actually it was more for flesh, but you too. Anyone with somthing that makes sense....
Printable View
actually it was more for flesh, but you too. Anyone with somthing that makes sense....
And right there is why intelligent design doesn't work, why it is utterly non-scientific. All ID is, is a proposed hypothesis for why life is so complex. And rather than actually providing one shred of proof that intelligence is behind the complexity of DNA, you simply work off why the other theories are incorrect. All these creationists and their "science" do is say "ok, here's why evolution is wrong, we don't have other theory's right now, so that proves ID is right". proving one theory wrong does not validate another theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by siSTARindigo
Science is not saying "well look at it, something must have...." because that in itself isn't science, it's assumption. science works under the process of saying "ok, this is the way things are, here's a possible explanation, now lets find proof of this explanation", while creation uses a process of "ok, this is the way things are, here's a possible explanation, we don't have another proposal, so that makes ours right".
I just thought the article was interesting.....I don't think I have even added my opinion on the article. Just asked a question, is an atheist an evolutionist.......Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
well... i see it this way: computers didnt evolve from premedorial soup, people had to build them.
if you were a computer, would you believe in humans?
Humans didnt emerge from the primordial soup either. Most humans were made by other humans just like computers. The first humans were made by a homind ape who in turn was derived from an earlier mammal. The linneage goes back billions of years. Humans and computers are latecomers with a very narrow view of historyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf
erhm, first life emerged from primodrial soup which eventually evolves into humans after eons upon eons. :rolleyes:
IMO the theory of evolution and its foundation - the age of the earth - are almost crucial to being an atheist. Nothing else explains the fantastic interlocking complexity of life save that its been going on for a vast length of time and is moulded by natural selection.
how do we have any clue of how old the earth is?!?
Thank you :rasta: I finally got an answer......Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
Intelligent design fails as a scientific explanation in three ways.
1. It's not falsifiable.
2. It's a sly attempt to shift the burden of proof
3. Like all creation stories it creates more problems than it solves and fails the test of parsimony
1. A scientific theory must be vulnerable to the data. This is fundamental. It means that at least in principle, there is some experiment one could do whose outcome might disprove the the theory. Simple example would be the theory that all cats are black - finding a single nonblack cat disproves this theory. What test could possibly disprove the theory of Intelligent Design?
2. "Irreducible complexity" boils down to asserting that since I cant think of another explanation it must be intelligent design. The person who takes this position can never say "there IS no other explanation" because this is almost impossible - like proving that every cat is black - when do you know that you have checked them all?
3. A good theory SIMPLIFIES not complicates. Intelligent design raises the obvious: who is the designer? why does he design? who made him? why was he made? who made the designers maker and why? .... In fact you now know less about the origins of life than before you adopted this theory.