Taking back the language

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat May 05, 2007 7:40 pm

I am very familiar with ID. That is why I feel I can comment about it.

The examples cited can all appear naturally, nice cubic stones, piled up; sharp edged, rocks appearing knapped, etc. Many natural formations are assumed to be intelligently designed. Look at the Bosnian Pyramids as an example. The point is, ID does not answer the question I posted, nor can it and in my opinion it is one of the fatal flaws of ID.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:22 pm

Forum Monk wrote:I am very familiar with ID. That is why I feel I can comment about it.

The examples cited can all appear naturally, nice cubic stones, piled up; sharp edged, rocks appearing knapped, etc. Many natural formations are assumed to be intelligently designed. Look at the Bosnian Pyramids as an example. The point is, ID does not answer the question I posted, nor can it and in my opinion it is one of the fatal flaws of ID.

Oh, so you are advocating that God didn't design the earth, mankind, the universe, etc... I see...

So, can you show me how life originated from non-living chemicals? Can you prove this in a lab? I would be curious....

Thank you...

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Sat May 05, 2007 8:35 pm

Archaeologist.. What on earth are you talking about now

i am just questioning the credibility of the complaints that is all. plus i am just curious if the rule of thought was to let secularists determine who and what gets funded?

nothing serious.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:01 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Archaeologist.. What on earth are you talking about now
i am just questioning the credibility of the complaints that is all. plus i am just curious if the rule of thought was to let secularists determine who and what gets funded?

nothing serious.

In the U.S. we live in a democracy so the people choose (both Christian and non-Christian)... ID just needs to get more exposure to the masses in order to get the votes it needs to survive in the public arena... That's about it...

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat May 05, 2007 9:53 pm

Gman wrote:Oh, so you are advocating that God didn't design the earth, mankind, the universe, etc... I see...

So, can you show me how life originated from non-living chemicals? Can you prove this in a lab? I would be curious....

Thank you...

No sir, I can not.

Forum Monk wrote:Please understand, I am a Christian who happens to believe the theory of evolution is not correct and so should be taught with caveats and disclaimers, but C/ID does not belong in the science class because it does not present any science.

I believe God created the seen and the unseen, either in 24 hour days or in eons, I can not say. Perhaps 6000 years ago, perhaps billions of years ago. The universe is magnifcently designed.

I am saying ID has no hope of being accepted as science in its present form and because I oppose it, it does not make me anti-god.

archaeologist · Post by **archaeologist** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:19 pm

I am saying ID has no hope of being accepted as science in its present form and because I oppose it, it does not make me anti-god.

i happen to agree with this.

ID just needs to get more exposure to the masses in order to get the votes it needs to survive in the public arena

why?

I believe God created the seen and the unseen, either in 24 hour days

there is a reason why i believe it is 6 -24 hour days. God told His people, 6 days shalt thou labor but on the 7th you shall rest {slight paraphrase}
God could not tell His followers to do that, if he had not done it himself. why? it would be hypocritical of Him to do so. It would be the same as a parent telling his children--'do as i say not as i do'.

God had to set the example or he would be unable to command His followers to do the same. but that does not mean that Gen. 1:1 is included in that because it is not included in the 6 day creation act.

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sat May 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Forum Monk wrote: I believe God created the seen and the unseen, either in 24 hour days or in eons, I can not say. Perhaps 6000 years ago, perhaps billions of years ago. The universe is magnifcently designed.

I am saying ID has no hope of being accepted as science in its present form and because I oppose it, it does not make me anti-god.

Present form? How about in the near future? I don't understand what you are saying... You say you believe in God and yet you advocate that there is no scientific proof of Him or Him creating our world as suggested in the book of Genesis? This is illogical...

Please clarify...

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 06, 2007 12:26 pm

Gman wrote:Present form? How about in the near future? I don't understand what you are saying... You say you believe in God and yet you advocate that there is no scientific proof of Him or Him creating our world as suggested in the book of Genesis? This is illogical...

Please clarify...

Hi Gman. It sounds illogical because you are claiming I said things which did not say. I did not say, there is no proof of God creating the world. I have only said ID is not science. It is philosophy, politics, and juxtaposition.

Since it does not identify the intelligence, it could just as easily be an Alien from Nibiru. Let me ask an another simple question. Is the act of creation by the intelligent designer now complete, or is it an ongoing work?

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 06, 2007 5:38 pm

I think where the problem arises is when we say that ID can have testable hypothesis.

All of the examples in Rich's article, which I agree with, BTW, are still philosophical. WE understand what a designed object looks like versus random patterns.

Let's tackle it this way, what would you consider a testable hypothesis that ID allows? We might be discussing apples and oranges and not realize it. I like ID, I just don't think it provides good testable hypothesis.

Most hypothesis must be able to be proven false. With ID, I still maintain that most hypothesis are not able to be proven false. BEaring that in mind, I still think it is extremely powerful and should be in the public domain.

Below is a section from a good website on developing hypothesis. What do you think?

A Scientific Hypothesis Must Be "Falsifiable".
A scientific hypothesis must be testable, but there is a much stronger requirement that a testable hypothesis must meet before it can really be considered scientific. This criterion comes primarily from the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper, and is called "falsifiability"

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis B:

"There are other inhabited planets in the universe."

This hypothesis is testable, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. Here's why. Hypothesis B may be either correct or wrong. If it is correct, there are several ways that its correctness can be proven, including:

A space probe sent from earth to explore the universe sends back the news that it has discovered an inhabited planet. (This news is later confirmed by other space probes.)
Radio telescopes on earth begin to receive signals from somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy that appear to be reruns of the "I Love Telek" show.
Knock, Knock. "Greetings, earthling! I am Telek from the planet Zoron in the Andromeda Galaxy. I have just landed in your backyard. Take me to your leader."
So, if Hypothesis B is true, there are observations that scientists could make that would prove its correctness. But, the hypothesis may be wrong. (Most hypotheses are...) If Hypothesis B is wrong, there is no test that will prove it. If one of our space probes never finds an inhabited planet, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If we never receive signals from space, or Telek never lands in your back yard, that does not prove that the hypothesis is wrong, either. Hypothesis B is not falsifiable.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:29 pm

I like your post z/g (I hope you don't mind the abbreviations).

I have long held the position that ID needs to get back to work. Somehow, some way the hypotheses need refined, developed, peer reviewed, hammered, folded, twisted, something. Its not ready for the schools and may never be in a public school setting, because the simple matter is, God is the intelligent designer.

This fact creates the dilemma we as Christians are not ready to accept. Not everyone in this country believes as we. The Supreme Court has seemed to rule that Community Standards will not apply in Federally funded institutions. So where are we really going to go with this debate and politics and what are we hoping to achieve? It is a question for lawyers and politicians. I just want to see the science.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:38 pm

Forum Monk wrote:I like your post z/g (I hope you don't mind the abbreviations).

I have long held the position that ID needs to get back to work. Somehow, some way the hypotheses need refined, developed, peer reviewed, hammered, folded, twisted, something. Its not ready for the schools and may never be in a public school setting, because the simple matter is, God is the intelligent designer.

This fact creates the dilemma we as Christians are not ready to accept. Not everyone in this country believes as we. The Supreme Court has seemed to rule that Community Standards will not apply in Federally funded institutions. So where are we really going to go with this debate and politics and what are we hoping to achieve? It is a question for lawyers and politicians. I just want to see the science.

Don't mind the abbreviation. Also, the frustration today is that there is such a void in critical thinking skills. Do we really want our philosophies taught by people who don't believe them?

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:46 pm

zoegirl wrote:I think where the problem arises is when we say that ID can have testable hypothesis.

All of the examples in Rich's article, which I agree with, BTW, are still philosophical. WE understand what a designed object looks like versus random patterns.

I'm sorry zoe, it looks like we disagree with each other then... At this forum we support the case for ID.

You might want to read up on some of our articles for Evolution vs. Design...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.php

Gman · Post by **Gman** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:48 pm

Forum Monk wrote:I did not say, there is no proof of God creating the world. I have only said ID is not science. It is philosophy, politics, and juxtaposition.

Oh, it is political and philosophical? And which party do you think is behind it? This forum is made up of both republicans and democrats who happen to both support the case for ID.. As a registered democrat, I happen to believe in ID, global warming, I'm anti-war, and I support many other environmental issues..

Forum Monk wrote:Since it does not identify the intelligence, it could just as easily be an Alien from Nibiru.

So? Since we live in a secular society made up of many different faiths.. Why not let the people decide who the creator is?

Forum Monk wrote:Let me ask an another simple question. Is the act of creation by the intelligent designer now complete, or is it an ongoing work?

Let me ask you this question.. Where is the fossil evidence to back up the Darwinian evolutionist claim?

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:49 pm

Hey Question GMan

How can ID be testable?? Or how can God be Testable??

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Sun May 06, 2007 7:50 pm

I don't disagree with it. I love what they have come up with. I just haven't seen testable hypothesis. Still seems more philosophical in nature. (which is still very powerful)

Help me understand why ID can be testable. What are some of the testable hypothesis made by ID? I am willing to be proved wrong. I just haven't seen good ones.