argument argue about share argue how
 
argue for



pros and cons   against

 
All TopicsScience & TechnologyGeneral Science & Technology

Arguments for and against

Intelligent design

started by allonzo1 on 12/3/09.

Intelligent design
For Against
 
arguesreason
DClary

Good points, but none of them prove that creation is the product of chance. The best scientist in the world have been trying to reconcile the the forces of nature into a TOE and have gotten essentially nowhere. The biggest question of all is not the Big Bang, but what preceded the Big Bang. General relativity tells us that space just wasn't empty and the clock was ticking, but that there was no space and no time. So, if time did not exist, what caused it all to happen. Scientist do not have an answer, and when there is no answer, science tells us to make a hypothesis. That is what i have done, and to date, while this hypothesis remains unproven, there are also no others that have been proven. Remember, if this is a debate then provide something to support your position. I say my position cannot be disproven any more than yours can be proven. lastly, am I to understand that if you saw someone toss heads 10, 20, or 30 times in a row, you would not question that some no so obvious mechanism was present because that would reveal superstition?

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank

We are not communicating. I have asserted, many times, that natural selection does not apply to the laws of the universe. The universe was created only once with one set of laws. I have given a few binary events that had they not happened just the way they did, then an advanced society would not exist. One of the examples was that by some quirk of nature if the particular creatures that made limestone had never come into being, then advanced society would never have developed. i challenge you to describe any evolution of society into an advance stage without huge readily available quantities of limestone. This is not natural selection. There are only one set of building blocks with one set of properties.

Lastly, i ask again. How many coincidence does it take for you to question the game, and there is only one game in town.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/23/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank

It is apparent that you are afflicted by the same problem that many critics of ID suffer. You have very little understanding of the chemistry and the limitations of the chemical building blocks. Apparently you think that man can just come up with raw materials just out of necessity. There are no substitutes for calcium as derived from limestone as it is used in construction. Limestone as blocks and later as a source of cement was critical in taking man past one story single dwellings. Another little fact about limestone is that, all of the early hearths used to make any metal, be it copper, bronze, or iron were made in chiseled out limestone structures. I am among those that marvel at man's creativity, but there were and are certain raw materials that are needed to function. But let's not dwell on just limestone. Tell me about carbon and the rain cycle.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/23/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank

Let me see if i have got this right. Since we do not know whether Celestial Katzwinkel is the origin of the unverse or who might have created Celestial Katzwinkel, then we have not recourse but to conclude that Celestial Katzwinkel does not exist. I would like to see a Boolean on that one.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/23/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank

I'll have to give you credit for being a good arguer. I withhold comment on your debating skills. My premise is that with all of the obvious and mysterious coincidences that are built in to a one time creation of the universe there comes a point in improbability that a rational person will question whether or not this incredible balance of nature is all by accident. I built my position on providing a number of abnormalities or unique arrangements in chemical and physics laws that i don't think many people have pondered. You have argued well by either diminishing or ignoring altogether what i have said, and going on the offensive bysaying that i have to prove my position or you are right. Debates consist of more than just saying that the opposing side is wrong, but providing reasonable answers to support one's own side. I don't see it that your way. Since no proof can be provided by neither you nor me, i am looking for the most reasonable answer. If faith is believing in what one cannot see, then in my opinion it take more "faith" to believe that this all happened by accident than by an ID alternative.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/23/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank
Interesting response, but we are still not communicating. You keep referencing natural selection, but you are wrong in asserting that natural selection applies to a one time event, i.e. the creation of the universe and its chemical and physical law. The predominant theory is that the universe was created once when time began, and it will continue to expand with never changing laws. So, you can throw your natural selection out the window. Addressing a couple of other points: (1) the Teapot thing - i am not asserting something i cannot see i am describing hard and concrete (pardon the pun) facts and looking for an answer. As i prefer to have answers or at least hypotheses. (2) Advance civilization without limestone - i believe that i have answered this. So if you don't like my, provide one of your own. My greater point lies in events that involve the limitations of our chemical building blocks. So, please spare me the "man would have found a different way" thing and also spare me the "you don't understand natural selection" thing as well. i think it is you that doesn't understand. Apparently you cannot discern the difference between natural selection and a string of consecutive events in a one time series.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/23/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
I have looked over the entries below and think maybe we are beating a dead horse. Nothing entered in the "against" column has made any impact in my beliefs and am guessing vice-versa. Any more discussion would be tedius for me and we are getting close to just lobbing insults. i have enjoyed the discussion and i wish you all a Merry Christmas.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/24/09.

01
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Katzwinkel you are finally making sense. It is no coincidence at all that you appreciate the universe, the design is overwhelmingly fascinating and well tuned. Great job! My particular favorite, if you haven't guessed, is limestone. Great job. i do take umbrance, however, with the cancer thing. You could have fine tuned cell division a little better.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

12
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Since Intelligent Design appears to be all about proof-through-the-lack-of-unverifiability, I am all for Intelligent Design. In fact, not only is there no proof against Intelligent Design, there is no proof against the fact that The Designer is a gigantic, celestial version of me, Jason Katzwinkel, with incredible black leathery wings, red laser-beam eyes, and lions for hands (The Celestial Me is part Voltron, which is rad). The Celestial Me built existence in His workshop on the corner of Space and Time, right behind the 32nd dimension, well beyond the scope of any human detection or interpretation. The only evidence of The Celestial Me is everything that ever was, is or will be. You can tell because it's all exactly as The Celestial Me likes it. A hell of a coincidence, ain't it? By the way, allonzo1; you're welcome for carbon. That's The Celestial Me's favorite, too.

And I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary.

by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/22/09.

23
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
otm_shank

You seem to be hung up on agendas and labels. Let's discuss facts. Other than some gibberish about complexity not being a valid support for ID. No one has comments on the facts laid out in the argument. Complexity matters in the creation of everything. Also the fact that creation is a string of events, not a multiple roll of the dice. Tell me where my observations are wrong, i.e. where would man be without limestone, the rain cycle, covalent bonding in carbon. MAKE AN ARGUMENT! Don't tell me that these facts don't matter because of some"de facto headquarters at the Discovery Institute." I don't give a damn about them or what their agenda is. As I have said before, I think that it is called Intelligent Design because you have to be intelligent enough to comprehend chemistry and physics and the implications of how the laws of nature have been adjusted to allow for an advanced society.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

02
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Otm_shank
Thank you for finally making an argument, and you have made some good points. The facts are that I cannot prove that there is an intelligent designer, nor can you prove there is not. The burden is on neither one of us for the purpose of this discussion. What I am attempting to do is to put forth some ideas such that an open minded person might get some information from a source other than Wikipedia. In my profession as a chemical engineer and in my many discussions of this subject I have found that most people don’t know squat about chemistry or physics, let along quantum physics, general relativity or string theory. Furthermore, it is easy for most to dismiss ID because in their minds, what’s the big deal about the universe. Who among your associates have pondered the suspension of the forces of nature during the inflationary period after the Big Bang? Who has any appreciation that ice floating is a total anomaly in nature, and that life probably would not exist if this were not the case. Who appreciates the billions of years that single celled creatures were able to manufacturing limestone so that we could build buildings and roads? Who has even thought of the cycle of coordinated events that it took to put the billions of gallons of oil below ground? These are not small things that can be dismissed with the standard rhetoric that , “My imagination is too limited to think of alternatives.” I know the periodic table well, and there are not any alternatives, to limestone, carbon, water, et cetera. I am not proposing that we have a scientific discussion. I am suggesting that at some point after tossing a coin over and over again and it comes up heads every time, an intelligent and open minded person begins to think, “Maybe there is another force involved here.”


by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

02
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Tell me if i am missing a point regarding this web site. My basis is the structure of debates. One side represents the for and the other the against. Debates don't start with one side being right and the other wrong. Then the debate is begun with the "wrong" proponent having "to provide direct, unequivocal evidence" of their position to win the debate. While some subjects have been ruled upon in a court of law or the court of public opinion, those are not definitive decisions that cannot be debated. The law once said women were not allowed to vote. Did that make the subject off limits to debate. Regarding the origin and design of the universe there no proof of either accident or intelligent. In my opinion this is a perfect topic to be on arguehow. As i have said before, a rational person can accept so many consecutive "heads" in coin tosses, and then they look for other explanations. What is your saturation limit on coincidences for a well structured universe? How many like coin tosses, 2, 10, 100, 10 to the 37th? By the way where is your "direct, unequivocal evidence" that there is no Intelligent Designer? I don't want opinion, i want facts?


by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

02
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
DClay

You suggest that man would have adapted and thrived had some of the abnormalities in nature turned out another way. Use your imagination and comment on a few that i have mentioned. Maybe start with carbon's covalent bond.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/22/09.

02
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Where do I start? There are literally an infinite number of reasons to advocate intelligent design. As a prologue, let me say that anyone who is a scientist, or anyone who has read either of Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" or James Burkes "The Day the Universe Change" knows that scientists cannot accept change. So if the standard theory does not include intelligent design, even strong evidence to the contrary will be rejected (for a while). While in past decades, so many parts of the universe appeared simple, today with our superior technology, we are just getting a hint of how the universe began. In my first entry on this subject i want to talk about the Big Bang. ----------There are four forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Since Einstein's paper on general relativity scientists have been attempting, unsuccessfully to come up with a theory uniting these forces, "TOE", the theory of everything. What they initially found was the firces' incompatibility during the first instance of the beginning of time, i.e the Big Bang. Strong evidence points to the forces being combined during the first 10 to the minus 37th of a second after the beginning. After that time the whole of the mass of the universe was about the size of softball. At the beginning of time it was a billion times smaller. So like a multistage rocket the four forces came into being after what is called the inflationary period. Once in place the balance of the forces, their respective proportions to each other, had to be precise to something on the order of 10 to the 23 power, or the universe would collapse or never be formed at all. Unlike some theories that rely on random chance in multiple events to have something "evolve." The universe began only one, yet the infinite coordination of the forces of nature just happened to have the precision to make it all happen? Come on, smell the coffee!


by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/16/09.

14
argumentsreasons

arguesreason

There is strong science that the creation of the universe was a one time deal, but let's move on. So, after the inflationary period where certain laws of physics were on temporary hold to allow the expansion of the universe what we had was a whole lot of hydrogen atoms and not much else. if you have ever tried to build anything, you know that hydrogen does not go a long way in construction. Over the next few billions of years the hydrogen combined due to the force of gravity to form large stars within which the fusion of atomic parts, and in particular the protons, neutrons and electrons, formed heavier elements from carbon and oxygen to iron and chromium. This just happens to be another very convenient coincidence that these particles could be glued together to form a complete set of chemical building blocks that just happen to be necessary for a complex society. These one time coincidences just keep adding up. By the way complexity is not subjective, but objective. It is measurable through probability in math and entropy in physics. ........... you should read the references. They are very inciteful.


by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/16/09.

04
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
it is funny, if a non-believer would find a toy car made out of Legos made in some remote area in darkest Africa, they would have no problem concluding that it is the product of an intelligent being. On the other hand they have no problem concluding the the incredible working design of this universe, tuned to perfection to allow intelligent beings to live and prosper was just a one time shot in the dark. Anyway, let's move on. So now we have moved from a bunch of Hydrogen atoms to big stars that are producing larger atoms. This is done, by the way, though a perfect balance of the forces that hold the sun together to manufacture other elements. Since these new elements cannot do anyone any good at the center of the stars, they must be dispersed. So conveniently, at some time the fuel becomes depleted and the star collapses on itself and blows up, scattering the new elements into space. These small particles are of just the right size and density to attract each other and coalesce into larger particles and ultimately to end up in other new stars to cook further or the make planets, all in perfect balance.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/17/09.

05
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
#1 - BEGINNING OF THE EARTH There have been many characteristic of the laws of nature that have played to our advantage so far. Let's move on to some more. We now at a place where we have a planet that might at some time in the future be capable of allowing for some sort of life. If you were a designer how would you provide resources for a civilIzation, In the early times, after some cooling, this new planet has a hard glassy crust of homogenized elements and has an abundance of highly acid water. Just going down a shopping list, there will have to be food, that even a slow caveman can find. There will have to be implements for shelter. There will have to be energy from the easily accessible and inefficient to the more efficient and harder to come by. Also, all of the building blocks for an advanced society such as materials for advanced construction and technology will have to be made available. None of these existed at the beginning. Tune in next time - these entries are getting too long.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/17/09.

05
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
#4 GAME BREAKERS…..There are many quirks of nature in which normal patterns of the laws of chemistry and physics are broken to facilitate a world that can support life and be inhabited by an advance society. I have listed a few below:
The suspension of the four forces of nature during the inflationary period just after the Big Bang so that the universe could be formed.

The balance of forces that allowed stars and then planets with a vast array of elements to be formed.

The unique bonding capability of the element carbon that allows it to form chains of atoms and complex molecules.

The fact that ice floats. - As far as I know ice is the only solid substance that is less dense than in its liquid form. If ice did not float, oceans would be substantially frozen. No planet with the water volume necessary to make life could sustain life.

Trees - The importance of tree cannot be understated. In addition to providing shelter and a source of energy that allowed society to advance, if it were not for hard wood, man could not have navigated the seas. Think of what society and technology would be like without ocean travel.

Limestone – Man may never have gotten past thatch huts without the remarkable deposits of limestone.
Rain – without the cycle of rain which is allowed by a very precise balance of density, freezing temperature, nucleating ability and air movement, what would the earth be like.

Groundwater – The earth in most places has surface material that allows water to seep through it, become filtered and purified of bacteria, and lie perched on bedrock just waiting to be tapped into. Without groundwater society could never have developed spanning areas away from freshwater rivers and lakes.

The magnetic poles – Without the magnetic poles, the earth would be bombarded by high energy x-rays and life would probably not be possible.

The precise balance of the densities of sand and water – the motion of waves builds beaches and separates the land masses from the oceans and lakes. Without this balance, the oceans very well could have eroded the entirety of land on the world except for young volcanic land masses. There would never have been the estuaries so necessary for the incubation of life.

The process of the generation of fossil fuel – without the extraordinary one time production of fuel, man could never have advanced. The trees would have been gone a long time ago.

Heavy elements – if stars were just a little different only the lighter elements would have been formed. How about a world without iron, chrome, silicon (no computers), uranium, lead etc.

Tides – the precise location and movement of the moon produces reasonable changes in the level of oceans and lakes that is just perfect for forming estuaries and circulating otherwise stagnant water bodies.


by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/18/09.

05
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
#3 ENERGY.... The production and storage of usable energy form for mankind is absolutely amazing. We have softwood, hardwood, peatmoss, softcoal, hardcoal, natural gas, oil, nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion. What a menu to chose from depending on technology. Pick it off the ground and burn, dig it up and burn, drill for it and burn (distill it and burn better), and concentrate it with high technology and heat water. Each form has a great story, but let's take oil. Back in the early days of life, plants were growing at tremendous speeds and building land as they grew upon previous vegetation. All of the organic matter laying out in the sun would not help man down the road. So, just coincidentally, land moving forces came into play that buried this material all over the planet at depths of thousands of feet. It just so happened that at that depth there is immense pressure that just happens to turn leaves and such into oil. Where would we be without oil? You talk about pollution, you should read about life around London at the beginning of the industrial revolution when only wood and soft coal were available. Added to the soot and smoke were tons and tons of horse poop. Without fossil fuels our society would be stone age.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/17/09.

05
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
#2 FOOD AND SHELTER...... Food is pretty straight forward. Crops and animals happened. I'll save this discussion for another time. The Cambrian explosion, Irreducible complexity - pretty neat stuff. So let's move on to shelter. Where would we be without limestone? i venture to say we might still be nomadic. How does it happen that it is so accessible. Well after the seas lost the dissloved sulfur and it went into an acidic atmosphere and the acid rain helped soften and dissolve the hard surface, Small singled celled animals became a factory tat took calcium chloride out of the water and made ginormous deposits of limestone all over the earth that even a "cave"man could utilize, as in limestone caves. How convenient. The even more amazing part is that the designer asked the question how can i improve on this hard rock substance. Well He did. If you roast limestone you get this nice powder that when mixed with water makes cement. Is that cool or what? Where would we be without cement and the mortar to bind bricks together? Lastly did I mention trees. Of all the species of plants, trees dominate. Where would we be without trees and limestone. Even today without these our society could not flourish or even survive.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/17/09.

05
argumentsreasons

arguesreason
Give me a break. A goofy comment that asserts Intelligent Design is some recent development by a group of American creationist to circumvent court rulings gets 5 Creds. The concept of Intelligent Design is as old as man's appreciation of the wonders of nature, and the term "Intelligent Design" is documented at least back in the 1800's. Intelligent Design is getting a resurgence among scientists today because science is backing up the complexity of the universe. Let's see some challenges to the things that have been asserted, not just poppycock and ad hominem arguments.

by allonzo1 (22.07) on 12/20/09.

06
argumentsreasons

 
 
argumentsdebate
The idea of Intelligent Design was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent Design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Thinly veiled evangelism delivered in an underhanded attempt to trick free-thinking individuals into swallowing a religion that they've already rejected.

See also: Scientology

by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/17/09.

61
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. Russell's teapot is still occasionally referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

In an article entitled "Is There a God?", commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."


by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/22/09.

40
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
Citing "insurmountable coincidence" as evidence for one god or another has been an ongoing argument for hundreds and hundreds of years. Early Christians thanked their benevolent God for making pigs so plentiful, which was great because pigs are what humans happen to eat the most of. They failed to recognize their backward logic in that they ate so many pigs *because* they happened to be so plentiful.

While any layman can write off molecular structure as cosmically improbable, that isn't necessarily the case. Granted, the intricacies of existence may defy the odds, but to claim - definitively and without question - that atomic harmony is a coincidence is to profess to understand the odds of creation's various aspects. For all we know, the system of the universe may not only be probable, but a foregone conclusion, because there are so many as yet undiscovered elements of the universe that it is folly to make any definitive assertions.

Anybody with a fluent understanding of quantum particles *must* understand that until the moment of quantifiable unveiling, the likelihood of Intelligent Design is 100% equal to the likelihood of cosmic coincidence, and to postulate otherwise is not only counter-intuitive, but unproductive.

by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/16/09.

41
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@allonzo1

1. I was responding to your specific point (which starts off 'Give me a break. A goofy comment that asserts Intelligent Design...') and not the others. Yes, Katzwinkel is 100% correct, which is why he has 5 creds.
2. To address the others, as I have mentioned previously, much of your 'evidence' is stated ad nauseum by the ID crowd and has been debunked over and over again. To avoid redundancy, I posted a link to the most recent and most popular court case which ALREADY dismantles all of your arguments. Re-hashing old arguments should not win you cred.
3. It is up to you, the believer, to provide direct, unequivocal evidence for the existence of intelligent design or an intelligent creator. So far you have made several generalized statements about the minutiae of existence which do nothing of the sort . Ice floats ergo intelligent design exists? Trees provide shelter and wood for boats equals a creator must be at hand? Scientists are increasingly getting on board with ID? What? Provide direct evidence to ANY of what you assert is due to ID. So far you have done nothing.
4. Your arguments are erratic and seem to be frantically put together last minute. Do we really need to respond to your stream of consciousness?
5. When one fundamentally boils down ID to its most basic premise, it becomes: "You just have to believe." or "It's simply faith." This answer is absolutely unacceptable ... especially as we move forward into yet another decade.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/22/09.

30
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@allonzo1

"i challenge you to describe any evolution of society into an advance stage without huge readily available quantities of limestone."

"One of the examples was that by some quirk of nature if the particular creatures that made limestone had never come into being, then advanced society would never have developed."

You seem to be trying to make an anthropic argument as you are making the premise that without limestone, advanced societies would not have developed. This is entirely subjective and speculative. You are creating a singularity where there is none. Where is it law that limestone is required in the development of advanced societies? Where is your evidence that advanced societies would not have developed without it? The fact that we have developed with limestone does not provide proof that limestone is a requirement of advanced societies. It merely shows one example and that we have adapted and developed with our natural surroundings and have used our resources on Earth to provide a more habitable life.

Has limestone made life more manageable on Earth? Of course. Does that provide adequate evidence for an intelligent designer? Of course not, it is entirely subjective and is absolutely ridiculous. How has limestone developed over time on Earth? Through the process of natural selection. How has our ability to utilize our planet's resources developed over time? Through the process of natural selection. No ID needed.

Furthermore, in your argument you fundamentally admit, through your 'quirk' assertion, that an all-or-nothing catalyst was needed (limestone). This is quite contradictory to natural selection and I state again that you are confusing chance with natural selection.

"Lastly, i ask again. How many coincidence does it take for you to question the game, and there is only one game in town."

Again, you show that you do not understand the differences between chance and natural selection. You also seem to toss aside Katzwinkel's tea pot argument and further press upon us to prove that there is NO intelligent designer, when you have yet to provide any evidence for your own argument.

Is natural selection the 'end all to end alls?' No, but to borrow your phrase, it is the only game in town - and it works really well.

Now, you state there is only one game in town. I am assuming you are speaking of a specific creation myth. I place upon you the challenge of dismantling all other creation myths and solving the infinite loop problem of your own designer and thereby proving once and for all that an intelligent designer(s)'s hand is at work.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/23/09.

20
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
It is religion and not science and does not belong in the public schools.

by Uklamok (62.03) on 12/19/09.

21
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@Allonzo:
Intellgent Design is inherently non-scientific because it looks for evidence to support a foregone conclusion. This conclusion is not quantifiable, cannot be reproduced, and cannot be proved or disproved. The arguments you've put forth amount essentially to gesturing wildly at scientific curiosities and saying, "boy that sure was convenient, eh?" Not only is that unscientific, it's illogical; it's the textbook definition of a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc logical fallacy.

"I am suggesting that at some point after tossing a coin over and over again and it comes up heads every time, an intelligent and open minded person begins to think, “Maybe there is another force involved here.”

In fact, that is not what a rational, intelligent person should conclude, because that is the basis of superstition. People have been drawing fanciful conclusions based on circumstantial evidence for most of recorded human history. The scientific method changed all this, and it is the reliance on this method that has become the standard by which scientific conclusions are judged. You presuppose that "the laws of nature have been adjusted to allow for an advanced society," when it is equally logical to conclude that living things adapt to their environments, whatever those environments might present. Experimentation can be done to test the latter conclusion, but your conclusion is untestable.

by DClary (65.15) on 12/22/09.

10
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@Katzwinkel

Who created the Celestial Katzwinkel? This shows precisely one of the fundamental issues with ID - the problem of the infinite loop. Who created the creator(s)? If we are to say that a being more powerful than the Celestial Katzwinkel is needed to create the Celestial Katzwinkel, this further enhances the problem by requiring an infinite amount of all powerful Katzwinkels and thereby further increases improbability.

@allonso1

I believe you are confused with chance and natural selection. In all of your examples, you seem to be implying that chance is the solution put forth by the non-ID side to the problem of existence and development of life as we know it and that chance cannot solve this problem. You are correct in that chance is a false solution, however, chance is not the solution put forth by the non-ID side, but rather natural selection. Natural selection is not chance.

Natural selection represents the only verifiable solution to the problem of life and works extremely well in solving this problem. Natural selection breaks down the issue of complexity (as you stated previously) into smaller and smaller chunks over vast spans of time. It is a cumulative process of evolution through selection to arrive at any given state at any given time period. Natural selection breaks the barriers of improbability.

"Who appreciates the billions of years that single celled creatures were able to manufacturing limestone so that we could build buildings and roads?"

Natural selection appreciates this. No intelligent designer needed.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/23/09.

10
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@allonzo1

That's great that you are in awe of nature. However, the fact that you yourself cannot explain events in nature does not automatically mean reality defaults to a supernatural creator or whatever your current flavor of supernatural creation myths is. We can speculate all day as you are doing, however, this defeats entirely the purpose of this site and makes a mockery of debate. If you can default all arguments to "You just have to believe.", "It's faith." or "I can't explain it, so it must be ID." then what is the point? It is apparent that you are afflicted with the same problem as all creationists: speculate until we are all blue in the face.

"Apparently you think that man can just come up with raw materials just out of necessity."

This assertion was never made by anyone. Again, you fail to understand the process of natural selection.

"But let's not dwell on just limestone. Tell me about carbon and the rain cycle."

Tell you about rain and carbon? How on Earth is this evidence for ID? Again, you dismiss Katzwinkel's tea pot argument and again you simply make comments regarding the minutiae of daily life of Earth. Rain cycles and carbon exists there for it's ID? Oh really? Provide ANY evidence to this assertion that isn't entirely speculative.

Now we have come full cycle back to your original arguments. Wood exists ergo ID. Cement exists ergo ID, etc, etc, etc. Where is the solution to the infinite loop problem? Where is the dismantling of all other creation myths?

Your entire argument boils down to this: "I am in awe of nature. I can not explain why limestone (insert anything organic here) exists the way it is. Eureka, it must be ID."

You just have to believe, aye?


by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/23/09.

10
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
"I built my position on providing a number of abnormalities or unique arrangements in chemical and physics laws that i don't think many people have pondered. You have argued well by either diminishing or ignoring altogether what i have said"

No, I have not ignored anything you have said. Natural selection provides the solution - and does so quite well - to what you observe within the context of existence. You choose to side-step the rational explanation of the phenomenons you put forth by providing speculation on mysticism and supernatural creators. I ask for evidence on positions that you propose, such as your statement that limestone is a law of advanced societies or evidence that the existence of wood allowed for shelters which results in ID. I still have not received any of this.

"Debates consist of more than just saying that the opposing side is wrong, but providing reasonable answers to support one's own side."

You have yet to provide ANY reasonable arguments in support of ID (your own position). The only statements you put forth are a stream of consciousness regarding your musings and speculations on everyday experiences and organic matter. You further continue to ignore the tea pot argument and ask where is our proof that ID is false, despite the fact that this is your discussion topic, which you postulated. Speculation is not a reasonable argument in favor of ID.

"Since no proof can be provided by neither you nor me, i am looking for the most reasonable answer."

You seek supernatural explanations and mysticism, how is this reasonable? Natural selection is currently the only rational solution to the problem of existence and as I have stated many times before, is quite elegant. Is it the last word? No, of course not. A more rational, verifiable solution may still crop up. However, as natural selection continues to stand up to criticism and not falter, I find this more and more unlikely as we progress in time. Again, you seem to confuse chance occurrences with natural selection and it seems to be further solidifying mysticism in your statements. Natural selection is not chance.

"If faith is believing in what one cannot see, then in my opinion it take more "faith" to believe that this all happened by accident than by an ID alternative."

Bill Maher says it best, "Faith means making a virtue of not thinking."

Fundamentally, you are presenting arguments based on subjectivity and speculation. I've asked for evidence to your positions and propose natural selection as the solution of how we arrived at this given moment. Natural selection is verifiable, peer reviewable, rational and based on the scientific method. Not only is ID as irrational as Xenu (see Scientology), it also presents more unsolvable problems than answers. It is a non-alternative.

Furthermore, how does ID answer the question of whether or not life is by accident (or not)? This would bring up yet another slew of problems in that one is speaking for and is in personal contact with the given designer(s). Last time this came about we were greeted with Mormonism and Scientology. Conveniently 'intelligent' designer(s) seem to speak English. Just because you believe this isn't all by accident doesn't make it so.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/23/09.

10
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
The argument that creation and all of its elements are too complex to have happened on accident fails to take into consideration that "complexity" is a subjective term. Sure, it's complex to the likes of us humans and our squishy, moist, biological central nervous systems, but existence need not adhere to the boundaries of human intellect or imagination. Just because existence baffles us, it doesn't mean that mind-bogglingly complex patterns cannot emerge from the natural, unguided, unintelligent chaos of the universe.

The complexity of existence is not a testament to the complexity of existence; it is a testament to the simplicity of man.

by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/16/09.

22
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
There is no evidence to support the notion that the creation of the universe is a one-time deal.

by Katzwinkel (69.39) on 12/16/09.

22
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
To avoid unnecessary redundancy, arguments put forth on ArgueHow.com in favor of ID have been thoroughly stated and consequentially debunked in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Citing: Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.


by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/17/09.

22
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@allonzo1

- "Before the publication of the book Of Pandas and People in 1989, the words "intelligent design" had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase, distinct from the modern use as a label for "creationism".

- "The ID movement has its de facto headquarters at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based, policy-oriented think tank founded in 1990. In 1996, the Discovery Institute added ID to its agenda by opening the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture. In 2002, the words “Renewal of” were deleted from the name, producing the Center for Science and Culture, probably to appear more secular. As documented by Forrest and Gross's examination of the “Wedge Document,” a fund-raising proposal prepared by staff at the Center for Science and Culture, Christian cultural renewal is precisely the goal of the ID movement (12). Although the Discovery Institute has vociferously claimed that ID is a scientific research program and “not creationism,” in reality, many of the movement's claims are derived directly from creation science with no modification."

- "ID was invented as a way to circumvent the constitutional barrier to creation science, but when the constitutionality of ID was tested in Kitzmiller, it met the same fate (11)"


by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/22/09.

11
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
@allonzo1

"Let me see if i have got this right. Since we do not know whether Celestial Katzwinkel is the origin of the unverse or who might have created Celestial Katzwinkel, then we have not recourse but to conclude that Celestial Katzwinkel does not exist. I would like to see a Boolean on that one."

Are you then suggesting that the Celestial Katzwinkel was created out of nothing? In which case, why do we need the CK then? Why not eliminate the CK? Could not the known universe have been created out of nothing from the Big Bang bypassing the CK then?

If you are suggesting that the CK was not created out of nothing, that means a further being/action created the CK. Repeat infinitely.

by otm_shank (54.55) on 12/23/09.

00
argumentargue

argumentsdebate
... is neither science nor technology, for starters.

by DClary (65.15) on 12/8/09.

12
argumentargue

 
Intelligent design
 
         
argue   for
© 2009 13 Guys Named Ed, LLC   •   About   •   Feedback   •   Sitemap
against   argues