survives because it has changed (evolved) through a mutation

so how you see the addition of a resistance factor to be the removal of a trait i just dont know

Because the trait was always there, how else would some bacteria survive. The trait was not added via mutation it is a pre existing trait.

Originally posted by jaden101
a trait i just dont know

why?...given that there is absolutely no evidence for the existance of a god never mind what that god might look like then my guess is as good as anyone elses...so if you're accusing me of being ignorant of what God looks like if he exists then i guess i and so are you along with everyone else on the planet

Again, you sound ignorant read the science and god thread, the term god can be used to describe a concept,the universe or even a dimension.

Originally posted by jaden101

but its a flawed argument...complexity doesn't prove anything...particularly in nature...look at the examples i gave only 2 days ago...simply because something has an apparently complex mathamatical pattern and just because humans had the intelligence to notice and give a name to these patterns, doesn't actually prove anything

Originally posted by jaden101

now you're showing complete ignorance of the chemistry involved in the creation of proto-cells

and as i've already stated...while mutations and there results are random (seeing as no-one can forsee how a mutagen will affect a segment of DNA) the forces on the organisms that dictate whether it's mutation is helpful or not aren't random...

it's quite simple and i've stated it several times...if the change is beneficial then the organism has a better chance of survival and passing on the change...and life has had billions of years and many different enviroments which act on life forms to dictate which changes are better suited to those enviroments

Yet despite all that,these random mutations that create species cannot be duplicated in a lab, despite the fact artificial selection is better at bringing out variety amongst a species than natural selection and the mutation rate can be increased. No mutation has been documented to create new traits. Let's not forget these mutations are random yet bring out more efficient forms with no purpose yet increase the organisms chances of survival for the purpose of living, how does that make sense.

Ignorant? What's that, like uneducated?

Observed instances of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ evidences for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

So there is alle the evidence you need in the world in support of evolution.
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by The Omega
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.

ummmm? Because...I said so? And I heard it from my mom, and she's always been right.

Originally posted by The Omega
Observed instances of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

29+ evidences for macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Some Questionable Creationist Credentials
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

So there is alle the evidence you need in the world in support of evolution.
NOW - let's see some evidence to support an intelligent designer.

I've been to that sight before, but thanks anyways.

EDIT: Doesn't the thread pretty much explain.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
ummmm? Because...I said so? And I heard it from my mom, and she's always been right.

I bow before your superior wisdom. There is NO arguing such a point...
🙂

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I've been to that sight before, but thanks anyways.

EDIT: Doesn't the thread pretty much explain.

That is not proof of Intelligent Design that statement there...