Intelligent Design?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And you feel that way because if it were to be unrelated to a fairy god mother you would feel completely alone but with your invisible friend, you always have a backup for your certainty.

And there you have it. Those who believe in a "Higher Power" are mocked and compared with those who believe in the tooth fairy. Then again, my Bible says that those who don't believe in a God are foolish for thinking so based upon the evidence all around us. The only question I guess then is who is fool'in who?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If people through science created life that proves what?
Kelly

This an interesting paradox of sorts KJ and its one that does create conflict in my mind.

I believe evolution to be as close to fact as is possible based on evidence (lets not argue about my belief here).

I also believe there is adequate evidence to suggest a chemical evolution which led to the first lifeform. This line of evidence for abiogenisis is in no means as secure as evolution (again lets not argue about my belief here).

However : man is intelligent, man is now trying to design life and is getting very close.

I agree this at least will be "intelligent design" and if we were to let that lifeform escape into the natural world, who knows what evolutionary path that species may take?

Its an interesting area of conflict I believe many scientists find hard to admitt. On one hand we believe no designer is required to start life and present lots of evidence to show how it can start and evolve, yet on the other hand we try to design life ourselves which proves that the inverse is also possible.

Take another step:

Science believes there are other lifeforms in the universe, well we spend a hell of a lot of money on searching for it anyway, and "science" tells us if we consider the number of suns and planet in the universe the possibility of life else where is highly probable. If this is the case are we that ignorant to believe that humans are the pinnacle of intelligence in the whole universe? Or again is it possible that other lifeforms have evolved greater intelligence to have already created life themselves?

This is of course a whole lot of arm waving and what if's? but I believe KJ has at least raised an interesting area of conflict.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The topic is ID, did you see me say ONE WORD about evolution being
wrong here, or I cared to take a class for it given by you? Did you see
me question evolution, did you see me say evolution was wrong, and
in error any where in this discussion? You are very selective on what
you respond to.
Kelly

Everyone seems to think evolution is about the origins of life. No evolutionist will say anything about that, it's a whole other field of science. At this point in time, since 'science' only has conjectures about the origin of life, if you want to believe it came from the fairy god mother or the great spaghetti god in the sky, that's your perogative. If scientists theorize about life coming from clay crystals, so be it. So it sounds like you believe in evolution. If so, why don't you just say so? I have no problem with the origin of life issue, as far as I am concerned, its an open question. Maybe the entire universe is a vast lifeform in of and by itself and the universe caused conditions to exist that allowed the start of life. You might even call such a thing god. The truth is, nobody knows and anyone who claims otherwise is sadly deluded. Problem is delusion is a built in trait of the human race.

Originally posted by timebombted
I agree there are pig headed people in all walks of life. I can not speak for all atheist scientists, but I can give you my viewpoint. I believe in all the vast and various forms of evidence in favour of evolution, however not in a fundamentalist type of way. If evidence was provided to suggest otherwise then I would not blindly hold onto this belief in ...[text shortened]... ef without evidence is a theist trait. However, we are all capable of pig headedness.

Regards

Think about this, do you know how it all began? Do you think there is
a test we can apply to anything to show us how it all began? Do you
think anyone who has a 'belief' about how it all began is using
anything other than their imagination to come up with the their view
point on the beginning? The issue is not that there is some process
in life, ID and creation both suggest the beginning required some
form of guide or creator. Evolution does not talk to the beginning, but
many think that the beginning occurred without direction or anyone
or anything guiding the process. All three points of view are not based
upon anything that people can test, they are all occurring between the
ears of those thinking about it, no where else. From my point of view
the atheist must accept you can get everything from nothing and move
on from there, ID does not talk about the beginning of things, but
life, creation is the only thing that answers all the questions in my
opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
This an interesting paradox of sorts KJ and its one that does create conflict in my mind.

I believe evolution to be as close to fact as is possible based on evidence (lets not argue about my belief here).

I also believe there is adequate evidence to suggest a chemical evolution which led to the first lifeform. This line of evidence for abiogenisis ...[text shortened]... waving and what if's? but I believe KJ has at least raised an interesting area of conflict.

"I believe evolution to be as close to fact as is possible based on evidence (lets not argue about my belief here)."

I do not see it, evolution does not address the beginning it is only
a process in the here and now as far as I have seen. Many people
have suggested they can see it going back in time and take us from
the simple to the very complex, but what do they have outside of
their imaginations with that? They look at the universe as is and have
to paint it just right to get there, they cannnot show the types of
changes here to get us there occuring all by themselves, they may
be able to force a few things occuring by putting ID into the processes
but naturally without any help, I have not seen any experiement yet
show us how it could have occured.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I believe evolution to be as close to fact as is possible based on evidence (lets not argue about my belief here)."

I do not see it, evolution does not address the beginning it is only
a process in the here and now as far as I have seen. Many people
have suggested they can see it going back in time and take us from
the simple to the very complex, but ...[text shortened]... thout any help, I have not seen any experiement yet
show us how it could have occured.
Kelly

Why do you keep insisting evolution theory has ANYTHING to do with the origins of life issue? We keep telling you and telling you in 29 differant ways, the two are not related, origins of life is a totally differant area, EVOLUTIONISTS SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, and that point was brought up by Darwin himself. Why can't you wrap your head around that simple concept?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If people through science created life that proves what?
Kelly

It proves that already existing life can intelligently cause more life. It explains nothing about the creator. If we, as complex life forms, can cause simple life to come into existance, that only shows how complicated things can make simpler things. This is not news, and it provides no answers to how the complicated things, us, came about.

I see this as a major problem with intelligent design: If we are so complicated that we cannot have come about without the help of a greater intelligence, then that intelligence must be more complicated than it's creation and so it cannot have come about without the help of a still greater intelligence, etc etc etc. Be it space aliens or a supernatural deity, if you are using it to explain us, then you must also explain it.

The theory of evolution avoids this paradox by explaining how complex life forms can be the product of a process with no inherent intelligence at all. All this unintelligent process needs to start with is some self replicating structures and limited resources. The creation of these self replicating structures (abiogenesis) is not yet explained but it is not inconceivable that they came about by chance, given an entire planet with a suitable atmosphere and a billion years or so. It only has to happen once in the entire universe for us to be here contemplating it.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
It proves that already existing life can intelligently cause more life. It explains nothing about the creator. If we, as complex life forms, can cause simple life to come into existance, that only shows how complicated things can make simpler things. This is not news, and it provides no answers to how the complicated things, us, came about.

I see this as ...[text shortened]... y has to happen once in the entire universe for us to be here contemplating it.

--- Penguin.

I don't think he wants to address that issue. I don't think he has anything like a coherent answer for it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why do you keep insisting evolution theory has ANYTHING to do with the origins of life issue? We keep telling you and telling you in 29 differant ways, the two are not related, origins of life is a totally differant area, EVOLUTIONISTS SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, and that point was brought up by Darwin himself. Why can't you wrap your head around that simple concept?

You should actually stop and read all the posts you are responding to.
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
It proves that already existing life can intelligently cause more life. It explains nothing about the creator. If we, as complex life forms, can cause simple life to come into existance, that only shows how complicated things can make simpler things. This is not news, and it provides no answers to how the complicated things, us, came about.

I see this as ...[text shortened]... y has to happen once in the entire universe for us to be here contemplating it.

--- Penguin.

If I wanted to explain God or some other supernatural deity I'd go the
spiritual board. Here let us see if we can come up with answers for life
looking at what we have right in front of us in the here and now, if we
can do it without playing in the world of make believe. If as you say
we make life that shows ID is possible, it does not address how we
came into being, but that ID is possible. So where would that leave
life without ID, still wanting for some reason for being with respect to
being able to show it? What could be displayed to show that life even
more complex, that being us could come about without any plan
purpose or design? If we are still striving to show we can do it, but we
have not yet been able to, what can we hope to see that shows us it
could happen without ID? Does this suggest all theories on life without
ID are really just between the ears of people who want to believe in
it, there is nothing we can do to show it is possible, but talk a good
game so to speak?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I wanted to explain God or some other supernatural deity I'd go the
spiritual board. Here let us see if we can come up with answers for life
looking at what we have right in front of us in the here and now, if we
can do it without playing in the world of make believe. If as you say
we make life that shows ID is possible, it does not address how we
c ...[text shortened]... t, there is nothing we can do to show it is possible, but talk a good
game so to speak?
Kelly

Kelly, we already have a mechanism that can create more complex replicators from simpler replicators. There is no need to look to ID to explain our existance and if we did, it would still beg the question of what designed the designer. ID is based purely on the premise that it is not possible to get complex life from simpler life. That premise has already been shown to be false.

So ID is an attempt to answer a question that does not need answering, and it fails to answer that question!

It is not science because it makes no testable predictions (does it make any predictions at all, let alone testable one?). It is impossible to differentiate between complex life through ID and complex life through any other cause. In this respect, it may share similarities with string theory and other bleeding edge stuff, except that string theory does actually make predictions, just not ones that are currently testable.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I wanted to explain God or some other supernatural deity I'd go the
spiritual board. Here let us see if we can come up with answers for life
looking at what we have right in front of us in the here and now, if we
can do it without playing in the world of make believe. If as you say
we make life that shows ID is possible, it does not address how we
c ...[text shortened]... t, there is nothing we can do to show it is possible, but talk a good
game so to speak?
Kelly

If I wanted to explain God or some other supernatural deity I'd go the
spiritual board. Here let us see if we can come up with answers for life
looking at what we have right in front of us in the here and now, if we
can do it without playing in the world of make believe.

I find it interesting that you, a theist, suggest that trying to understand God is playing in the world of make-believe.😀

I only mentioned a supernatural deity as it was the only thing I could come up with to put with space aliens as a possible 'intelligent designer'. I think it is relevant to mention God occasionally here in a discussion of whether ID is science. It is very hard to talk about ID without talking about the underlying reason for the ID movement.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Think about this, do you know how it all began? Do you think there is
a test we can apply to anything to show us how it all began? Do you
think anyone who has a 'belief' about how it all began is using
anything other than their imagination to come up with the their view
point on the beginning? The issue is not that there is some process
in life, ID and ...[text shortened]... s, but
life, creation is the only thing that answers all the questions in my
opinion.
Kelly

I already know the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis.

I'm sure most hypothesis start with human imagination, but then the scientific process kicks in and you "TEST" your predictions. This should also be repeatable to verify the results. Its the most basic principle of science KJ.

I totally agree with you, you can get everything from nothing, good to see you are making progress.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I believe evolution to be as close to fact as is possible based on evidence (lets not argue about my belief here)."

I do not see it, evolution does not address the beginning it is only
a process in the here and now as far as I have seen. Many people
have suggested they can see it going back in time and take us from
the simple to the very complex, but ...[text shortened]... thout any help, I have not seen any experiement yet
show us how it could have occured.
Kelly

You seem to think I keep saying evolution is the same as abiogenesis? Why...........? You are a very frustrating person to discuss even the most simple concepts with, why do you keep coming back to this simple distinction? Are you obtuse or intelectually challenged?

Science 101:

Abiogenesis deals with the origins of first life.
Evolution is a process which explains how the first life form evolved into every living species we see today.

Simple.

Is that clear?

Please stop contributing repetitive drivel.

You even miss the point of the whole post, which was a response to a side issue you raised.

Originally posted by timebombted
You seem to think I keep saying evolution is the same as abiogenesis? Why...........? You are a very frustrating person to discuss even the most simple concepts with, why do you keep coming back to this simple distinction? Are you obtuse or intelectually challenged?

Science 101:

Abiogenesis deals with the origins of first life.
Evolution is a proc ...[text shortened]... .

You even miss the point of the whole post, which was a response to a side issue you raised.

I said much the same thing as you a few posts back, and he goes:
"You should read all the posts before you respond'. Did you see that one"? Talk about sidestepping the issue.