What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?

Message boards : Politics : What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1415283 - Posted: 13 Sep 2013, 20:36:45 UTC

"What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?."

Every argument supporting ID comes down to belief in the invisible man in the sky.
I cannot make that leap based on the crap being sold by you or the churches.

Based on that premise, I suppose the "best evidence/argument" is whatever suits your needs.
Of course, being the "best evidence/argument" doesn't make it correct. It just makes it the most creative wrong answer.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1415283 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2430
Credit: 926,046
RAC: 0
Message 1415285 - Posted: 13 Sep 2013, 20:37:10 UTC
Last modified: 13 Sep 2013, 20:47:33 UTC

Intelligent Design.

Most people including scientists are looking at the world from as seen from a materialistic perspective or point of view.

We are trying to explain everything in nature by means of defining physical laws for everything that we are able to see. As far as now, such laws are only based on equations, nothing more.

If nature has been created having the physical laws and properties as we are able to observe them, we are in fact looking at these things as seen from a materialistic or physical point of view. Physicists are studing matter by means of its physical presence and assume that its is existing and present based on mathematical and physical laws as they are "given".

What was once before gravity and the two or more physical laws or properties which are inherent with each such law was perhaps the so-called superforce. In addition, the Universe may also at one time have been consisting of antimatter,
which when encountering matter annihilated each other creating enormous amounts of energy as a result.

There may be more to this, but as far as I know there are four main theoretical laws of physics.

These are the weak nuclear forces, strong nuclear forces, gravity itself and electromagnetism.

If someone may be able to give me a quick summary of these main laws, I would be happy to know about it.

One or more of these laws may be looked at by means of the laws of gravity as defined and explained by Isaac Newton.

Similarly, these laws may be looked at by means of the laws of relativity as defined and explained by Albert Einstein and the like.

Is it possible to give me an explanation where different theories are belonging when relating these to particular models of physics? Meaning with that the Theory of Relativity vs. Quantum Theory as well as other elements which may be relevant. Is Quantum Theory supposed to be dealing with the subject of gravity and time as well?

Is Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity better at explaining electromagnetism than perhaps Quantum Theory, which until now is not having any personal name behind it. As far as I know it, Einstein was not too happy about the Quantum Theory, because he was more a scientist that was concerned about and dealing with the subject of time. Am I again stuck with the Wikipedia when it comes to this, or is it possible to get some explanation from anyone here at these message boards?

In summary, is it possible to explain the notion of God by means of understanding these theories, or should I rather revert back to the Bible in order for the same?

I will be happy to know.
ID: 1415285 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1415302 - Posted: 13 Sep 2013, 21:24:07 UTC - in response to Message 1415272.  
Last modified: 13 Sep 2013, 21:25:03 UTC

This subject should not be here on a board discussing science.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Argued September 26, 2005-November 4, 2005,
Decided December 20, 2005
Full case name: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.

Citations: 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

Holding
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Court membership
John E. Jones III
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. 1; Penn. Const. Art. I, § 3


No, any school has the right to teach what it wants. They are owned and operated by the public, not the law or government, the tax payer owns them?

Are you saying this is a public school? If so then no one has the right to take my free speeh away, as has been done here.

Do need higher authority?
How about
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 10, 1986
Decided June 19, 1987
Full case name Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of Louisiana, et al., Appellants v. Don Aguillard et al.
Citations 482 U.S. 578 (more)
107 S. Ct. 2573; 96 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2729; 55 U.S.L.W. 4860
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan, Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
Majority Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor (all but part II)
Concurrence Powell, joined by O'Connor
Concurrence White (in the judgment of the court only)
Dissent Scalia, joined by Rehnquist

The result of this ruling that the draft of a creationist biology textbook had the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text to "intelligent design" and "design proponents" changed, and the book renamed as "Of Pandas and People."

And so the ID movement evolved out of the creationist movement, in an attempt to bypass the law. Therefore it passes the evolution marker 'change or die'.
ID: 1415302 · Report as offensive
(banished: ID 9878057)

Send message
Joined: 19 May 13
Posts: 156
Credit: 527,760
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1415320 - Posted: 13 Sep 2013, 22:33:23 UTC

If ID had even a smidgen of compelling evidence for what it claims it would be a serious topic of discussion.
As it stands now ID is no better than Scientology.
ID: 1415320 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1416234 - Posted: 16 Sep 2013, 3:24:40 UTC - in response to Message 1415320.  

If ID had even a smidgen of compelling evidence for what it claims it would be a serious topic of discussion.
As it stands now ID is no better than Scientology.

quite agree. the complete lack of compelling evidence is only exaggerated by the cherry picking, pigeon holing and misleading statements about actual scientific works and scientists.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1416234 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 34744
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1418016 - Posted: 20 Sep 2013, 10:26:05 UTC

I wondered where this thread went, but at least it is now in a much more suitable forum than were it was before (obviously I don't come here much at all).

Cheers.
ID: 1418016 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1418067 - Posted: 20 Sep 2013, 15:00:48 UTC - in response to Message 1418016.  

I think he tried to restart it in the science non seti@home and it mysteriously stopped being there. Not sure why. I presume ID was involved since I cannot grasp the reasons.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1418067 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1418099 - Posted: 20 Sep 2013, 16:00:05 UTC - in response to Message 1418067.  

I think he tried to restart it in the science non seti@home and it mysteriously stopped being there. Not sure why. I presume ID was involved since I cannot grasp the reasons.

You cannot grasp the SCOTUS ruling?
ID: 1418099 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1418114 - Posted: 20 Sep 2013, 16:11:51 UTC - in response to Message 1418099.  

they'll take the SCOTUS ruling out of my cold dead hands


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1418114 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1420143 - Posted: 25 Sep 2013, 17:44:43 UTC

ID: 1420143 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1420194 - Posted: 25 Sep 2013, 19:46:57 UTC

I was thinking scientifically the other day... How do we show that reptiles evolved into Mammals. I then recalled the Monotremes being the oldest lineage of Mammals.

To be technical and not hopefully not making anyone uncomfortable I intend to discuss what is considered the major leap forward for mammals. the separation of function from the Cloaca to the mammalian digestive tract, urinary tract, and sexual orifices.

For those that are unaware reptiles and Birds have a shared digestive, urinary and sexual tracts. mammals clearly do not.

Monotremes have common tract but have what are considered mammalian traits that make it more mammal and not a bird/reptile. but not as evolved as non marsupial mammals.

very very interesting to see the extend to information on this transitional group of mammals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotreme


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1420194 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1420259 - Posted: 25 Sep 2013, 21:07:54 UTC - in response to Message 1420213.  

monotremes are a demonstration of a transitional animal into the class Mammalia with rudimentary warm bloodedness, hair, a transitional brain structure, and milk production though only through pores, monotremes demonstrate that indeed mammals are an offshoot of a reptilian ancestral specie(s). More specifically they come down, as what ID refuses to see but is obivious to others, as a very old mammalian order. One can infer that other mammalian species eventually evolved to Marsupial and the common orders of mammals we all know today.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1420259 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1421854 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 5:47:39 UTC

The leap of faith comes from you all thinking that one species has turned into another species. You have no proof of this at all. Webster defines faith as one who believe in something without proof to back it up. As you have clearly shown all of you you have a faith and no proof of what you believe.

This can also be called a blind faith. Most of you don't even know why you believe this. This has been very evident as our talk here has progressed. skildude, when pressed by me on Darwin couldn't even get his own belief correct, and I had to correct him on his belief.

(banished: ID 9878057), can only supply insults. I have seen nothing else that could be called science come from him yet he believes in neo-darwinism, by faith alone it seems.

WinterKnight has only the argument of the law. Which suppressed most of the ID argument science, and suppressed the arguments I have brought up about there being absolutely no proof of Neo-Darwinism in the fact of species change.

The proof is in the pudding.

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1421854 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1421855 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 5:54:48 UTC

ALERT NEW NPR Confirms INTELLIGENT DESIGN in Interview
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1421855 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1421862 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 6:27:56 UTC - in response to Message 1421854.  
Last modified: 29 Sep 2013, 6:31:06 UTC

With reference to the web-link given.

The same obviously can not be said about prime numbers and their possible relationship.

Endless numbers. No start. No end.
ID: 1421862 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22158
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1421870 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 6:55:59 UTC

bluestar - there is a beginning to the prime number series - 3
The so called "negative primes" are the positive primes multiplied by minus one (-1) and are thus not prime, having a divisor that is neither themselves, nor 1
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1421870 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1421887 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 8:05:28 UTC
Last modified: 29 Sep 2013, 8:39:29 UTC

This thread reminds me of three science fiction stories I read decades ago.

#1 was. It was discovered that the universe was collapsing. The answer was that "the universe" was the the dream of an "extra universal" mental giant and he/she/it was waking up.

#2 Was that our world was an experiment in some super race's laboratory. The experiment had finished and it was time to "clean out the test tubes". However they had decided that there were some parts of the experiment that were worth saving. The hero of the story was offered entry into the "real world" but he declined.

#3 Was a varieation on the "World is a stage" idea. The hero was an extra (i.e. one of "us") who had accidentally become the lover of one of the actresses in the play and was therefore offered a continuing role, this offer was also declined.

I remember reading that the probability of a "Creator" existing was equal to the probability of a "Big Bang" creating the Universe, which led to the formation of our solar system, which led to the evolution of an "intelligent" race (i.e. Us).

To me, no matter which side you are barracking for, there are just too many unknowns in your arguments for either of them to be taken as irrefutable fact. Any of the scenarios quoted above are just as valid as the arguments (either way) I've seen in this thread.

This is not an argument about "fact", it's an argument about competing philosophies.

T.A.
ID: 1421887 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1421888 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 8:08:52 UTC - in response to Message 1421870.  

Why not 2?

It is an even number.
ID: 1421888 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1421896 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 8:25:04 UTC - in response to Message 1421888.  

Why not 2?

It is an even number.

Why not 42 ?? :)

T.A.
ID: 1421896 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1421898 - Posted: 29 Sep 2013, 8:27:23 UTC - in response to Message 1421896.  
Last modified: 29 Sep 2013, 8:31:00 UTC

42=1*2*3*7

Next time I'll skip the 1.
ID: 1421898 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.