Intelligent Design

Started by leonheartmm32 pages

u just contradicted yourself. u say there are PROCESSES for choosing bad mutations over good ones, while evolution is just a name given scientifically to what is a CHANCE process i think some fundamental form of intelligence in the organism's dna or elsewhere physically helps to take the chance process and SMARTEN IT UP so that by CHANCE it doesnt become survival of the weakest{which it can in today's non active information age} i know quite a lot about evolution thankyou. im just putting forward a theory. remeber science and logic tells u to THINK and CONSIDER everything as opposed to dismissing, as oppsed to following traditional science as a relegion. people sem to forget that.

first of:

Evolution: the sum of observed changes of species throught many generations.

Natural selection: the Theory proposed by Darwin, the mechanism for evolution.

YOu are just putting a god behind evolution. YOu havenent even PROPOSED another mechnism, let alone backed it up. Just saying there is somehting else because you have ahunch is not science at all.

You may know information about evolution, we havent been discussing it. You heve demonstrated that you know close to knighitn about Natural Selection (the process responsible for all that you are trying to say is magically taken care of my your unporposed mechanism).

If you knwo much about science, you'd be able to look at evidence and get facts BEFORE making up an opinon. Science is about rationalization and mechanisms of th natural world.

It is NOT scientific to go aorund randomly challenging everythign just because. Information first, then opinion. You have given me no reason to take your opinon into consideration.

You have given me no reason to take your opinon into consideration.

then dont 🙂 . i dont believe in god btw. and you are a very lonely spiteful man

You know nothing about me and your use of personal attacks are just a sign of how weak your argument is.

I don't care what your belief is. Your using religous arguments and your views make no sense.

u should chill out

Originally posted by Alliance

Evolution: the sum of observed changes of species throught many generations.

What species have we observed changed as a result of natural selection alone and random mutations?

Originally posted by Alliance

Natural selection: the Theory proposed by Darwin, the mechanism for evolution.

A random mechanism that doesn't make any predictions, instead changes the ratio in breeds.

Originally posted by Alliance

It is NOT scientific to go aorund randomly challenging everythign just because. Information first, then opinion. You have given me no reason to take your opinon into consideration.

Okay, now your talking crazy, skepticism has always been an admiral trait for scientist.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What on earth are you talking about? Again you're trying to redefine "functional genetic information". The various species of strawberry are the result of different polyploidy giving different phenotypic outcome.

And I said polypoids can result in speciation, but forgot to add it happens mostly in plants. If you say it results in new phenotypes, than show me a phenotype that is a result in increased function. and I'm not trying to redefine anyhting stop being paranoid.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What species have we observed changed as a result of natural selection alone and random mutations?

I cant think of one that we haven't, provided we studied them over multiple generations.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
A random mechanism that doesn't make any predictions, instead changes the ratio in breeds.

The mechanism is hardly random, natural selection is a broad overarching theory. It makes prediction based off of 1. The number of offspring a parent can produce. 2. The relative fitness of thier offspring.

There is nothing "random" about the mecahnism.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Okay, now your talking crazy, skepticism has always been an admiral trait for scientist.

Skepticism is a wonderful trait to have in science. However. IF YOU READ WHAT I WROTE, I condemned arbitrarily challenging every concept without a rational basis or experimental evidence. It has nothing to do with skepticism.

Beisdes skepticism is an admirable trait for anyone.

Originally posted by Alliance
I cant think of one that we haven't, provided we studied them over multiple generations.

Than name one.

Originally posted by Alliance

The mechanism is hardly random, natural selection is a broad overarching theory. It makes prediction based off of 1. The number of offspring a parent can produce. 2. The relative fitness of thier offspring.

There is nothing "random" about the mecahnism..

It is random, The traits it favors, theprocess, and the result is random. if it isn't tell me if desterfaction were to happen in the amozon, what predictions could you make?

Information thoery


Materialist philosophy lies at the basis of the theory of evolution. Materialism rests on the supposition that everything that exists is matter. According to this philosophy, matter has existed since eternity, will continue to exist forever, and there is nothing but matter. In order to provide support for their claim, materialists use a logic called "reductionism." This is the idea that things which are not observable can also be explained by material causes.

To make matters clearer, let us take the example of the human mind. It is evident that the mind cannot be touched or seen. Moreover, it has no center in the human brain. This situation unavoidably leads us to the conclusion that mind is a concept beyond matter. Therefore, the being which we refer to as "I," who thinks, loves, fears, worries, and feels pleasure or pain, is not a material being in the same way as a sofa, a table or a stone.

Materialists, however, claim that mind is "reducible to matter." According to the materialist claim, thinking, loving, worrying and all our mental activities are nothing but chemical reactions taking place between the atoms in the brain. Loving someone is a chemical reaction in some cells in our brain, and fear is another. The famous materialist philosopher Karl Vogt is notorious for his assertion that "the brain secretes thought just as the liver secretes bile."384 Bile, however, is matter, whereas there is no evidence that thought is.

Reductionism is a logical deduction. However, a logical deduction can be based on solid grounds or on shaky ones. For this reason, the question we need to ask is: What happens when reductionism is compared to scientific data?

Nineteenth-century materialist scientists and thinkers thought that the answer would be that science verifies reductionism. Twentieth-century science, however, has revealed a very different picture.

One of the most salient feature of this picture is "information," which is present in nature and can never be reduced to matter.

there is incredibly comprehensive information contained in the DNA of living things. Something as small as a hundred thousandth of a millimeter across contains a sort of "data bank" that specifies all the physical details of the body of a living thing. Moreover, the body also contains a system that reads this information, interprets it and carries out "production" in line with it. In all living cells, the information in the DNA is "read" by various enzymes, and proteins are produced. This system makes possible the production of millions of proteins every second, of just the required type for just the places where they are needed in our bodies. In this way, dead eye cells are replaced by living ones, and old blood cells by new ones.

At this point, let us consider the claim of materialism: Is it possible that the information in DNA could be reduced to matter, as materialists suggest? Or, in other words, can it be accepted that DNA is merely a collection of matter, and the information it contains came about as a result of the random interactions of such pieces of matter?

All the scientific research, experiments and observations carried out in the twentieth century show that the answer to this question is a definite "No." The director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt, has this to say on the issue:

A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.... There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter...385

It is impossible for the information inside DNA to have emerged by chance and natural processes.
Werner Gitt's words summarize the conclusions of "information theory," which has been developed in the last 50 years, and which is accepted as a part of thermodynamics. Information theory investigates the origin and nature of the information in the universe. The conclusion reached by information theoreticians as a result of long studies is that "Information is something different from matter. It can never be reduced to matter. The origin of information and physical matter must be investigated separately."

For instance, let us think of the source of a book. A book consists of paper, ink, and the information it contains. Paper and ink are material elements. Their source is again matter: Paper is made of cellulose, and ink of various chemicals. However, the information in the book is nonmaterial, and cannot have a material source. The source of the information in each book is the mind of the person who wrote it.

Moreover, this mind determines how the paper and ink will be used. A book initially forms in the mind of the writer. The writer builds a chain of logic in his mind, and orders his sentences. As a second step, he puts them into material form, which is to say that he translates the information in his mind into letters, using a pen, a typewriter or a computer. Later, these letters are printed in a publishing house, and take the shape of a book made up of paper and ink.

We can therefore state this general conclusion: If physical matter contains information, then that matter must have been designed by a mind that possessed the information in question. First there is the mind. That mind translates the information it possesses into matter, which constitutes the act of design.

When we apply this scientific definition of information to nature, a very important result ensues. This is because nature overflows with an immense body of information (as, for example, in the case of DNA), and since this information cannot be reduced to matter, it therefore comes from a source beyond matter.

Originally posted by Regret
It's always amusing when a proponent Intelligent Design jumps up and says, "Because it's there it must have been on purpose!!!"

I am a believer in God, but I don't believe in the supernatural. If God did it, he could, and probably did, do it through some form of science.

Science isn't an attack on religion, why do they have to attack science? Religions should embrace science.

The only main thing that religion and science contradict is the concept of Personal God.

Materialist philosophy lies at the basis of the theory of evolution. Materialism rests on the supposition that everything that exists is matter.

So what observable thing exists that *isn't* made of matter? The whole mind aspect in that article operates on extremely shoddy theory, especially when one considers that the mind/memory/mental processes have their grounding in the pysical/material brain.

What is up with ID? Is a 'scientific theory' as those people claim? Or is it a line of double talk and rhetorical questions against evolution in parts that haven't been confirmed yet.

Eg. Macro evolution, Dinosaur evolution, Whale evolution, Age of the Earth, (even though that has nothing to do with evolution, it just supports it) and many more.

If you can't explain something about evolution, work it out yourself, don't cry over the internet.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So what observable thing exists that *isn't* made of matter? The whole mind aspect in that article operates on extremely shoddy theory, especially when one considers that the mind/memory/mental processes have their grounding in the pysical/material brain.

Considering mater is 99.999% empty, You shouldn't be suprised. A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process.

Originally posted by lord xyz
What is up with ID? Is a 'scientific theory' as those people claim? Or is it a line of double talk and rhetorical questions against evolution in parts that haven't been confirmed yet.

Eg. Macro evolution, Dinosaur evolution, Whale evolution, Age of the Earth, (even though that has nothing to do with evolution, it just supports it) and many more.

If you can't explain something about evolution, work it out yourself, don't cry over the internet.

Coming from someone that doesn't even understand the theory, that's rich.

boy oh boy. me only being able to check in a few times per month does not help keep up with all of this.

My point is that, like many of you have said, no can observe big changes in species. EG you think we all come from "soup" or rocks billions of years ago right? Well of course no one can prove that. Therefore it becomes a "logical" assumption and not a proven fact. At the end of the day you need to have faith to beleive we all come from that "soup".

Needs more Matrix theories.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Needs more Matrix theories.

I doubt that would help.

I wish people understood science.

Originally posted by Alliance
I wish people understood science.

Me too 🙁

This coming from the guy who thinks irriducible complexity invalidates Darwinsim?