Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] ]Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. The Intelligent Design movement is an organized campaign to promote ID arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States. The hub of the movement is the Center for Science and Culture, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank. The phrase "Intelligent Design," was coined by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book ''Darwin on Trial.'' Johnson's argument, and a key tenet of the ID movement, is that the premise of philosophical naturalism, which has dominated not only scientific mehodology but all western intellectual discourse since the nineteenth century, is false. The ID movement presents a case for "reasonable doubt" about the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection. ID includes arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life, and that the universe is "fine tuned" for living things in a manner that must have been by design. ID proponents argue, by way of an "eliminative inference," that reason dictates we settle upon intelligent causes whenever natural causes cannot suffice to explain some observed phenomena. ID makes no explicit claims about the identity of the intelligent designer, its motives or methods of operation. In practice, ID is often used by its proponents for the purpose of religious apologetics, to argue for the existence of a monothestic God. The ID movement is largely associated with conservative Christians, and in this connection ID is sometimes described as a revision of the argument from design made famous by William Paley in the early 19th century.

ID is rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists and philosophers of science, who regard ID as a form of pseudoscience.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

By progressive it means that new information is found and used to build up on the current theory you have. Creationism is NOT progressive because the only source of information is the bible and there can never be any new information unless a new bible is "sent from above".

Furthermore, Intelligent design isn't building up on original creationism. It's just another version.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]here's a little evolutionary quirk for you, it's possible that there be some basis for truth. The science behind it is explained fairly simple, first look at the geographical location of the 3 places you mentioned- notice something similar?? They're all fairly small, and have locations off of them that are even smaller -we have islands present in all 3 named cases-.
...In any case, I'm not saying magical little people exist, but your post is excellent proof of something that I wish people would have kept in mind when this thread was started: none of us know it all. Oh, and if my explanation's not enough proof for you here's some linkage to a related example: Homo floresiensis, and another..., and a third.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that even if they are based on truth (like the indonesian one could have been... and I believe it was) they are not magical creatures that if you catch them will lead you to the end of the rainbow and give you a pot of gold. (another story comes from scandanavia or something)
there have also been huge bigfoot like creatures before (in china?) but they weren't the magical creatures that native americans say they are.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]It's just another version.

Ever revised a hypothesis? Used/made a different version of software? New version means it shares the same roots (Bob's AOL 4.0 is still as AOL as his 2.0). So, as far as I can see, it's interrelated enough- Intelligent Design is an result of Creationism that shares some similar central points.

Quote[/b] ]... and there can never be any new information unless a new bible is "sent from above".

Why not? I don't care where I get evidence from so long as it's evidence, sent from above, below, or if it's been under my nose the whole time. Though it has a religious basis, doesn't mean that findings can't be used in support of it. Now, why don't we let the other nice people on this forum take a gander at things before we go on too much more or Starman might get upset at us again

Oh, and as a final note for this post, I believe firmly in Evolution, so you know something's up that I'd bother to "argue" with someone who's on my "side". Oh well, 'till later.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,3:05)]

Quote[/b] ]It's just another version.

Ever revised a hypothesis? Used/made a different version of software? New version means it shares the same roots (Bob's AOL 4.0 is still as AOL as his 2.0). So, as far as I can see, it's interrelated enough- Intelligent Design is an result of Creationism that shares some similar central points.

First off, thats a bad analogy. Intelligent Design is very different from Creationism. Its another version NOT centered around creationist principles.

Understand that.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,3:05)]

Quote[/b] ]... and there can never be any new information unless a new bible is "sent from above".

Why not? I don't care where I get evidence from so long as it's evidence, sent from above, below, or if it's been under my nose the whole time. Though it has a religious basis, doesn't mean that findings can't be used in support of it. Now, why don't we let the other nice people on this forum take a gander at things before we go on too much more or Starman might get upset at us again

Oh, and as a final note for this post, I believe firmly in Evolution, so you know something's up that I'd bother to "argue" with someone who's on my "side". Oh well, 'till later.

The problem is that Creationism is centered around the bible. There is no other source of information.

Could the evolutionists PLEASE stop arguing against fellow evolutionists. It does bring up good points but i'd rather a creationist attack me. You pack of traitors

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]... well, many cultures have myths of little people. Hawaiians, the ones in idonesia, leprichauns or however you spell it from ireland, dwarves from I have no clue where, etc... many cultures also have myths of sea serpents, many others of vampires, bigfoot type of things, etc... so are they all true?

Sorry, I guess it was what I interprited as sarcasm of some sort that led me to misconstrue.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ]First off, thats a bad analogy. Intelligent Design is very different from Creationism. Its another version NOT centered around creationist principles.

Understand that.

Oh, then please do explain.

Quote[/b] ]You pack of traitors

I'd feel like more of a traitor if I let what I think to be invalid arguements go unpointed out.  This is a more extreme example, but if I said I was an "Evolutionist" and I said something completely wrong, wouldn't you feel entitled to correct me??  And no, I'm not trying to imply that you're completely wrong, just wanna get some things cleared up.

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that Creationism is centered around the bible. There  is no other source of information.

 Sooo.. If I found evidence that supported Creationism that wasn't in the bible, that'd invalidate it??  That's all I'm saying...

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]I'd feel like more of a traitor if I let what I think to be invalid arguements go unpointed out. This is a more extreme example, but if I said I was an "Evolutionist" and I said something completely wrong, wouldn't you feel entitled to correct me?? And no, I'm not trying to imply that you're completely wrong, just wanna get some things cleared up.

ok, that's fine with me... are there any more things that need to be cleared up?

Quote[/b] ] Sooo.. If I found evidence that supported Creationism that wasn't in the bible, that'd invalidate it?? That's all I'm saying...

if something, ANYTHIGN supported creationism besides religion, I'd consider it. So far nothing has, so I don't consider it. (you mean validate it?)

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

I think that intelligent design is very closely related to religion and is basically a form of masking creationism as coming from any one religion. It's definately not scientific... not really anyway.

 

[Est]

Quote[/b] ](you mean validate it?)

Oh, I was reffering to the evidence being invalidated, sorry, I realize I made that a little confusing. As for the clarification of things, I clarify/question as things come... And they just keep on comin'

 

[endparenthesis]

I think Intelligent Design is scientific, conceptually... it's just been latched onto by so many top-down thinkers who see it as validation of their beliefs that they've corrupted it and destroyed any chance of it being taken seriously. A true Intelligent Design proponent would be someone who feels they've stumbled upon solid evidence against life's complexity emerging unaided by intelligence that can't be ignored... without (this is crucial) having been desperate to find such evidence beforehand in order to keep their beliefs safe. Valid theories are borne from evidence, not from people's desires.

I know I've read of ID people who fit this description, and many of them don't even seem particularly religious, but they're very few and far between. Typically their theories haven't held up anyway. But that's how science goes... failed theories are part of the process.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

After it gets locked, we can continue the discussion here:
http://www.galacforums.com/AEforum/viewtopic.php?p=36#36
Anyone that just began looking through can go there for a fresh new topic.

 

[herenorthere]

The origins of life, the universe, and everything have proceeded according to the laws of physics, with plenty of random chance. We don't know or understand all of it. If you like to refer to "the laws of physics, with plenty of random chance" as Intelligent Design or even God, that's fine with me. It'll save you a lot of syllables too.

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 15 2005,3:07)]

Quote[/b] (Est @ Jan. 15 2005,3:05)]

Quote[/b] ]... and there can never be any new information unless a new bible is "sent from above".

Why not? I don't care where I get evidence from so long as it's evidence, sent from above, below, or if it's been under my nose the whole time. Though it has a religious basis, doesn't mean that findings can't be used in support of it. Now, why don't we let the other nice people on this forum take a gander at things before we go on too much more or Starman might get upset at us again

Oh, and as a final note for this post, I believe firmly in Evolution, so you know something's up that I'd bother to "argue" with someone who's on my "side". Oh well, 'till later.

The problem is that Creationism is centered around the bible. There is no other source of information.

Could the evolutionists PLEASE stop arguing against fellow evolutionists. It does bring up good points but i'd rather a creationist attack me. You pack of traitors

John, what was the purpose of the Mary Magdalen thing?

I'm a Christian and I cannot be pigeon-holed as a creationist. I do not subscribe to 7 consecutive 24 hour periods and 6-8,000 years of existence. But id He wanted to do things that way, who are we to say that He couldn't. All I say is that God did this creating thing and I don't know or care how HE did it. All the Bible was trying to portray is that God is the creator.

 

[ktulu]

hey can i clear something up here, i dont know if this has been addressed yet, but i would like to clear up the statement of evolution being a fact. This is what my anthro professor( who has a ph.d in bioanthropology and specalizes in human evoultion) told me about the debate over the evolution being a "fact"

the only part of evolution that is accepted as a fact is microevolution which is the change in the frequency of allels between one generation to the next.

macroevolution is not accepted as fact by many in the scientific community since the time scale it would require to prove is so massive that people have not truely observed it taking place. I know one of you will scream about observing speication(sp? i cant spell at night) but i would be interested to check that out because i believe there must be some holes in that or else evolution would be accepted as a fact.

now i know alot of you die hard evolutionists are probably going to freak out when you read this and say that i am ignoring alot of stuff but i still have seen no proff of macroevolution, however microevolution is something that is very real.

 

[jimscott]

yeah, micro-evolution is an easy one to prove. The example of the white-colored moths becoming gray over the years, due to the pollution produced during the industrial revolution is a no-brainer. Ironically, macro-evolution has to be accepted on faith. Archaelogy doesn't prove the existence of God or creationism, but it goes a long way in verifying battles, civiliztions, and a loy of predictive prophecy. Check out Josh McDowell's book, entitles "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", where the guy read the Bible in order to disprove it, only to become a Christian because of the overwhelming evidence staring him in the face.

 

[scottychaos]

why isnt the entire fossil record of the planet aquate proof for macroevolution?
We have fossils showing the modern horse evolving in stages through about a dozen intermediate forms..
we have fossils showing birds evolving from dinosaurs..
thats not good enough proof?
it is for me..
why do we have to "observe" it in person in order to prove it?
no one observed the earth being created, but we dont doubt that it was..
to me, the proof is clear.
its all right there, plain as day.
Scot

 

[ktulu]

scientificlly that is not proof though, you might be able to form a good idea of what happened, but that is not proof, atleast to the scientific world that is.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Ironically, macro-evolution has to be accepted on faith. Archaelogy doesn't prove the existence of God or creationism

not the least bit like real faith.

Quote[/b] ]Check out Josh McDowell's book, entitles "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", where the guy read the Bible in order to disprove it, only to become a Christian because of the overwhelming evidence staring him in the face.

you check these out- http://www.ffrf.org/
Dan Barker - Losing Faith In Faith (Dan Barker used to be an evangelical preacher, and is now an activist for The Freedom From Religion Foundation)
http://www.infidels.org/library....ry.html Why I Left The Ministry And Became An Atheist
I bet that guy you're talking about only looked at archeological evidence. Well, at least I would HOPE that that was right since the books the bible came from were written in that time! it would be kind of pointless to try to start a religion today and write about the "cuindy culture"