intelligent design

That premise seems totally fallible to me.

Affirmative: When has 'spontaneous' mutation or evolution ever been recreated in a lab setting? When has that process ever been 'scientifically proven' with no outside influence from those conducting the experiment?

Negative: Intelligent design incapable of being demonstrated? Untrue. Intelligent design is demonstrated in countless settings all over the world -- in every work of art, every piece of architecture, every complex mechanism produced all over the world. That idea applied to the natural world is also valid, in that modifications have and will continue to be done through man's influence (genetic experimentation, cross breeding, hybrids, etc.) that cannot and do not occur naturally. ID is simply that reality applied on a bigger scale.

 

Applied? Yes. "Reality". Um, no again. Complexity <> proof. All you are doing is applying what someone else said in that link about "That's pretty complex so God must've had a hand in there". Still. Not. Science. Not testable. It's a foregone conclusion that someone is attempting to explain.

Find one of the threads where Nut has gone off on this. Or maybe the most recent thread on this in NOTD.

 

That statement cannot be quantified by any scientific means. ID has not been scientifically disproven.

Way to oversimplify it for condescension, K. ID is a deduction based on scientific evidence, just like evolution is. Neither in its purest form has been recreated in a protected (lab) environment.

Neither is evolution.

It's a deduction, based on the evidence at hand... just like evolution.

 

Observation is testing!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation

I'll give you ID Having steps 1 and 2, But there's nothing for steps 3 thru 5, therefore it is not scientific. . . Step 3, the prediction for the End of time?, How can you test it?

 

Its obvious that some of you cannot seperate God from ID. Lets walk through the posted steps.

1. Observe that some irreducibly complex organisms are the product of intelligence
2. Hypothesize that all irreducibly complex organisms are the product of intelligence
3. Predict that you cannot find an irreducibly complex organism that was not the product of intelligence
4. Test every irreducibly complex organism you can get your hands on to see if it was not the product of intelligence.
5. Review for mistakes.

 

How do you test for evolution when you have exactly zero transitional species?

 

You wouldn't test the fossil record. You'd test current species.

And contrary to what hasbeen has said, evolution has been tested in a lab setting. Weaver or somebody linked to some fruit flies.

I have to ask that folks please stop the disingenuous arguments about testing evolution on large scale organisms. It takes too long. If we started today, we'd have an answer maybe in 500 years, minimum.

BTW Sly, please explain your #4. That sounds like hooey to me.

 

Huh? The theory (roughly) is that cells became basica organisms that became fish that became reptiles that became birds that became mammals. So, to test that theory you would look at the species today and retrofit it? That sounds as bad scientifically as looking at the temperatures over the past couple hundred years, notice a slight upward trend, then building a bunch of models that exagerate that and scream that the temperature by 2300 will be 8000F.

What did they evolve into? A water buffalo?

OK, so now the reason why we can't do it is that it would take too long? I gotta tell you that is beyond weak. Either it is important enough to undertake or it is not. If it is, then time should be immaterial and you should undertake it. If it is not, then say so and move on. But I would think that since it is a glaring hole in the theory that so many people hang their hat on that it would be a little bit important.

 

http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1301050&postcount=116

Not sure I agree with this use of predict, Predict

For evolution a prediction would be based on what the moth has done in the past, I predict it's color would change . .