YOu know, the more stuff I read on Intelligent Design, the less I think it's a theory and the more I think it's an attempt to discredit evolution theories.
Actually, I never thought of IDT as a real theory.
So if there is a "designer"? Sure there really could be. An omni potent entity that evolved in the split second of the forming of the universe. Now to prove it. You'd think that these Intelligent designer fans would try to do that instead of whine about everything else out there. Especially when everything else out there is backed up with facts.
OK so most of y'all are pretty smart. Maybe you could figure this one out. How would one go about proving the existence of God using scientific methods?
Is it really THAT far of a reach?
There's all kinds of anomalies out there. From it taking forever to travel one centimeter to increasing mass by eating a 2lb. box of chocolates and gaining 5lbs. for doing it. So if all that's going on, then why not a divine creator?
Think of the spin off technologies we'd gain from the research!
You'd think with all the religions out there and the money they rake in they'd be all over this idea. That is if they were serious.

Ah religion part of the debate!
Religion = Unfalsibiality

If religions were real I'd instantly call an excorcist to come pay me a visit and chant some spells at my computer. I'd probably still remove my hard drives first...

Quote from Hyperactive :

Ah religion part of the debate!
Religion = Unfalsibiality

If religions were real I'd instantly call an excorcist to come pay me a visit and chant some spells at my computer. I'd probably still remove my hard drives first...

That's just it with intelligent design. They all chalk it up to some intelligent designer. Why don't they just say God? But then they pretty much leave it at that. Well if you have an intelligent designer person, they have to come from somewhere, don't they? And I think if they are really serious about pushing their "theory", they would start with trying to prove the existence of the designer, not just accrediting things they don't understand to it.

"If religions were real I'd instantly call an excorcist to come pay me a visit ..."
You? Exercise? Yeah, right.

Holy crap, this thing is still alive!

Quote from Racer Y :

YOu know, the more stuff I read on Intelligent Design, the less I think it's a theory

It's not a theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Quote from Racer Y :

YOu know, the more stuff I read on Intelligent Design, the less I think it's a theory

It's not a theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

I dunno.... I was thinking it's really more like a cross between speculation and wishful thinking.
But we can't really go around saying Intelligent design speculation, can we? It just sounds wrong.

But back to actually making it a theory. To do that we need to prove the existence of a "Designer" first.
If they were serious about intelligent design "theory", then you'd think that effort to do that would be underway.
And what's funny is even if there was an actual designer, it still doesn't prove that this designer intelligently designed anything. It could've been some one else did all the work and he's just taking the credit for it.
So now intelligent design has two problems from the start. Proving the existence of a designer and then proving it was actually him that did it.
I really wish there was some sort of serious attempt to do this. Like I posted before, think of the spin-off technologies that would come from the research.

You know I actually kicked this thread up because of wasps and the the possible outcomes with the evolutionary progress of social insects in general.....

Quote from Racer Y :

But back to actually making it a theory. To do that we need to prove the existence of a "Designer" first.

you cant make it a theory... ever... intelligent design is utter dogshit at making predictions

Quote from Shotglass :

Quote from Racer Y :

But back to actually making it a theory. To do that we need to prove the existence of a "Designer" first.

you cant make it a theory... ever... intelligent design is utter dogshit at making predictions

Yeah... they said that to Columbus too. They also said that about breaking the sound barrier AND putting streaming video on the internet as well.

Your head in the sand response is more in line from what I would expect from self righteous bible thumpers.
Of course you can't make what they call intelligent design a theory. What that is is nonsense.
I'm talking about a serious intelligent design theory, one based on scientific method. How would you go about doing that?
If you were to do that would you first focus on evolutionary development of... whatever and use the unknown variables of that development as a proof of a designer? Which is the major flaw in intelligent design "theory". Or would you bypass that and go looking for the designer first?

Quote from Racer Y :

But back to actually making it a theory. To do that we need to prove the existence of a "Designer" first.
If they were serious about intelligent design "theory", then you'd think that effort to do that would be underway.

By definition, the 'intelligent designer' would have to be supernatural. Good luck even finding a starting point to try and prove he/she/it exists.

Quote from Racer Y :

Yeah... they said that to Columbus too. They also said that about breaking the sound barrier AND putting streaming video on the internet as well.

Your head in the sand response is more in line from what I would expect from self righteous bible thumpers.
Of course you can't make what they call intelligent design a theory. What that is is nonsense.
I'm talking about a serious intelligent design theory, one based on scientific method. How would you go about doing that?
If you were to do that would you first focus on evolutionary development of... whatever and use the unknown variables of that development as a proof of a designer? Which is the major flaw in intelligent design "theory". Or would you bypass that and go looking for the designer first?

it would help if you understood what a scientific theory is when youre trying to discuss them
at least if your goal is to not look stupid

a scientific theory needs to have predictive abilities and by saying things develop according to the unknowable whims of some god you preculde your worldview form having any chance of predicting results

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

It helps if you can even pretend to understand the very basics...

Quote from Shotglass :

Quote from Racer Y :

Yeah... they said that to Columbus too. They also said that about breaking the sound barrier AND putting streaming video on the internet as well.

Your head in the sand response is more in line from what I would expect from self righteous bible thumpers.
Of course you can't make what they call intelligent design a theory. What that is is nonsense.
I'm talking about a serious intelligent design theory, one based on scientific method. How would you go about doing that?
If you were to do that would you first focus on evolutionary development of... whatever and use the unknown variables of that development as a proof of a designer? Which is the major flaw in intelligent design "theory". Or would you bypass that and go looking for the designer first?

it would help if you understood what a scientific theory is when youre trying to discuss them
at least if your goal is to not look stupid

a scientific theory needs to have predictive abilities and by saying things develop according to the unknowable whims of some god you preculde your worldview form having any chance of predicting results

You just don't get it, do you?

Someone certainly doesn't.

It is an interesting concept (intelligent design) though. Let's take a purely scientific view of a table, 4 legs 1 top, used for all sorts of things. In our observed view this is a solid, real object. We can see it, touch it. In our mind it clearly exists, agreed ?

Now, take a step down to the atomic level, rather than from our point of view, examine the same table as a collection of atoms, as that is what science tells us makes up this table.

Looked at from this point of view, our once solid table is now made up of nothing but atoms circulating each other, and most of it's once observed structure is infact non existent.

So which is right ?, science tells us that the same table is both solid, and non solid. How can both ideas be right and co-exist ? Yet they do and both are correct.

TL;DR. Who knows, just because we can't observe something on a narrow, small, limited level doesn't mean it doesn't exist on another level.

Another long rant about light, observed and non observed awaits............

A myth existing for a thousand years doesn't make it any more plausible than if you invented it today. You might as well fund an expedition to find an actual mother nature.
Everything science does is in the pursuit of figuring out why everything is the way it is. What could they do differently if they set out on some crusade to prove the existence of intelligent creator (who by definition would be a God, let's not beat around the bush). And let's not pretend you could prove its non-existence either. You could spend billions and thousands of years, find no evidence, and it would change nothing. Because faith doesn't need evidence.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

So which is right ?, science tells us that the same table is both solid, and non solid. How can both ideas be right and co-exist ? Yet they do and both are correct.

Erm...what now? I don't even know how you got here. You say that at an atomic level most of the "observed structure" is "infact non existent". Why's that exactly? Do you mean "because atoms are mostly, like, nothing, man, they're, like, totally, like, non-existent, man. Whoa!"? So, have a quick read here and here and watch this.

Quote from Forbin :

Quote from Racer Y :

I have a real hard time believing in intelligent life on other planets and I base that on my understanding of evolution.
As a species, we lucked out. So far... There are way too many variables, too many things that can go totally wrong with a planet in the time frame it takes to go from single cell to sentient.
And yeah, you can point out the numerous planets that are out there that can support life - and probably does. But intelligent life? I think that's a little too much to hope for at this time.

Considering how vast the galaxy is, let alone the universe, and how long everything has been around, I think it's a stretch to say it is unlikely there are other planets out there with intelligent life, or at least there were/will be at some point in time. If we evolved to be as we are, what is to prevent other beings from doing the same? We've already proven it's possible, and if it can happen once, it can happen again.

While there is a vast quantity of planets in the Milky Way galaxy and they vary wildly in terms of mass, distance from the habitable zone of their star(s), etc., there are many of those planets that have a high probability of being earth-like*, as shown by the Kepler Project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)
http://kepler.nasa.gov/Mission/discoveries/papers/

*This does not imply exactly like Earth. Earth-like objects are defined explicitly as planets that meets some specific criteria, particularly with regards to mass and distance from its star. At this time, the composition of these objects is unknown.

Are they ever dicks eh..I can't believe that guy used to be on any team..BBT..or Racer xyz..ban the lot.

Complete dicks they are..

Quote from sinbad :

A myth existing for a thousand years doesn't make it any more plausible than if you invented it today. You might as well fund an expedition to find an actual mother nature.
Everything science does is in the pursuit of figuring out why everything is the way it is. What could they do differently if they set out on some crusade to prove the existence of intelligent creator (who by definition would be a God, let's not beat around the bush). And let's not pretend you could prove its non-existence either. You could spend billions and thousands of years, find no evidence, and it would change nothing. Because faith doesn't need evidence.

Waves to Sinbad.

I HAVE Faith but I'd rather have friends.