Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivanCommander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kbachler said:
This shows a misunderstanding of the word “theory”

In the sense that you are using it, compared to scientists, keep in mind that NOTHING is EVER a proven fact. That’s not how knowledge works.

EVERYTHING is a belief. We build arguments for the belief, and at some point we consider the belief, as stated, with its constraints, to be true - a fact.

Within this context, yes, evolution is a proven fact.
Click to expand...
You are applying arbitrary criteria to the subject to make it a fact.

It is still not fact. It is popular opinion.

Now if you wish, you can remove the arbitrariness and explain exactly how well known and accepted something must be to be considered a proven fact.
And you should also try to account for the many misunderstandings throughout history that were well known and believed.
 
vz71 said:
You are applying arbitrary criteria to the subject to make it a fact.
Click to expand...
No, I am applying the definition of theory as accepted by science.
vz71 said:
It is still not fact. It is popular opinion.
Click to expand...
One could argue, reasonably well, that all facts are popular opinion.

In any case, no, it is a fact.
vz71 said:
Now if you wish, you can remove the arbitrariness and explain exactly how well known and accepted something must be to be considered a proven fact.
Click to expand...
To the point that there is no reasonable doubt, rested results and general consensus. It’s a process, not a vote.
vz71 said:
And you should also try to account for the many misunderstandings throughout history that were well known and believed.
Click to expand...
We have. Things change. That’s the point of the process.
 
kbachler said:
Sorry but no. Worth an examination? Yes. Worth a definite conclusion, no. (Sorry to those who saw Jesus in their toast this morning.)
Click to expand...
NO? Incredible…😦 I believe this is what is called being in denial.
 
vz71 said:
TruthSeeker60;7738743:
vz71;7737696:
My biggest issue being the belief that it is proven fact.
It simply is not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don’t prefer to use argument from authority, but since I’m about to go to class, I’ll just say that 99+ percent of biologists believe it as a proven fact. If you’re not sure why that is, there are many good books on why evolution is a proven fact.

They may.
Or they may more acurately speak of the theory of evolution.
Just as the course material you posted does.

Theory is not proven fact.
Click to expand...
When scientists speak of evolution as a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity, they are speaking of of it as true. 99+ percent of biologists believe that evolution a proven fact.

Look up what the word “theory” means in science. Scientists do not use it in science the same way people commonly use the word “theory”.
 
TruthSeeker60 said:
When scientists speak of evolution as a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity, they are speaking of of it as true. 99+ percent of biologists believe that evolution a proven fact.

Look up what the word “theory” means in science. Scientists do not use it in science the same way people commonly use the word “theory”.
Click to expand...
Their belief is philosophical.
 
**The support for IDvolution keeps growing. 🙂
**
Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice

It is widely believed that the most evolutionarily conserved DNA sequences in the human genome have been preserved because of their functional importance and that their removal would thus have a devastating effect on the organism. To ascertain this we removed from the mouse genome four ultraconserved elements—sequences of 200 base pairs or longer that are 100% identical among human, mouse, and rat. To our surprise, we found that the mice lacking these elements are viable, fertile, and show no apparent abnormalities. This completely unexpected finding indicates that extreme levels of DNA sequence conservation are not necessarily indicative of an indispensable functional nature.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
rossum said:
Abiogenesis has amino acids from the Miller Urey experiment, ID has no amino acids because it has no experiment showing its designer making amino acids.
Click to expand...
I think that Miller and Urey were able to generate a few amino acids with all their intelligently designed equipment, but no one in science has ever generated life from nonlife. I think that if scientists should ever be able to create life inside their laboratory, it would show only that created laboratory life did not come from nothing, rather it came from enormous amount of thought and an immensely complex laboratory under tightly controlled conditions. In short, this newly created lab life would show that it came about by a very intelligent mind.
 
shoe said:
I think that Miller and Urey were able to generate a few amino acids with all their intelligently designed equipment, but no one in science has ever generated life from nonlife. I think that if scientists should ever be able to create life inside their laboratory, it would show only that created laboratory life did not come from nothing, rather it came from enormous amount of thought and an immensely complex laboratory under tightly controlled conditions. In short, this newly created lab life would show that it came about by a very intelligent mind.
Click to expand...
Billions of years is a long time versus a few decades in a lab, and makes up for a lot of directed energy. I don’t think it shows what you claim at all.
 
buffalo said:
The support for IDvolution keeps growing. 🙂

Deletion of Ultraconserved Elements Yields Viable Mice

It is widely believed that the most evolutionarily conserved DNA sequences in the human genome have been preserved because of their functional importance and that their removal would thus have a devastating effect on the organism. To ascertain this we removed from the mouse genome four ultraconserved elements—sequences of 200 base pairs or longer that are 100% identical among human, mouse, and rat. To our surprise, we found that the mice lacking these elements are viable, fertile, and show no apparent abnormalities. This completely unexpected finding indicates that extreme levels of DNA sequence conservation are not necessarily indicative of an indispensable functional nature.

http://www.evidentcreation.com/image/NaturalSelectionMisconception.jpg
Click to expand...
The above argument doesn’t make any argument for ID.

Mutation is not the sole “fuel” for natural selection, so the cartoon is wrong too.
 
buffalo said:
NO? Incredible…😦 I believe this is what is called being in denial.
Click to expand...
Not at all. being a skeptic and using a good scientific method has nothing to do with being in denial. But accepting anything with little testing and confirmation leads to bad science.
 
kbachler said:
The above argument doesn’t make any argument for ID.

Mutation is not the sole “fuel” for natural selection, so the cartoon is wrong too.
Click to expand...
Natural selection and variablilty slow genetic loss (due to corruption) to help keep a species at near optimum level. That would make natural selection a process that conserves species and not create them. That is support for IDvolution.
 
kbachler said:
Not at all. being a skeptic and using a good scientific method has nothing to do with being in denial. But accepting anything with little testing and confirmation leads to bad science.
Click to expand...
Test the SOS all you want. Go for it. 👍
 
buffalo said:
Natural selection and variablilty slow genetic loss (due to corruption) to help keep a species at near optimum level. That would make natural selection a process that conserves species and not create them. That is support for IDvolution.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. You’re again equivocating terms.

Do you understand that something can have multiple functions and more than one result?

Think about the phrase “to help keep a species at near optimum level”.

I’m curious - why do you think that supports ID?
 
kbachler said:
No, it doesn’t. You’re again equivocating terms.

Do you understand that something can have multiple functions and more than one result?

Think about the phrase “to help keep a species at near optimum level”.

I’m curious - why do you think that supports ID?
Click to expand...
Of course, but we would want to consider the dominant result.

Why? Because a designer would try to optimize to handle variables.
 
kbachler said:
It’s easy enough to do.

BTW - this very issue is considered in Personal Knowledge. You really should read it, it may clarify a lot for you.
Click to expand...
Make your best argument that rocks being arranged to spell out SOS does not have an intelligent agent behind it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top