- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:34 pm to ThuperThumpin
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:34 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Basically any idea for the creation of any form of existence that doesn't just believe its all random I consider Intelligent Design. Does that make sense?
No, I'm not aware of "randomness" being the factor that moves evolution. Natural selection is anything but random.
1
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:40 pm to Flats
quote:
doubt it, and that's why I said this gets philosophical. How can you prove something that's outside science with the scientific method? All you can do is eventually run out of theories and "design" is the only thing left, but that's not proof and people will be happy to reject it.
Our ancestors could not conceive that we would able to prove that the life giving ball of energy they worshipped could ever be proven to be what we know it is today. We are currently probing the very building blocks of reality. At some point MAYBE we will get a glimpse of a designer
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:45 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Our bodies more closely resemble an organism that was molded to fit it's environment via external pressures than one that was designed with by an hyper-intelligent being.
The process you described does not eliminate a design by a hyper-intelligent creator. All it does is assume we popped into existence out of nowhere which is not what scientists are talking about when they say they see intelligent design in the creation of our universe and everything in it.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:52 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Natural selection is anything but random.
Would mutation be random? I think we may be misunderstanding each other.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:53 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
The process you described does not eliminate a design by a hyper-intelligent creator.
No, but Occam's Razor does.
quote:
All it does is assume we popped into existence out of nowhere which is not what scientists are talking about when they say they see intelligent design in the creation of our universe and everything in it.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't assume humans just popped into existence out of no where.
Also, who are the "they" who say they see intelligent design in the creation of our universe and everything in it?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:56 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Would mutation be random?
Potentially, but your specific description was "all random". My response was only pointing out the non-random driving forced within evolutionary theroy.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:59 pm to NC_Tigah
I have read the entire thread and you guys are arguing apples and oranges.
First of all ID does NOT dispute evolution. It concedes that strong circumstantial evidence (my words),
Shows that classical evolution is the driving force ever since the Cambrian explosion.
On the other hand , the evolutionist on this thread appear to have never read any of the ID evidence and clearly don’t know what it is.
In short, my understanding of Behe’s work on ID, is that ID was the genesis of life up to the Cambrian explosion and evolution after,
Example: all of the known Phylum (classical body forms) appeared at once during the Cambrian explosion. No new phylum have appeared since. So evolution is occurring within these phylum but no new phylum have ever evolved.
So true intelligent Designers do NOT dispute evolution. But they do believe that evolution is a laughably poor argument for the genesis of life in light of ID and modern genetics.
First of all ID does NOT dispute evolution. It concedes that strong circumstantial evidence (my words),
Shows that classical evolution is the driving force ever since the Cambrian explosion.
On the other hand , the evolutionist on this thread appear to have never read any of the ID evidence and clearly don’t know what it is.
In short, my understanding of Behe’s work on ID, is that ID was the genesis of life up to the Cambrian explosion and evolution after,
Example: all of the known Phylum (classical body forms) appeared at once during the Cambrian explosion. No new phylum have appeared since. So evolution is occurring within these phylum but no new phylum have ever evolved.
So true intelligent Designers do NOT dispute evolution. But they do believe that evolution is a laughably poor argument for the genesis of life in light of ID and modern genetics.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 7:59 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I wonder what part of the scientific method concludes without evidence that something is not a possibility? The very basis of science is to remain open-minded until proven otherwise. Yet... some have already elimintated ID, in the name of "science" of course.
It (ID) is absolutely a possibility. Does that render me one "of the religious ilk to justify a god by wrapping it in pseudo-science"?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:00 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Potentially, but your specific description was "all random". My response was only pointing out the non-random driving forced within evolutionary theroy.
Yea I totally get that . I'm kinda tired and thinking out loud.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
I see we've reached the point in our discussion where your useless prompts have been shown as useless, so you're devolved into insults.
Sad, you were almost on to something there.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:13 pm to Flats
quote:
"All life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother. "
That cannot be proven and it cannot be disproven.
It can be proven (or shown to be very likely) through DNA/RNA analysis.
In fact, it already has for those who study the subject.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:26 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
In fact, it already has for those who study the subject.
Been proven?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:28 pm to Flats
quote:
Been proven?
Or shown to be very (very very very very) likely.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:29 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
(or shown to be very likely)
This is correct.
It is not proof
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:35 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Or shown to be very (very very very very) likely.
It was also believed (not that long ago) that a primordial soup mixed with a LOT of time was ( very very very very ) likely to be the genesis of life on this planet. That has been shown to be statistically impossible.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:40 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
It was also believed (not that long ago) that a primordial soup mixed with a LOT of time was ( very very very very ) likely to be the genesis of life on this planet. That has been shown to be statistically impossible.
Luckily, evolution doesn't say anything about abiogenesis - and it doesn't need to.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:40 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
It was also believed (not that long ago) that a primordial soup mixed with a LOT of time was ( very very very very ) likely to be the genesis of life on this planet.
Lightning strikes bro. You've gotta add the lightning strikes. Like Dr Frankenstein.
Been proven.
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:41 pm to Guntoter1
quote:
That has been shown to be statistically impossible.
So its statistically impossible for life to rise out of primordial ooze on any planet or just ours?
Posted on 5/19/22 at 8:47 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Yet... some have already elimintated ID, in the name of "science" of course.
Negative.
"Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific set of beliefs based on the notion that life on earth is so complex that it cannot be explained by the scientific theory of evolution and therefore must have been designed by a supernatural entity."
Posted on 5/19/22 at 9:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Well, that's not true. Scientifically at this stage, possible cause is where ID vs non-ID competing theories should reside.
Well sure, if you look at it only from a scientific perspective. That's what makes scientists look like fools.
Page 9 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News