Customer Discussions > Science forum

An Open Intelligent Design Challenge

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 23, 2012 7:27:04 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I wish to present a challenge to the Intelligent Design supporters on this forum. Since clearly one of the biggest problems in discussions of the subject is the lack of clear definitions for the terms used, I propose (or more accurately challenge) proponents to do three things here in this forum.

1) provide a definition of the terms of intelligent design.
These terms that require a definition include (but may not be limited to) "irreducible complexity" and "design".

2) Provide a statement of the theory of intelligent design.

3) use the above statement to make a scientific prediction.

Quoting form external sources is legitimate as long as the link is provided, (ie, no plagiarizing). Expect the definitions, statement of the theory, and prediction(s) to be held to a scientific standard. For example, to meet my challenge a statement must follow the logical structure of a scientific theory. In short, if you want it to be treated as science, present as science.

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 7:52:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 20, 2012 7:05:15 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 7:58:12 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
haynes, without a doubt, you're the perfect spokesman for creationism!

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 8:11:47 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 8:15:57 PM PDT
Bruce Alpine says:
I have just on issue with your thread header. You regard creationism as a fact. creationism cannot be regarded as a fact as creationism is no more than a hypothesis shared by many. A scientific theory is generally regarded as Fact. A Theory has progressed from a hypothesis by way of testing and experiment and proved to be true. Creationism on the other hand can not be tested, thus cannot be proven my test and experiment. creation aim is based on a cultural belief only.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 8:29:47 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Hmm... interesting. What I intend to do is get some IDers to define their terms so we can debate without debating what their terms actually mean. I simply did not want to offend them with the opening post.

One minor quibble: creationism is a myth.
A theory is not proven true. It has failed to be proven wrong. It is also not a fact.

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 8:33:23 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 23, 2012 8:42:40 PM PDT]

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 8:33:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 1:04:20 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 8:46:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 8:47:44 PM PDT
Bruce Alpine says:
I beg to disagree. The general term 'theory" differs from the scientific use of Theory. A scientific hypothesis is an idea, based on observations, the hypothesis is tested and proved correct, the hypothesis then progresses as a scientific theory where it is then tested by many people with various methods of testing and experiment. If through this process, the hypothesis or theory is proved wrong or incorrect, it is then rejected by the scientific community.

Evolution is not a theory at all. It is a model or a scenario for which there is overwhelming evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 9:49:27 PM PDT
First paragraph fine, but then you go all weird...

Models, scenarios, and theories are not mutually exclusive.

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 10:12:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 10:13:28 PM PDT
Hoo-Zen!! says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 23, 2012 10:53:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 10:53:17 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Definitions: I'll leave them alone for now.

Theory: contains no antecedent or consequent.
Proof:
God designed the world. He used partial forms in his infinite being as exemplars of creation. --- assertions. these are not propositions.

Using a simple analogy God {1,2... infinity}--- Creatures [1,2,3],[2,4.6]. ---assertion.

As image the creatures have two aspects likeness to God [formal Simul]: a degree of formal likeness AND imitation [persiety/inseity] self possessed self directed, dominant and free - degree of nobility. ---assertion, not a proposition. Also lacking a definition of "god"

For you "prediction"
Intelligent and free life will be found in creation and it is likely to possess the character of ascending evolution --- not a proposition. A proposition can have only one truth value: true or false. This sentence allows for multiple truth values.

(- tendency to freer and nobler life in a context that is freely conducive to this "arisal" or emergence.) -- attempted definition of "ascending evolution". Awkward, buy not too bad.

Therefore you have not presented a scientific theory. All theories must make unique predictions and they must contain propositions. Well, more actually they are made of propositions. Care to try again?

Posted on Jul 23, 2012 11:27:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 23, 2012 11:31:44 PM PDT
Let's just hit the ID critics at the heart of their beliefs.

Intelligent design may be seen in DNA.

1. Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way.

In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

for an elaborate explanation of how DNA is code and all code is the product of intelligent design, see here http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 12:11:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 12:13:03 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"1. Code is defined as the rules of communication between an encoder (a "writer" or "speaker") and a decoder (a "reader" or "listener") using agreed upon symbols."

No one told that to chemistry. It just uses natural laws. So in this sense DNA is not a code. DNA does not use symbols. (basically I am calling out your definition of a code in case you missed it.)

"2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s."

Not a point in contention.

"3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages"

It also has a lot of differences. It does not have a choice in how it works. It must follow the physical laws, just like electricity must take the path of least resistance.

"4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins."

And its all done by the laws of physics.

"5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way."

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." --(you should know)

In other words, learn what you are talking about instead of quoting creationist web sites. Especially ones that have been debunked as often as this. Information theory does not prevent evolution. If in doubt look at its applications: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6233

Oh, and I assume you know this, but anyway: even if evolution is wrong that does not imply that ID is right. They are mutually exclusive but the fact that one is wrong does not imply the other is right. Have a nice day.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 7:49:55 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 12:52:54 PM PDT
Re B. Alpine, 7-23 8:11 PM: "You regard creationism as a fact." This is not my impression, at all: the OP simply wants proponents of ID to support their view. (Which view is, in my opinion, ridiculous.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 1:00:39 PM PDT
Re Physics Geek, 7-24 12:11 AM: Basically a fine post. But: "They are mutually exclusive but the fact that one is wrong does not imply the other is right." This would be true iff the propositions are exhaustive -- which they can be made to be by a simple re-phrasing: either intelligent design happened, or it didn't. However, it is trivial to show that ID can predict nothing; thus being irrefutable, it cannot be science.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 1:03:08 PM PDT
Re Curtis, 7-24 7:49 AM: Why are you even dealing with that nitwit? I have had him on Ignore for months.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 1:33:26 PM PDT
I'm not an ID'er but when Dawkins says that a watchmaker lays out his cogs and gears with foreknowledge whereas there is no such thing in nature, I like to remind people that the atoms were thusly laid out in such a manner so as to interconnect as sophisticated building blocks. The odds of such an 'accidental' occurrence seem quite unlikely to me...

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 2:01:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:19:30 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 2:15:16 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
Somehow I'm not surprised only the second post in this thread comes from a completely non scientific approach.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 3:45:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 3:45:37 PM PDT
Re Kevin Williams, 7-24 1:33 PM: This is a variation of the anthropomorphic argument, and also of the argument from incredulity. The better view of this is not "the universe was set up so that we could exist" -- it is, rather, "we exist in our present forms because the universe happens to have properties that make it possible for us to do so." For more on this, see:

Stenger,The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 3:52:55 PM PDT
It is anthropocentric as are all human thoughts. Yet think about what atoms are. Hydrogen has a single electron and proton. It's atomic weight is 1. He is 2. On and on both sequentially and chronologically up to 98 so naturally occurring. Then consider the unique properties each atom has to have to give DNA just the right properties to have just the right fidelity vs error to form beings, eventually sentient beings etc. It's not so much incredulous as it is premeditated. This represents the concept of foreknowledge on a grand scale. And just as Dawkins has denied it. The non-theistic view suggests that it all just fell together. How likely does that seem?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 4:19:39 PM PDT
Re Williams above: Likelihood has absolutely nothing to do with the case. Yes, if the numbers were significantly different, we would not be here (at least in our present form), but so what? Furthermore, there are posits of other universes in which the numbers could conceivably be different; if this is the case, the odds of our hitting the jackpot are increased.

But all of this odds-making is post hoc, which makes it worthless. The probability of the occurrence of an event which has occurred is 1.

Another reference of interest: Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 4:25:27 PM PDT
Einstein said no watch without a watchmaker. I don't enjoy arguing in my old age. I look for reasons to believe in a scientific God and there are plenty of reasons. Good luck to you though.

Posted on Jul 24, 2012 5:24:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 5:39:35 PM PDT
Folks its the Silliest Atheist Contest

Today we got an repeat contestant
And folks belive you me, this guy is such a laugh

Folks the mass of the universe, if it was different by a little amount
1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000T,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Thats some little huh?
Then we couldnt be alive on our very earth.

So this Atheist Contestent he assumes it happened by accident.
He says, If you got lots of them universes, Ahem "the odds of our hitting the jackpot are increased. But all of this odds-making is post hoc, which makes it worthless. The probability of the occurrence of an event which has occurred is 1."
What a howl.
Our Atheist Contestant he assumes it happens by accident
and then says the odds of it happening by accident is 1!!!
Didnt I say this guy was wall to wall laughs?

Now folks, I sure hope his missus and kids arent watching the show folks.
But them neighbor kids, cant you hear them "Your daddy is a goof"
Kids can be mean huh?

Anyhow, how about a nice round of applause folks.

Folks tune in again tommorow to the Creationist Channel
for the Silliest Atheist Contest
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  120
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jul 23, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions