Intelligent Design IS scientific

The fact that we, highly motivated intellegent beings, cannot create a living cell, even in a laboratory.

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

Quote from: MadDogX on October 01, 2008, 10:20:55 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

How does abiogenesis fail compared to ID?

The fact that we, highly motivated intellegent beings, cannot create a living cell, even in a laboratory.

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 10:25:27 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

What creditibility?

By the way, abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis.

Also, dark energy != evolution != dark energy.

As for the first post, one of the main differences between Dark Energy and a hypothetical creator is that physicists are willing to try and find out whether they're right or wrong about dark energy and physicists know that dark energy is hypothetical. What ID proponent is willing to do that?

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 10:25:27 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

Quote from: Sean O'Grady on October 01, 2008, 10:29:13 AM

What creditibility?

By the way, abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis.

Also, dark energy != evolution != dark energy.

As for the first post, one of the main differences between Dark Energy and a hypothetical creator is that physicists are willing to try and find out whether they're right or wrong about dark energy and physicists know that dark energy is hypothetical. What ID proponent is willing to do that?

abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis  -  Understood.


The reason I brought up "Dark Energy" is to show that we as humans sometimes use a 'hypothetical force' as we explain the cosmos.  The ENTIRE point of this thread was to show that those who formulate ID may start with a premise (hypothetical force) that is debatable, but the PROCESS thereafter can still be considered as scientific as other theories that try to explain the cosmos and our existance.

(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

The reason I brought up "Dark Energy" is to show that we as humans sometimes use a 'hypothetical force' as we explain the cosmos.  The ENTIRE point of this thread was to show that those who formulate ID may start with a premise (hypothetical force) that is debatable, but the PROCESS thereafter can still be considered as scientific as other theories that try to explain the cosmos and our existance.

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:38:45 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 10:25:27 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

Wrong. We have no idea yet how DNA, RNA, mitochondria or any other part of the living cell work in ways to sustain itself. Amino acids are incredibly complex, and we're not going to just be able to slap a few together, get some DNA and hot shit, we made a living cell. It's still going to take a while before we're ever going to understand it. We're doing a good job so far, but look at the complexities at hand: Humans have 42 chromosomes, and we're incredibly complex, yet a small plant can have as many as 400+ chromosomes, and yet be amazingly simplistic in design. Knowing why this is and what constitutes the process' at hand is key, and we just aren't there yet. This is in no way proof of intelligent design, just proof in ignorance to take the time to understand your environment around you.

The irony. 
The whole notion behind ID is that when you come across something SO complex as DNA, and with such purpose to it’s complexity (a design to it), and don’t see a natural explanation for it’s existence, you consider the possibility that it was designed by an intelligent creator. 

No shit. But did you not notice the difference in the "process" that I pointed out? Science abounds in hypotheses: some confirmed, some unconfirmed and some failed. Dark Energy is an unconfirmed hypothesis that very well could fail. If you wish to put the ID hypothetical creator in with this category then be my guest, I would actually have more respect for you than any other ID proponent. Of course that means that ID would have a long way to confirm the hypothesis but at least it would be a lot more scientific.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on October 01, 2008, 10:46:30 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:38:45 AM

Quote from: Raist on October 01, 2008, 10:25:27 AM

Quote from: Thoroughly Entertained on October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: Wendigo on October 01, 2008, 10:02:01 AM

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

Wrong. We have no idea yet how DNA, RNA, mitochondria or any other part of the living cell work in ways to sustain itself. Amino acids are incredibly complex, and we're not going to just be able to slap a few together, get some DNA and hot shit, we made a living cell. It's still going to take a while before we're ever going to understand it. We're doing a good job so far, but look at the complexities at hand: Humans have 42 chromosomes, and we're incredibly complex, yet a small plant can have as many as 400+ chromosomes, and yet be amazingly simplistic in design. Knowing why this is and what constitutes the process' at hand is key, and we just aren't there yet. This is in no way proof of intelligent design, just proof in ignorance to take the time to understand your environment around you.

The irony. 
The whole notion behind ID is that when you come across something SO complex as DNA, and with such purpose to it’s complexity (a design to it), and don’t see a natural explanation for it’s existence, you consider the possibility that it was designed by an intelligent creator. 

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

Grats on the 1000th post, ﮎingulaЯiτy.

Probably because of the 30 sec post limit.