Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[RunningWolf]

All Right! I got my badge!

I supposed to be to afraid to be here too.., what up with that?? ha ha ha!

Ive been called pretty much everything in the name of the furthering of evo, LOL!! And I've tried to dish it back a little too.

But.., sigh, I can only rate a 2 to 3 on the evo magnitude scale of forum abuse, and these guys are a 7+

LMAO!!

Wolf

[JohnnyM]

challenge to what?

JM

[Dimensio]

You say it teaches that the existing diverse life on earth originated from common ancestry. Very well. By what process, I ask? By a mechanism which no one has ever seen in action, no one can explain, for which no evidence exists, etc...?

No, by mutation coupled with selective pressures favouring certain emerging traits. Who told you that the mechanism can't be explained or has never been seen in action? Mutations and natural selection have both been observed.

If you propose this irrational explanation, why should I or anyone else believe what you say regarding what evolution supposedly does or doesn't say about the origin of life?

What is irrational about the explanation besides your assertion that it is irrational and your denial of actual observed events?

Where did the common ancestral life forms come from? Did they evolve too?

The procesess by which the original life forms emerged was not evolution, because evolution can only occur when life exists. It is an important question in biology, and research is being done in the field, but ultimately how those first life forms came to exist does not in any way affect the validity of the theory of evolution. They could have been molecules forming chains due to simple chemistry, they could have been interdimensional aliens seeding the planet, they could have been zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent or time-travelling humans from the future could have placed them and the theory of evolution does not change one bit.

[Sofa King]

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

[Dimensio]

Hmm. We've already had a creationist openly admit that they take strength in their ignorance. Now they take pride in their dishonesty.

So creationists find strength in ignorance and pride in dishonesty. I wonder what other "virtues" they value.

[Junior]

The operative word there is "creationist." They're the ones claiming it should be easy to classify remains as either "ape" or "man" -- but then have difficulty doing so. Real scientists don't go in for this pigeon-holing. They understand all those remains fall along a spectrum such that it would be difficult (if every critter that made up the spectrum left its remains in the hands of scientists) to point out where one "species" ends and the next begins.

[JohnnyM]

my claim is this: If you had the whole skeleton to which this fossil belongs, then classification would be simpler.

The impression is that science finds a singleton fossil, and if it doesn't match up exactly with certain criteria, say for a human/homo sapien skull, than it most likely is a new species or some intermediary species. Then they claim that it is further evidence for evolution. That seems like a jump.

JM

[JohnnyM]

"They're the ones claiming it should be easy to classify remains"

They dont seem to be claiming that, at least from Ichy's post. The claim is that it should be easy to classify animals into kinds. I dont think they are saying it is easy to classify singleton fossils into kinds. Big difference.

If we saw the bodies associated with those fossil skulls we would know that it is either a human, an ape, or something in between without much debate, but to make that claim without sufficient evidence, seems disengenuous.

JM

[Junior]

They dont seem to be claiming that, at least from Ichy's post.

They most certainly do. Ichneumon simply recorded their own statements on the matter and presented them in a compare/contrast manner.

[JohnnyM]

"Musculature (and body posture) is mostly based on the skeleton"

So aside from posture, musculature, skeleton, and hair what else is different between an ape and a man?

You're taking away all my options. Im reminded of the Life of Brian skit:

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

JM

[xzins]

If the story of how the 10 commandments came about is a fictionalized account, then how do you know where the fiction ends and the factual begins?

It's a little like the Dan Rather Memo's.

Yes, America, these are forgeries, but they preserve the truth.

[music_code]

No, by mutation coupled with selective pressures favouring certain emerging traits. Who told you that the mechanism can't be explained or has never been seen in action? Mutations and natural selection have both been observed.

Mutations have been observed, and in 99.9% of all cases they prove harmful to the organism. Natural selection by itself makes no new things. It is actually the permanent loss of information. It is not the creative, uphill, limitless process imagined by Darwin.

[Junior]

If the story of how the 10 commandments came about is a fictionalized account, then how do you know where the fiction ends and the factual begins?

Indeed. One might ask the same about Buddha or Confucious. Does it matter if the story is factual as long as it's true?

[PatrickHenry]

You're Sofa King right!

Hee hee!

[Dimensio]

Mutations have been observed, and in 99.9% of all cases they prove harmful to the organism.

Citation for this percentage. please.

[music_code]

Ed Lewis investigated and won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for discovering a small set of genes that affect different body parts (Hox or Homeobox). They act like ‘architects of the body.’ Mutations in these can cause ‘dramatic’ changes. Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila), where poisons and radiation induced mutations.

The problem is that they are always harmful. PBS 2 showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection.

[P-Marlowe]

Does it matter if the story is factual as long as it's true?

Let's see how that question looks in bold:

Does it matter if the story is factual as long as it's true?

[Dimensio]

Again, citation for the 99.9% number.

[xzins]

So then, HOW do you know when the fiction ends and the factual begins?

Moses received the commandments on the mountain from God. What part of that story is certainly true if any part of it is false?

[music_code]

Again, citation for the 99.9% number.

Why?