Intelligent Design

Originally posted by queeq
That doesn't make sense. A theory CAN be fact but it has to be proved first. But then it isn't a theory anymore, but a fact.

But you're right, my fruit/vegetable comparison was wrong. Maybe I should rephrase: I am asking if the bug is worm (i.e. maggot, catterpillar and such) or a flying bug? Since we don't really know what the worm is, we don't know the outcome. So the worm CAN be that of a butterfly... CAN, but isn't until we know for sure.

We are as sure of the work of evolution as we are that gravity pulls us down.

That's an odd comparison. We can at least test gravity, jumping off a cliff will quite surely pull us down. In fact we can repeat that test and be pretty sure something will keep pulling us down. Let's call it gravity. But we can't just evolve, or even a couple of times and see how that works. We can't even test the mechanism properly because it's about chance.
Gravity at least has some consistent factors, it's not like we suddenly fall left, right or diagonal. Now the exact cause, that's another matter. That is also the problem with evolution, we don't know the cause... but what's worse: we can't test it, repeat it or predict it. We can with gravity.

We can test it though. And we have. We've seen changes in species. Huge changes. According to inimalist also change from one species to another now. We can test it and we can repeat it given the time. And we can already predict it to a degree or quite a few dog owners would be rather upset.

It is as good as fact. Something evolves. How it does that might be debatable, though everything points towards natural selection. We know there is something called gravity, just as we know that there is something called evolution, even if we are not sure of the specifics yet. (gravity even less than evolution).

That "species change" is not about species change, it's about adaptation. The fact that species adapt is clear no doubt there. But adaptation is not change into something new. The thing inimalist was referring to was that the application or use of some enzymes in particular bacteria changed. That doesn't mean there's a whole new species. The function of the enzyme changed. It's still the same bacteria, it just has an additional trait.

Good example how things can easily be exxagerated.

oopss

Originally posted by queeq
That "species change" is not about species change, it's about adaptation. The fact that species adapt is clear no doubt there. But adaptation is not change into something new. The thing inimalist was referring to was that the application or use of some enzymes in particular bacteria changed. That doesn't mean there's a whole new species. The function of the enzyme changed. It's still the same bacteria, it just has an additional trait.

Good example how things can easily be exxagerated.

So, a mouse has to change into a crocodile before we accept all the evidence we have for evolution?

Originally posted by queeq
That's an odd comparison. We can at least test gravity, jumping off a cliff will quite surely pull us down. In fact we can repeat that test and be pretty sure something will keep pulling us down. Let's call it gravity. But we can't just evolve, or even a couple of times and see how that works. We can't even test the mechanism properly because it's about chance.
Gravity at least has some consistent factors, it's not like we suddenly fall left, right or diagonal. Now the exact cause, that's another matter. That is also the problem with evolution, we don't know the cause... but what's worse: we can't test it, repeat it or predict it. We can with gravity.

**** ya

you couldn't have picked two scientific theories more intuitively better suited for comparison.

However, while gravity seems to be such a well established theory, actually far less is known of its mechanisms than of evolution. As far as testable fact is concerned, evolution mops the floor with gravity. Don't even talk about predicted results 😉.

in reality, we know next to nothing about gravity, except for its mass to strength ratio. We can test that all we want, it doesn't draw us any closer to understanding it.

Apples fall and evolution occurs. That is scientific fact. Based on observation. Based on evidence.

The mechanisms underlying apples falling and evolution occurring are scientific theory.

Quite simple really...

Evolution occurs, but the extent to which evolution occurs is still a little obscure.
Plus, the end of evolution (or beginning) will always come down to the question: how did it all start? That is about the biggest puzzle of them all. So in evolution we see the waves of an occurence we don't know. So what set things in motion and to what extent can be attribute find to that motion.

Face it, we're still all flees on the elephants back, discussing the texture of the ground and the origins of the trees on that ground.

Originally posted by queeq
Evolution occurs, but the extent to which evolution occurs is still a little obscure.
Plus, the end of evolution (or beginning) will always come down to the question: how did it all start? That is about the biggest puzzle of them all. So in evolution we see the waves of an occurence we don't know. So what set things in motion and to what extent can be attribute find to that motion.

Face it, we're still all flees on the elephants back, discussing the texture of the ground and the origins of the trees on that ground.

Though I found a quote that made me doubt all Biology:

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!

😂

Well, for one I'd like scientific debate to be done without the bloody lables of chirstians and atheists and listen more to the actual arguments. Very often people look at their bacjkgrounds (even in this thread) and debunk someone's statements based on their background, not the arguments. That's the lame human approach, everyone has secret agenda's. Christians can't buy an approach that doesn't include God (or that is at least the prejudice) and atheists/non-theists get a weird rash once they find out someone has a christian background. It's always an easy way to downgrade someone with a different background to do away with tricky questions.

Originally posted by queeq
😂

Well, for one I'd like scientific debate to be done without the bloody lables of chirstians and atheists and listen more to the actual arguments. Very often people look at their bacjkgrounds (even in this thread) and debunk someone's statements based on their background, not the arguments. That's the lame human approach, everyone has secret agenda's. Christians can't buy an approach that doesn't include God (or that is at least the prejudice) and atheists/non-theists get a weird rash once they find out someone has a christian background. It's always an easy way to downgrade someone with a different background to do away with tricky questions.

If those arguments are valid they can be brough up, and evolutionists would deal with them. But creating a theory around those arguments, many of which are indeed pointless and idiotic, and postulate it to be equal to the real science and therefore be worthy of just as much respect, is the problem.

No real scientist in this world would disregard your scientific evidence ever. ID is what is disregarded as it is not scientific. And rightfully so.

Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example... sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we'd all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!

.....Makes sense.....

Our corneas must be made of CORN!!

With remarks like that, I guess the debate ends here...

I realize that that was a little immature, and more than a little strawman, but lets be fair... there never really was any debate other than some argument about semantics, which is what debates of ID generally digress to on KMC.

Originally posted by queeq
😂

Well, for one I'd like scientific debate to be done without the bloody lables of chirstians and atheists and listen more to the actual arguments. Very often people look at their bacjkgrounds (even in this thread) and debunk someone's statements based on their background, not the arguments. That's the lame human approach, everyone has secret agenda's. Christians can't buy an approach that doesn't include God (or that is at least the prejudice) and atheists/non-theists get a weird rash once they find out someone has a christian background. It's always an easy way to downgrade someone with a different background to do away with tricky questions.

However the fact of the matter is that there is no new data, there is no eureka moment, responsible for the resurgence of creationism in the form of intelligent design.
The "Discovery Institute" has not discovered anything.
It's simply a more sophisticated, more evolved (ironic n'est-ce pas?) argument from ignorance.
One can't supplant a scientific theoretical framework by simply trying relentlessly to find holes in it. Einstein didn't spend his life working on simply trying to disprove Newton.

On whether people are too quick to judge on backgrounds, take the example of Francis Collins, head of the HGP, a man with an impressive and impeccable scientific record. I don't think any scientist would nor should simply dismiss everything he says simply because he also happens to be a Christian. While at the same time, one can take particular comments that he makes to do with Theistic Evolution and state that that isn't science, which I'm sure he himself realizes.

I disagree a little there, because all the understanding we get from actually seeing molecules, atoms and almost electrons, does give us new insight in how everything works on that level. heck, we're even passing the stage of quarks and look at even smaller particles. It is on this level that evolution is a bit trickier... it just is less easy to explain how molecules form. Chance, and half molecules without function should not be able to survive in an evolutionist model. Now, maybe it works... but evolution...well... every form of science is just barely scratching the surface here. We've come to the stage that we can shoot electrons through nanosized tubes... kid's play so far.

Originally posted by queeq
I disagree a little there, because all the understanding we get from actually seeing molecules, atoms and almost electrons, does give us new insight in how everything works on that level. heck, we're even passing the stage of quarks and look at even smaller particles. It is on this level that evolution is a bit trickier... it just is less easy to explain how molecules form. Chance, and half molecules without function should not be able to survive in an evolutionist model. Now, maybe it works... but evolution...well... every form of science is just barely scratching the surface here. We've come to the stage that we can shoot electrons through nanosized tubes... kid's play so far.

Well, that is the whole thing. All life consists of active molecules. If life evolves, then molecules (and the arrangement of atoms en electron behaviour) should develop as well. And that's the point the more serious ID-ers (not the new creationists who embrace ID as the salvation from the demonic evolutionists) are trying to raise: on an atomic and subatomic level the possibility of boundless evolution doesn't exist. The laws are very strict. *** tehrefore, at this stage of knowledge, molecules cannot just develop out of nothing and slowly evolve into an enzym or protein. Evolutionwise there already has to be something there that has purpose for it to survive by natural selection. So where does that come from? How did these molecules get to be arranged as they were?

If evolution doesn't, and frankly I think it does to a certain extent at least (then again we only have some insight in this world in the last 20 years), then they would be looking at how life develops without looking at the basic building blocks of life.

Originally posted by queeq
Well, that is the whole thing. All life consists of active molecules. If life evolves, then molecules (and the arrangement of atoms en electron behaviour) should develop as well. And that's the point the more serious ID-ers (not the new creationists who embrace ID as the salvation from the demonic evolutionists) are trying to raise: on an atomic and subatomic level the possibility of boundless evolution doesn't exist. The laws are very strict. *** tehrefore, at this stage of knowledge, molecules cannot just develop out of nothing and slowly evolve into an enzym or protein. Evolutionwise there already has to be something there that has purpose for it to survive by natural selection. So where does that come from? How did these molecules get to be arranged as they were?

If evolution doesn't, and frankly I think it does to a certain extent at least (then again we only have some insight in this world in the last 20 years), then they would be looking at how life develops without looking at the basic building blocks of life.

Maybe you see a problem in how the first competing organisms came about, but that is partly in the realm of physics, I believe there are theories how the earth has been formed starting from the big bang, which are plausible. I really don't see what new problem you are bringing up. And the only two explanations I can think of is either that your problem does not concern evolution as it is not about competing organisms (though obviously natural selection exists basically everywhere) or that you state one that biologists are working on hard to find out already, in which case your whole argument of "IDers are good cause they bring up stuff that Evolutionists have to understand better" would be pointless.

All in all, I believe that everything you said is in no way positive arguments for ID, but just pointing out that Evolution still has some minor holes which need to be filled (which is something scientists know anyways). The matter of the fact is that there is not one piece of scientific evidence in this world to support the ID guess.