Intelligent Design? - Page 7

Rouger2 · 02-22-2007, 07:38 PM

Much of evolution depends on unproveable facts also. No real life has magically appeared by itself in the swamps of the world. If evolution were true life would have been happening by itself from the time it was suppose to have started happening.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Much of evolution depends on unproveable facts also. No real life has magically appeared by itself in the swamps of the world.

In science, there's no such thing as an "unprovable fact."

Scrum · 02-22-2007, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Much of evolution depends on unproveable facts also.

As was pointed out to you, there is no such thing. Something is either a fact or it isn't. There are no special categories.

Originally Posted by Rouger2

No real life has magically appeared by itself in the swamps of the world. If evolution were true life would have been happening by itself from the time it was suppose to have started happening.

Huh? Evolution is happening all around you.

It's like a housefly saying the home it buzzes around in has existed forever.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 08:13 PM

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

I figure participants in this thread might find that interesting.

Rouger2 · 02-22-2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

In science, there's no such thing as an "unprovable fact."

It makes no difference evolution is still unprovable. laugh that off.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

It makes no difference evolution is still unprovable. laugh that off.

Theories are all provable using the evidence that backs them. Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it and no evidence against it. It substantiates just as well as cell theory or any other biological theory.

In fact - and this is likely something you aren't considering - there aren't any biological theories that are "provable" by your standards. Even cell theory doesn't meet the standards that you're putting forth. I can't think of any scientific "laws" (theories that can be mathematically proven) that are in any fields besides physics.

Now as for sneaky shift of the burden of proof, I find that to be incredibly dishonest. All theories can be proven to a certain extent. That's what makes them theories. No matter what theory it is that you have, you can prove it, at least subjectively. That doesn't make it objective proof, but it's proof nonetheless. There becomes an issue when the theory itself goes against objective truths, i.e., facts. One of the requirements for a scientific is it must be able to be disproved via scientific method should there be any facts that contradict it. Creation doesn't meet that requirement, which is why Creation isn't a science at all. The logical leap of "It's not objectively proven, therefore God did it" is an insult to human dignity.

Rouger2 · 02-22-2007, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

As was pointed out to you, there is no such thing. Something is either a fact or it isn't. There are no special categories.

Huh? Evolution is happening all around you.

It's like a housefly saying the home it buzzes around in has existed forever.

The making of life as it happened in the beginning would be happening why would it happen once and then happen no more.

Rouger2 · 02-22-2007, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Theories are all provable using the evidence that backs them. Evolution has plenty of evidence to back it and no evidence against it. It substantiates just as well as gravitational theory or any other scientific theory.

Even if they made amino acids that is still not life and until they do the very start of evolution is unprovable.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-22-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Even if they made amino acids that is still not life and until they do the very start of evolution is unprovable.

That has nothing to do with Evolution by way of Natural Selection.

Scrum · 02-22-2007, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

The making of life as it happened in the beginning would be happening why would it happen once and then happen no more.

Who says it happened only once?

We don't believe it's happening at the moment, but that proves or disproves nothing.

R-Type · 02-23-2007, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I think R-type got it.

I got your point (I think), but I think it's unlikely that any energy transferred from ultradistant 'relative relationships' would be sufficient to generate life as we know it, at least with 'conventional' physics. It is far more likely that the sun catalyzed life on this planet. Hey, I could be wrong, but at least I'm not pretending I have some super-intelligent background I don't have (unlike some others). If I did, I probably wouldn't be debating this on internet forums.

Scrum · 02-23-2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Even if they made amino acids that is still not life and until they do the very start of evolution is unprovable.

You should do some reading on evolution. The start of life has little to nothing to do with it.

It's like saying our understanding of the sun is flawed because we can't explain the singularity.

I'm curious, what do you believe in? I assume it must be something 100% provable right?

Rouger2 · 02-23-2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That has nothing to do with Evolution by way of Natural Selection.

Natural selection I believe, but the start of life had to have a creator. Life did not start by itself. Once a creator is a given, and it is for me, there are other implications but nothing provable.

Rouger2 · 02-23-2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

You should do some reading on evolution. The start of life has little to nothing to do with it.

It's like saying our understanding of the sun is flawed because we can't explain the singularity.

I'm curious, what do you believe in? I assume it must be something 100% provable right?

I believe in evolution but it probabley was creator driven, but life had to have a start and I believe it started with a creator. It could not have happened by it self.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-23-2007, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Natural selection I believe, but the start of life had to have a creator. Life did not start by itself. Once a creator is a given, and it is for me, there are other implications but nothing provable.

There is no evidence that the "creator" was a deity of any sort.

Dumpy Dooby · 02-23-2007, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I believe in evolution but it probabley was creator driven, but life had to have a start and I believe it started with a creator. It could not have happened by it self.

Prove that it could not have happened by itself.

All of your positions are 100% provable, right?

Scrum · 02-23-2007, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I believe in evolution but it probabley was creator driven, but life had to have a start and I believe it started with a creator. It could not have happened by it self.

Then who created the creator if it can't happen by itself?

Rouger2 · 02-23-2007, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

There is no evidence that the "creator" was a deity of any sort.

I never said the creator was a god of any sort. He could have been a spaceman that came here on a flying saucer, but I doubt it.

Rouger2 · 02-23-2007, 05:46 PM

I have already given my reason for believing that life could not have happen by itself.

Simius · 02-23-2007, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I never said the creator was a god of any sort. He could have been a spaceman that came here on a flying saucer, but I doubt it.

If he was a spaceman that came here on a flying saucer... then who created him? The problem is that ID tries to disquise who the designer is by saying "I never said it was god... it could have been an alien... so its okay to be taught in school." But their argument excludes aliens because if we are too complex to have formed naturally, the alien is also too complex. So ID needs to have a god behind it all to make it work. It is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Although I do find it funny when IDers argue that aliens could have made us. Not only is ID poor science... It is also poor theology. If I was a Christian I would be mad as hell at IDers for putting aliens at the same level as god.