Intelligent design isn't science

where'd you get the masters of divinities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

No matter how many "gaps" evolution has in it, ID has exactly one MORE "gap" by adding on another supposition we can not test or make predictions from

---

But evolution never concedes that it requires a faith-based origin to begin with.... from a statistical point of view.

So they are on equal grounds when it comes to this point....

But again, most will never acknowledge it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!

where'd you get the masters of divinities

---

From my family.... and from my own personal experiences...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

This single sentence automatically disqualifies any legitimate thing you could possibly say about evolution because you've obviously been reading articles from cnn.com or something.
Observations? Come on..

---

You are aware that hegamboa is a researcher at MIT, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Actually thats what I just said, and actually its still impossible for a raptor to remain a raptor for millions of years.

---

<Cringes> Ouch. That is so, so, so very wrong. The fossil record in fact DOES show species remaining stable over millions of years with minimal variations. We have examples of that today, for example, the alligator.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Stout, i dont know if you were being sarcastic or not, but people have acknowledged since day ONE the insanely odds of evolution and universe creation. I don't give a fuck if its .0001^9999 power improbability that still leaves a chance and for all we know we ARE the only planet with life, who really knows? The fact is its not impossible, so if you look up the definitions to those words, then the definition to checkmate.....blah blah

---

Wait a minute here... let's be clear.
Evolution itself does not have "insanely odds" stacked against it. It is highly probable to be true.
The idea that evolution, and further, the universe, came about by random chance, is what is staring at such long odds, by your words.*

What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true. A similar argument would be to claim that as long as the Toronto Raptors are not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, we should regard them as the presumptive 2005-06 NBA champions.

I know about the saying that says once we can exclude the impossible, what is left, no matter how seemingly improbable must be true. But the idea of a Creator has been in no way disproven. Given that by your own admission the probability of an atheistic universe is all but infintesimal, how can you make a rational argument for it?

Quote:

---

What we have so far are still the most "rational" theories on the subject, and sticking a God into science will put us back about a thousand years. If we find more evidence pointing to a God, then cool. But we don't, so we can't. It's the way science works.

---

The "rational" theories don't point toward or away from a God. They are silent on the matter.
The issue is that the existence of God is not falsifiable via the scientific method, and therefore the question cannot be resolved through science, and must then fall onto other fields of study. That in no way means that God does not exist. Rather, the far stronger inference to be made (albeit external to the scientific method) is that he does.

*My understanding is that the mechanisms of these theories are much more robust and determinant than what you seem to give them credit for. How interesting then that I remain theistic while you do not.

CBF got P3Wned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

No... a Bio-Engineering Masters at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Chemical Engineering undergraduate degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
A Core Mathematics and Physics degree at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and a Minor in Music.... at ... you know.

---

I'll wager that you were real popular with the kids at your high school for dicking up every grade curve. :spin

Evolution/Intelligent discussion has grown old.

How about string theory?

Clovis first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

But evolution never concedes that it requires a faith-based origin to begin with.... from a statistical point of view.

So they are on equal grounds when it comes to this point....

But again, most will never acknowledge it.

---

I don't agree that is evolution that stems from the "faith-based" origin so much as it is the exclusively naturalistic interpretation of evolution which depends on that infintessimally improbable theory behind abiogenesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

<Cringes> Ouch. That is so, so, so very wrong. The fossil record in fact DOES show species remaining stable over millions of years with minimal variations. We have examples of that today, for example, the alligator.

---

well this is the fourth time now i've asked for a link...*ouch* indeed
and we are not talking minimal variations we are talking "the same"
*ouch* :depressed

Quote:

---

What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true.

---

I never said that.
I said that because it is not impossible that we cannot ignore it.

Quote:

---

Given that by your own admission the probability of an atheistic universe is all but infintesimal, how can you make a rational argument for it?

---

Because it's not impossible. Like I said earlier. If I were a raptors fan, and my team was not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you better believe I'd think my team can still make it. improbability does not equal impossibility.....

Quote:

---

The "rational" theories don't point toward or away from a God. They are silent on the matter.

---

EXACTLY

thats what I have been saying on this issue since day 1

Quote:

---

The issue is that the existence of God is not falsifiable via the scientific method, and therefore the question cannot be resolved through science, and must then fall onto other fields of study.

---

I just said this, basically

Quote:

---

That in no way means that God does not exist. Rather, the far stronger inference to be made (albeit external to the scientific method) is that he does.

---

If you read into my posts with the same eagerness you have for refuting them you'd realize that I never said God did not exist, I actually do believe God exists, I just was supporting evolution against the arguments used to point out its "gaps"

Basically, what I have been saying was another way of saying what you just said above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I don't agree that is evolution that stems from the "faith-based" origin so much as it is the exclusively naturalistic interpretation of evolution which depends on that infintessimally improbable theory behind abiogenesis.

---

What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...

---

That is not faith. The odds are there. That is a belief, a prediction, i dunno someone whip out a dictionary.

Faith requires believing in something you cannot grasp with the senses .

I can read the true odds on a peice of paper and know them and take my chances.
That is not faith.

And to clarify.... I'm not a researcher at MIT.... I decided to come home to "tree-less" South Texas and work at one of the refineries....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

What I mean is that their odds are soooooooo low. Evolutionary proponents have placed their faith on this theory and accepted those odds blindly...

---

I think we disagree on definitions here. By "evolution," you mean the notion that proposes that all life on earth, its origins, and the changes in its forms over time, have occurred solely by naturalistic mechanisms, implying strongly that there is no Creator God, right?

I have a much narrower definition, which may explain why I don't have a problem with it. Mine would only address the changes in form of species over time, and describe the mechanisms.

This seems to jive with our differences in opinion over the scope of scientific inquiry, mine tending towards the narrow and pragmatic, yours toward the wider and over-arching.

Basically I agree with most of what extra stout just said, I think the theories don't point to or away from a God. That being said, I don't think thats an excuse to say God-caused creation is science. I don't think its an excuse to have our currently accepted theories refused.

I dont think God belongs in our science classes (at least not yet) and I'm all for seperating religion and school.

I personally do believe in a God, but that faith in a God does not make me overeager to stick him onto a dead end in our collective scientific knowledge. That, I believe, is stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

That is not faith. The odds are there. That is a belief, a prediction, i dunno someone whip out a dictionary.

Faith requires believing in something you cannot grasp with the senses .

I can read the true odds on a peice of paper and know them and take my chances.
That is not faith.

---

OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 2x10^-16 <--- conservative estimate based on measurable senses....

millions more have experienced him on a spiritual level... but I won't include them in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 10^

---

Okay, but you're using some pretty big suppositions.
We already know the odds for hte universe thing, as you have pointed out.

We don't know if those miracles were true. We don't know what the percentage of true facts are in the bible.

You are coming from a mode of thinking in which miracles are true (faith), and I realize now its impossible to convince you ID isnt science.

I don't place faith in those miracles being true. That is a very big difference from saying "I don't place faith in the odds of random universe creation resulting in a randomly created universe"

There is a difference there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Okay, but you're using some pretty big suppositions.
We already know the odds for hte universe thing, as you have pointed out.

We don't know if those miracles were true. We don't know what the percentage of true facts are in the bible.

You are coming from a mode of thinking in which miracles are true (faith), and I realize now its impossible to convince you ID isnt science.

---

Toucheé.... I'm just pointing out your.... "if it's not impossible then its still probable point of view..."

No thats backwards, I was saying if its improbable its not impossible.

What I truely do not understand, is that if you claim evolution itself (not universe creation) to be so highly improbable and unlikely, don't you still depend on the slim odds of evolution to happen by taking an ID stance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

well this is the fourth time now i've asked for a link...*ouch* indeed
and we are not talking minimal variations we are talking "the same"
*ouch* :depressed

---

I don't find it valid to talk about "the same" when discussing speciation because the only organisms within a species that do not experience minimal variation from one another are clones.

Quote:

---

I never said that.
I said that because it is not impossible that we cannot ignore it.

---

Just because we cannot ignore not does not mean we need to presume it as true.

Quote:

---

Because it's not impossible. Like I said earlier. If I were a raptors fan, and my team was not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, you better believe I'd think my team can still make it. improbability does not equal impossibility.....

---

A Raptors fan that believes as such would be depending upon FAITH to the exclusion of all objective evidence.

Yours is not the strongest defense of evolution I have ever read, even if I do agree with many of your conclusions. It's just kind of painful to see you defend evolution in a manner that makes creationism seem more credible. That's hard to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I think we disagree on definitions here. By "evolution," you mean the notion that proposes that all life on earth, its origins, and the changes in its forms over time, have occurred solely by naturalistic mechanisms, implying strongly that there is no Creator God, right?

I have a much narrower definition, which may explain why I don't have a problem with it. Mine would only address the changes in form of species over time, and describe the mechanisms.

This seems to jive with our differences in opinion over the scope of scientific inquiry, mine tending towards the narrow and pragmatic, yours toward the wider and over-arching.

---

Correct for the most part.... "unguided evolution" rejects the notion that life was designed....

What you define as "evolution" is what I call adaptation; and this includes the phenotypic richness contained in the genes that were 'originally' given to a species "after it's own kind".

Lunch break....!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

And to clarify.... I'm not a researcher at MIT.... I decided to come home to "tree-less" South Texas and work at one of the refineries....

---

well TX used to have trees but they were no longer serving their purpose, so they evolved into Longneck beers. And God said beer was good. And on the seventh day, God said everybody must drink at least 6 beers. Hence, Saturday has become the day for beer-drinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

I don't find it valid to talk about "the same" when discussing speciation because the only organisms within a species that do not experience minimal variation from one another are clones.

---

See, you're not even reading what i am saying. That is my whole fucking point. Hegamboa said they would be the same. I said they would not be. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Just because we cannot ignore not does not mean we need to presume it as true.

---

never...said....that....said...itwas...best...theo ry....out...there...ugghhghgh

Quote:

---

A Raptors fan that believes as such would be depending upon FAITH to the exclusion of all objective evidence.

---

Only if he had prayed to god for his team to win.

Quote:

---

It's just kind of painful to see you defend evolution in a manner that makes creationism seem more credible. That's hard to do.

---

It's even more painful to see you take everything i say out of context and then do it some more.

OO i know, lets wait till the next up and coming Extra Stout critique of horribly misinterpreted CBF posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hegamboa

OK... if there have been 200 billion people in the history of earth (and I'm making a generous concession here) and at least 1000 have seen or heard GOD... (not including the 2 million hebrews that witnessned GOD's supernatural authority over nature at the Red Sea crossing)

And suppossing that the authors of the Judeo-Christian Bible were truthful 0.000000001% of the time about their accounts.

The probability of human kind proving the existence of GOD is still higher than the probability that an unguided chaotic process spurred life on its own.

That means that humans that can prove the existence of GOD are 1 in 2x10^-16 <--- conservative estimate based on measurable senses....

millions more have experienced him on a spiritual level... but I won't include them in this discussion.

---

Naturally that all depends upon circular reasoning. One has to accept the authority of the Biblical account in order to follow your logic. And if one accepts Biblical authority, then there would be no dispute about the existence of God.

Oh, wow, who would have thought. I just re-read my posts in this thread and not once did i say evolution was "true". Wow no wonder my argument is so full of holes in the world of Extra Stout, you might as well pretend that I am a bigger dumbass and make it easier on yourself to crush me if you're gonna suppose such crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Extra Stout

What you then are arguing is that as long as there is something greater than a zero chance that atheistic evolution is true, then we must assume that atheistic evolution is true.

---

It's funny because you're arguing against something that you say i am saying. What is the point of having a blog at all if you can read our minds and know full and well what we believe and want to say before we've even said it!
In fact, im pretty sure you already knew I was goign to say this too, huh!