Intelligent Design....?

We are only able to generate amino acids...this is all...amino acids are the building blocks or life. Its like someone saying that if you can prove that the ink in a textbook arises naturally it proves a naturalistic cause. When in reality its not the ink in the textbook thats important, the arrangement of the ink causing words. Or like someone saying the material a building is made of arises naturally, therefore the arrangement causing the building structure also arises naturally. You're using a flawed logic. However, if you proved that the building structure arises through a naturalistic cause, then that would be evidence for a naturalistic cause...

Again, people have been trying to create cells since the 1950s with NO success to show a naturalistic cause. Since no naturalistic explanation is available, this would show that an intelligent cause is inevitable, and also makes panspermia a more viable option. Take for instance if you found the Great Pyramids, but there was no historical evidence that humans built it, would you assume that it was intelligently designed or a natural formation, like a mountain? The material the Great Pyramids are made of arise naturally, with no need for an intelligent cause. But no naturalistic explanations for the design of the Great Pyramids have been found? What would you conclude?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is *not* supposed to limit itself to only acknowledging the existance of observational facts. If that were the case, then all we could say when it rains is "there is spherical water moving in a general line from the sky towards the ground". No methods, no predictions, no ideas about weather or evaporation or clouds or fluid dynamics. No *progress* towards making more observations of empirical evidence.

Science uses the empirical evidence to make grounded predictions. you seem to think that 1) it's not supposed to, and 2) that these predictions are somehow unfounded.

You are incorrect in both cases. Please see my above post of the usefulness of inductive reasoning.

That is only correct if you assume that success can only be atomic: with 100% accuracy and completeness. If you say that I was unsuccessful at running a marathon because I only made it 1/10th of the way, then fine, I'll agree with you. Scientists have not yet created an entire cell from scratch.

But we have had GREAT success. We have synthesised amino acids, seen DNA and modified it; created lipid spheres which consume, grow, break off smaller versions of themselves, and REACT TO LIGHT!!!

"life" is an artificial definition we used to seperate a stone from a bear. But now that we are dealing with viruses and prion which do not fit into our definition, but certainly have many traits of being alive, we need to recognise the artifical boundry on a continuous system. If humans are alive, plants are alive, bacteria are alive, viruses are alive, prions are alive, then are lipid spheres alive, despite thier lack of complex internal structure or hereditary information? If so, then we have created life. if not, then what is the difference between them and "life"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science is supposed to be chiefly based off objective evidence. Any prediction made is supposed to be based off objective evidence.

All those ideas about weather or evaporation or clouds or fluid dynamics are supposed to be confirmed by objective evidence (like say evidence gained through the scientific method). This is how science works. Someone makes a prediction or theory, this theory is then compared with the objective evidence to verify if the theory is true of false....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it wouldn't, since all it would show is that someone can develop life in a lab in 2007. That says nothing about the operations or not of intelligence in the Earths history.
Note also that this says nothing about testing ID. Are you aware of the tests that were done in the 1800's for the spontaneous formation of life in rotting meat? Except that what they showed was that flies were necessary to lay eggs to produce maggots in rotting meat. Exclude the flies, and no maggots appeared.

No, we'd just have shown that some form of replicating entity is possible. See River Winds post above for more information.

But again, I cannot prove that all crystals form, and have always formed, by crystallisation. We assume this is the case based upon observations.

[/QUOTE]
Science isn't based of if something can happen, its based off objective evidence... [/QUOTE]
Exactly. What is your objective evidence that ID is correct? I note you have not provided any.

No, its based upon evidence. Evidence is gathered and a hypothesis made to explain the evidence, and this hypothesis is then tested against further evidence.

INterestingly enough, the ID proponents ideas have all been shown to fail, in every way possible. They like to use the mousetrap as an example of something irreducibly complex. But mousetraps can be built very simply, thus making the analogy moot.
Also, irreducible complexity has not been adequately defined and applied. Behe used to go on about the blood clotting system and others such things, until he got his backside handed to him in court. He claimed biologists didn't have an idea of how these things evolved, so the lawyer pointed to a big stack of books and papers laying out how they could have evolved.

As for computers and their not working if you remove a single part, I fail to see how that applies to life. If I remove your eye, or your leg, or 4 feet of your colon, or a lung, will you cease functioning? Not unless I carry out these operations in a field somewhere with a penknife. I'll be more impressed with teh analogy when I see computers mating and producing little baby computers.

 

Gee, I wonder if Darwin did that?

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479

 

By your definition, NOTHING can be disproven. How can you disprove natural selection? I guess it must be a pseudoscience...

The objective evidence is a lack of a naturalistic explanation...like say for instance someone tried to prove that a TV was a natural formation but the evidence never showed that it was naturalistic....the only conclusion is then a intelligent cause or the naturalistic cause is yet to be found....

Right....and no evidence shows a naturalistic cause for the reading, interpreting, translating, etc...of genetic code....so what's the conclusion then?

These problems arise because of the difficulties in defining what intelligent design is. These problems apply to testing if anything was intelligently designed or not. How could you objectively conclude that a wooden structure was intelligently designed if you had no evidence that humans made it? We know that wood arises in nature (as does amino acids)...so how could you test that it was designed?

 

Only shows that amino acids can form....and to quote the article itself:
"But James Ferris, a prebiotic chemist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., doubts that atmospheric electricity could have been the only source of organic molecules. "You get a fair amount of amino acids," he says. "What you don't get are things like building blocks of nucleic acids." Meteors, comets or primordial ponds of hydrogen cyanide would still need to provide those molecules"

Not really...isn't it impossible to disprove natural selection?

 

Um... The ratio can be deduced from the figures given in the passage. And face it, the figures are mathematically impossible.

Whoever said that isn't quite in the know. I Kings was written sometime around 550 BCE. Computations for π by certain human civilizations as far back as 1650 BCE were far more accurate than the Bible's implied figure.

Here's some further reading for you: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html#pi

 

I get the impression that no one is going to find evidence of intelligent design on this forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So if you saw a person up ontop of a roof, with a pile of chairs jumbled up at the foot of the wall, did God then place the person ontop of the building?

 

This makes no sense, first off Intelligent Design has nothing to do with "God" though religious advocates always make it seem so, it just implies some type of intelligent cause....people against ID always make claims like this because they can't really say anything else...

Secondly, amino acids are building blocks, but remember even the simplest forms of bacteria are much more complex than "jumbled chairs" or a bunch of amino acids....they have code (genetic code), this code is then read, translated, interpreted, etc...by the machines within the cell.....even your example implies some type of intelligent cause...

 

Are you trying to say that some humans might be intelligently designed? For example donald trump? Has his lifes activitities been predetermined or did he make those decisions himself? I ask why does he have to have a Golden palace in NY that could be a similar to Golden Palace in India for a Moghul emperor. Is he copying for a reason, is it his style becasue it is predetermined? why? I think it is true.

 

It was asked before, so I'll ask again. You are claiming that ID doesn't need God. What then, do you consider to be the ost likely canidate for the designer role? It must be intelligent, it must be in existance prior to life on earth, it must have designed. Agreed? So we are left with what? Aliens? Gods? What else?

But the jumble of chairs needs a much more complex arrangement in order to function as a ladder. Having the basic building blocks of a tool, and seeing the final result of what could be due to use of those building blocks, why do you jump to the conclusion that the situation is too complex for those tools to be used?

I don't understand why ID seems simpler than further use of the building blocks we can create in a lab today. The person is on the roof, the chairs are available....why invoke an Intelligent Roof-Putter?

 

Well you can interpret the intelligent cause as anything.....

Like God, aliens, nature or reality itself being intelligent, or a soul-mind, etc...

Your logic is fatally flawed...ask any biologists if there's more to a cell than amino acids...its like saying the material a structure is made of arises naturally, what need is there for some intelligent cause to design the structure, who cares if the structure itself never arises naturally? Clearly the conclusion is inevitable, there was some intelligent cause behind the structure itself, even though the material its made of arises naturally...

 

You've said this before. What do *you* consider to be the intelligent cause?

 

Probably the mind or reality itself...thats what I think...

 

Intelligent design claims what Charles Darwin claimed was true. Darwin claimed that if it could be shown that a species had a trait that had not been borne through many slight modifications over time, his theory would "unequivacably break down". It is proposed that the "Flagellan motor" could not fit the darwinian theory, as it is a very very complex biological motor.

I personally like the darwinian theory, but after watching the "down the rabbit hole" movie, I will for now keep an open mind.

 

Except that the motor has now been "explained" (inasmuch as a theory on how it developed has been put forward with few naysayers (New Scientist, about a month ago reported on it).
Complexity in and of itself is no reason to invoke ID.