Total Posts:492|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design Q and A

joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 6:09:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Theta pinch claims that his evolution Q and A thread is necessary because the theory of evolution is poorly understood. If this is true, then this ID Q and A is much more necessary. For decades, naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution has been taught in our schools. For the most part, what the general public has "learned" about intelligent design theory has come from hostile opponents who often present straw man versions of what ID theory actually states. Therefore, ID, by and large, is not merely poorly understood, it is wrongly understood. I am more than happy to field any and all questions, and to clarify, verify or correct any understandings or misunderstandings anyone may have on this important subject.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:13:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.

You should be asking questions about ID, not answering them.

Here, like this: (first question for joe)

Is ID science, or religion, or both?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?

Evidently yes
http://www.pewforum.org...

Not to mention Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller

And I know I did, for a long time too.

I have a question. Since the creation on trial is now a circus.

1. How can one logically make testable predictions with this theory, and could you give a few examples that have not yet been tested.

2. What would falsify this theory
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?

I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 8:24:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?

That they are mutually exclusive. I believe in ID, and I believe in evolution, and I see no contradiction between the two.

I saw an excellent quote once, it went something like this:

Asking who made the world, God or evolution, is like asking who made the Ford Model T, Henry Ford or mechanical engineering.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Why couldn't the intelligent designer not simply bestow the features which may be irreducibly complex on one species to a new species and let evolution do the rest?
etherealvoyager
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 8:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:09:14 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Theta pinch claims that his evolution Q and A thread is necessary because the theory of evolution is poorly understood. If this is true, then this ID Q and A is much more necessary. For decades, naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution has been taught in our schools. For the most part, what the general public has "learned" about intelligent design theory has come from hostile opponents who often present straw man versions of what ID theory actually states. Therefore, ID, by and large, is not merely poorly understood, it is wrongly understood. I am more than happy to field any and all questions, and to clarify, verify or correct any understandings or misunderstandings anyone may have on this important subject.

Do you think that 'specified complexity' is a viable argument for intelligent design?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 8:53:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:24:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?

That they are mutually exclusive. I believe in ID, and I believe in evolution, and I see no contradiction between the two.

Modern Evolutionary Theory does not allow for Intelligent Design Theory. Sure, you could say that first common ancestor was an intelligently-designed cell, and that wouldn't explicitly contradict Evolution. However, according to Evolution, that cell evolved complexity and information via non-intelligent processes. According to ID, that's impossible. So there you go. That are not compatible.

At 2/13/2014 8:26:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
Why couldn't the intelligent designer not simply bestow the features which may be irreducibly complex on one species to a new species and let evolution do the rest?

Could you clarify? That question has several conflicting ways of being interpreted.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:24:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.

Thanks for both of your questions.

Actually design detection has long been an important scientific endeavor. For example, the disciplines of archaeology and forensics would not exist at all if design detection were not in fact a scientific endeavor. Intelligent Design theory relies on the same long established scientific endeavor.

Your claim here brings up one of the fundamental misunderstandings of Intelligent Design theory and serves as a texbook example of what I mean when I say that most people (through no fault of their own) have received what they know about ID from its hostile opponents.

ID theory makes the evidence based claim that certain aspects of nature, specifically the origin of life, look designed (which all agree upon) because they are designed. The hostile opponents of ID, not wishing to address the substance of the argument, try to convince the public at large that ID is religion.

The truth is that when it comes to the origin of life, we can be driven by the evidence or by our metaphysics. People on both sides of the debate often let their metaphysic do their thinking for them. This does not make evidence based theories religious in any way.

In answer to your first question, which really does not touch on the subject at hand, of course it is possible to believe in both evolution and God
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:33:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:13:39 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.

You should be asking questions about ID, not answering them.

Here, like this: (first question for joe)

Is ID science, or religion, or both?

Hi Garret.

Good question. ID is pure science. Of course, since it is a science that directly concerns the origin of life, metaphysical implications will inevitably arise from our conclusions. The same can be said of evolution. For example, Richard Dawkins has said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

Just as evolution suggests (suggests, but does not demand) that intelligent agency may not be involved in the origin of life and therefore could support atheism, so too, intelligent design argues that an intelligent agent is responsible for the origin of life. Questions concerning the nature or identity of the intelligent agent are a separate issue.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:33:48 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:13:39 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.

You should be asking questions about ID, not answering them.

Here, like this: (first question for joe)

Is ID science, or religion, or both?

Hi Garret.

Good question. ID is pure science. Of course, since it is a science that directly concerns the origin of life, metaphysical implications will inevitably arise from our conclusions. The same can be said of evolution. For example, Richard Dawkins has said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

Just as evolution suggests (suggests, but does not demand) that intelligent agency may not be involved in the origin of life and therefore could support atheism, so too, intelligent design argues that an intelligent agent is responsible for the origin of life. Questions concerning the nature or identity of the intelligent agent are a separate issue.

For you to say that it is science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

Insert your hypothesis here:

Insert your experiment here:

Insert the results of the experiment here:

Insert conclusion based on results here:

Insert prediction here:

Compose and insert a comprehensive theory here:

If you can fill this out without invoking the supernatural (because the supernatural cannot be scientific) as proof, and without other blatant flaws that Myself or other scientists can point out, then it can be considered science.

If you cannot fill this out in specific detail, then you cannot call it scientific.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:15:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?

Evidently yes
http://www.pewforum.org...

Not to mention Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller

And I know I did, for a long time too.

I have a question. Since the creation on trial is now a circus.

1. How can one logically make testable predictions with this theory, and could you give a few examples that have not yet been tested.

2. What would falsify this theory

thanks for your questions...

to answer your first question, we have a good bit of knowledge about how the process of intelligent agency creates physical effects that manifest purpose, sophisticated engineering design, and universal information. We also have a wealth of empirical observation concerning the same. Logical predictions based on this knowledge and observation can be and are routinely offered. Indeed, the prediction against so-called "Junk DNA" has already been fulfilled. This is an example of a prediction that was made before it was tested. But let me give you a new one; one of my own:

The more we learn about the genome of living systems, the more we will discover that many mutations that are not environmentally induced will be found to be not random, but in fact pre-programmed by the existing genetic machinery.

I'm on record here. Stay tuned. This could be fun!

To answer your second question, on empirical example of natural processes producing universal information - universal information being understood as any system that manifests all four of the following attributes: code, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics - would falisfy intelligent design theory
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:24:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?

That they are mutually exclusive. I believe in ID, and I believe in evolution, and I see no contradiction between the two.

I saw an excellent quote once, it went something like this:

Asking who made the world, God or evolution, is like asking who made the Ford Model T, Henry Ford or mechanical engineering.

For the record, the answer is Ford
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:50:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:48:07 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:24:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?

That they are mutually exclusive. I believe in ID, and I believe in evolution, and I see no contradiction between the two.

I saw an excellent quote once, it went something like this:

Asking who made the world, God or evolution, is like asking who made the Ford Model T, Henry Ford or mechanical engineering.

For the record, the answer is Ford

But did he do it without mechanical engineering? Or did he use the process and technique of mechanical engineering to do it?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:26:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Why couldn't the intelligent designer not simply bestow the features which may be irreducibly complex on one species to a new species and let evolution do the rest?

Given your speculation here, of course it is possible. It would also be possible to pyhsically trace the effects of the designer, would it not? Finally, it would ultimately mean the exonoration of the truth of ID!
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:53:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 8:37:28 PM, etherealvoyager wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:09:14 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Theta pinch claims that his evolution Q and A thread is necessary because the theory of evolution is poorly understood. If this is true, then this ID Q and A is much more necessary. For decades, naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution has been taught in our schools. For the most part, what the general public has "learned" about intelligent design theory has come from hostile opponents who often present straw man versions of what ID theory actually states. Therefore, ID, by and large, is not merely poorly understood, it is wrongly understood. I am more than happy to field any and all questions, and to clarify, verify or correct any understandings or misunderstandings anyone may have on this important subject.

Do you think that 'specified complexity' is a viable argument for intelligent design?

Yes. Do I think that ID hinges on specified complexity? No. ID hinges on the truth that universal information (as defined above) always comes from intelligent agency and can never come about through purely natural processes.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:05:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. How can one logically make testable predictions with this theory, and could you give a few examples that have not yet been tested.

2. What would falsify this theory

thanks for your questions...

to answer your first question, we have a good bit of knowledge about how the process of intelligent agency creates physical effects that manifest purpose, sophisticated engineering design, and universal information. We also have a wealth of empirical observation concerning the same. Logical predictions based on this knowledge and observation can be and are routinely offered. Indeed, the prediction against so-called "Junk DNA" has already been fulfilled. This is an example of a prediction that was made before it was tested. But let me give you a new one; one of my own:

The more we learn about the genome of living systems, the more we will discover that many mutations that are not environmentally induced will be found to be not random, but in fact pre-programmed by the existing genetic machinery.

Okay, I regret asking for examples. I asked how can one logically make testable predictions. The how part is what I am asking for here.

I'm on record here. Stay tuned. This could be fun!

To answer your second question, on empirical example of natural processes producing universal information - universal information being understood as any system that manifests all four of the following attributes: code, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics - would falisfy intelligent design theory

So we just need to do abiogenesis through to the UCA in the lab. Ok....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:10:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:53:39 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:37:28 PM, etherealvoyager wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:09:14 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Theta pinch claims that his evolution Q and A thread is necessary because the theory of evolution is poorly understood. If this is true, then this ID Q and A is much more necessary. For decades, naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution has been taught in our schools. For the most part, what the general public has "learned" about intelligent design theory has come from hostile opponents who often present straw man versions of what ID theory actually states. Therefore, ID, by and large, is not merely poorly understood, it is wrongly understood. I am more than happy to field any and all questions, and to clarify, verify or correct any understandings or misunderstandings anyone may have on this important subject.

Do you think that 'specified complexity' is a viable argument for intelligent design?

Yes. Do I think that ID hinges on specified complexity? No. ID hinges on the truth that universal information (as defined above) always comes from intelligent agency and can never come about through purely natural processes.

What proof do you have for this assertion regarding UI?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:20:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:10:33 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:53:39 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:37:28 PM, etherealvoyager wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:09:14 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Theta pinch claims that his evolution Q and A thread is necessary because the theory of evolution is poorly understood. If this is true, then this ID Q and A is much more necessary. For decades, naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution has been taught in our schools. For the most part, what the general public has "learned" about intelligent design theory has come from hostile opponents who often present straw man versions of what ID theory actually states. Therefore, ID, by and large, is not merely poorly understood, it is wrongly understood. I am more than happy to field any and all questions, and to clarify, verify or correct any understandings or misunderstandings anyone may have on this important subject.

Do you think that 'specified complexity' is a viable argument for intelligent design?

Yes. Do I think that ID hinges on specified complexity? No. ID hinges on the truth that universal information (as defined above) always comes from intelligent agency and can never come about through purely natural processes.

What proof do you have for this assertion regarding UI?

Don't waste your time, they have none. We already asked this exhaustively in the creationism thread
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:40:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:44:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:33:48 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:13:39 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:19:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Also, this should be in the religion forum, not the science forum.

You should be asking questions about ID, not answering them.

Here, like this: (first question for joe)

Is ID science, or religion, or both?

Hi Garret.

Good question. ID is pure science. Of course, since it is a science that directly concerns the origin of life, metaphysical implications will inevitably arise from our conclusions. The same can be said of evolution. For example, Richard Dawkins has said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

Just as evolution suggests (suggests, but does not demand) that intelligent agency may not be involved in the origin of life and therefore could support atheism, so too, intelligent design argues that an intelligent agent is responsible for the origin of life. Questions concerning the nature or identity of the intelligent agent are a separate issue.

For you to say that it is science, it must follow this format.

Insert your observation here:

1. universal information, to be understood as any system that manifests all four of the following attributes: code, syntax, semantics and pragmatics, is always generated by intelligent agency.
2. The DNA/RNA protein coding system manifests universal information
3. living systems could not exist without the DNA/RNA protein coding system
4. natural processes cannot generate universal information

Insert your hypothesis here:

Life is the result of intelligent agency





Insert your experiment here:

the writing of programming code, smoke signals, semaphore, Braille....




Insert the results of the experiment here:

Every single time universal information has been generated, without a single exception, the source is and has been intelligent agency. Every single post added to this thread represents yet another successful confirmational experiment.



Insert conclusion based on results here:

The source of universal information is always, without exception, intelligent agency



Insert prediction here:

purely natural processes will never be able to account for the origin of life




Compose and insert a comprehensive theory here:

Given that life depends directly on multiple information systems, notably the DNA/RNA protein coding system, which manifest universal information, and given that universal information requires intelligent agency at its source, therefore, the origin of life is best explained as the result of intelligent agency. Furthermore, since purely natural processes cannot produce universal information, purely natural processes are categorically eliminated as a possible candidate for the origin of life.






If you can fill this out without invoking the supernatural (because the supernatural cannot be scientific) as proof, and without other blatant flaws that Myself or other scientists can point out, then it can be considered science.


If you cannot fill this out in specific detail, then you cannot call it scientific.

I have played your little game. None of your posts have had anything to do with intelligent design theory. Obviously you favor a purely naturalistic origin of life scenario. Good luck filling out your own worksheet on that one!

By the way, what is your definition of "supernatural"?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:42:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:50:39 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 10:48:07 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:24:21 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 8:02:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:47:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:43:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:33:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:30:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:26:24 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/13/2014 7:23:15 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/13/2014 6:13:37 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
Is it possible to believe in god and evolution at the same time?


I don't think this is relevant to the topic of Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design does not explicitly posit the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Very well. Is it possible to believe in ID and evolution at the same time?

They are mutually exclusive theories, but it's just as possible to subscribe to both as it is to subscribe to both the idea that you should quit abusing drugs, and the idea that just one more hit won't hurt.

Can you illustrate that they are mutually exclusive?

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa.(1)

(1) http://www.ideacenter.org...

Hmmm...

I see, but no. Not buying it.

That ID is correct, or that ID & Evolution are mutually exclusive?

That they are mutually exclusive. I believe in ID, and I believe in evolution, and I see no contradiction between the two.

I saw an excellent quote once, it went something like this:

Asking who made the world, God or evolution, is like asking who made the Ford Model T, Henry Ford or mechanical engineering.

For the record, the answer is Ford

But did he do it without mechanical engineering? Or did he use the process and technique of mechanical engineering to do it?

are you trying to argue that agency and mechanism are the same thing?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 11:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 11:05:06 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
1. How can one logically make testable predictions with this theory, and could you give a few examples that have not yet been tested.

2. What would falsify this theory

thanks for your questions...

to answer your first question, we have a good bit of knowledge about how the process of intelligent agency creates physical effects that manifest purpose, sophisticated engineering design, and universal information. We also have a wealth of empirical observation concerning the same. Logical predictions based on this knowledge and observation can be and are routinely offered. Indeed, the prediction against so-called "Junk DNA" has already been fulfilled. This is an example of a prediction that was made before it was tested. But let me give you a new one; one of my own:

The more we learn about the genome of living systems, the more we will discover that many mutations that are not environmentally induced will be found to be not random, but in fact pre-programmed by the existing genetic machinery.

Okay, I regret asking for examples. I asked how can one logically make testable predictions. The how part is what I am asking for here.

I'm on record here. Stay tuned. This could be fun!

To answer your second question, on empirical example of natural processes producing universal information - universal information being understood as any system that manifests all four of the following attributes: code, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics - would falisfy intelligent design theory

So we just need to do abiogenesis through to the UCA in the lab. Ok....

Okay, I regret asking for examples. I asked how can one logically make testable predictions. The how part is what I am asking for here.

um, yeah. I did answer that question too. Re-read my post

So we just need to do abiogenesis through to the UCA in the lab. Ok....

We need to do abiogenesis in the lab? Isn't there an inherent contradiction in that statement?
To be clear, what you need to do is provide one single emperical example of purely natural processes generating universal information.

I think I already said that