What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

[Truth Warrior]

1. See two pages or so ago
How about a post number? Thanks!
2. Maybe I had a lot to drink last night so I can't remember.
I don't think that we did.
3. No, but it's better than no evidence. I.E god did it.
But not proof, agreed? I haven't proposed or posited a god, have I?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Yes you have. You have proposed that nature has been designed.

Design implies a Designer

Where is the evidence of your designer?

 

[Truth Warrior]

No. Evidence only suggests something is likely true.
Is that good enough for science?

However, without evidence, there is no rational reason to believe something to be true. (God)
Your point, please? "Belief" based on what?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
2. It's a figure of speech. To which I replied with a joke.
3. What I said before.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Yes. You can never arrive at an absolute truth . There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.

Belief based on what? Thats exactly the point. What are you basing your beliefs on? If there is no evidence to support your beliefs, on what rational basis are you believing in them?

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Yes. You can never arrive at an absolute truth . There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.

Will you ever shave those nasty sideburns?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes you have. You have proposed that nature has been designed.
Post number please.
Design implies a Designer
Is nature a designer? Are we dealing with ephemeral subjective interpretations of implications now?
Where is the evidence of your designer?
What designer?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The creationists here are still assuming that things can be proven or disprove by simple intuition, absent of any empirical evidence.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Then what the hell have you been talking about all this time, if not the notion that the universe has been designed by some intelligence?

 

[sophocles07]

Theocrat--can you tell me how you would teach "intelligent design" in classrooms?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I take that back Truth Warrior. Looking back on this thread, you havnt really been talking about anything at all. Your posts have contributed nothing of relevance to this discussion.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Yes. You can never arrive at an absolute truth . There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.
I ain't talking "absolute truth" here. Just plain old everyday homo sapiens "science".
Belief based on what?
Remember the Feynman quote?
Thats exactly the point.
What's the point?
What are you basing your beliefs on?
Absence of sufficient "deductive" evidence and proof. Seems pretty rational and reasonable to me.
If there is no evidence to support your beliefs, on what rational basis are you believing in them?
How much evidence does a skeptic require?

Page #33!

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Page #33!

First off, none of that stuff if peer reviewed scientific research. Reading that and accepting it as science is about as reasonable as reading an Ann Coulter column and accepting it as foreign policy research.

Second, half of it is so absurdly wrong, I dont know why you would even post it.

 

[DrAmy31415]

Yes. You can never arrive at an absolute truth . There is always the possibility that undiscovered evidence is still out there to disprove a theory.

Thanks Mr. Sideburns, the fact that someone else out there knows this and can articulate it makes me want to weep with joy.

Thankyou, thankyou thankyewverymuch.

 

[DrAmy31415]

Theocrat--can you tell me how you would teach "intelligent design" in classrooms?

Better yet--in a lab!

 

[Truth Warrior]

I take that back Truth Warrior. Looking back on this thread, you havnt really been talking about anything at all. Your posts have contributed nothing of relevance to this discussion.

Thanks! Retraction accepted. Interesting opinion. One just might assume that a thread on ID, just might have some relevance concerning the theory of evolution.

Very nice duck and dodge there, BTW.

Didn't I read about you, not by name of course, on thread page #33? Highly recommended.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Page #33!

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120706.php3

I guess Ron Paul is wrong. Says right here in this article that pulling out of Iraq means we lose the war and we are all going to die.


Makes about as much sense as the bullshit you posted.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Thanks Mr. Sideburns, the fact that someone else out there knows this and can articulate it makes me want to weep with joy.

Thankyou, thankyou thankyewverymuch.

Strange...

Falsifiability has been covered in this sub forum many times over.

 

[DrAmy31415]

So, if I can get this right, TW wants to be able to purely use the deductive method of logic in order to "buy" the modern theory of evolution, while most science aside from astronomy, particle physics, and astrophysics uses the inductive method.

Sorry homeslice, biology is too messy for pure deductive reasoning here. Mutations and variation can not be easily predicted or logically reasoned out on a message board. An ex of mine did his post-doc work in biophysics, writing code to try to mimic biology--specifically that of proteins. If that's what you're looking for, they're working on it deductively, using the logic of code. It's the only lab I've been in that was all super computers and no "real" equipment.

Sorry TW, it's gonna take a few years for you to get your "deductive" reasoning when it comes to life, given it's complexity. Just so you know, they have made a lot of headway in being able to use code to effectively mock the lower "life" forms, mutations and all.

See here:

http://www.roselab.jhu.edu/

I'll give the ex a call some day and ask his opinions on evolution by pure deduction and I'll update you then.

 

[DrAmy31415]

Strange...

Falsifiability has been covered in this sub forum many times over.

Yeah, I said it. I'm sure you have as well, I must have missed it.