What does Intelligent Design prove?

[man]

What does Intelligent Design prove?

I must have asked that question a thousand times in various forms and comment sections and not one single person has ever said, It proves there is a god.

Why is that?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 95 by theStudent]

Sorry, I missed the question at the end of your post #83

Where do you get the idea that mutations can ever lead to enhancing impairments?

I believe your problem with this concept is that you believe that your god created everything perfect, based on that you don't see that beneficial improvements are possible. My post was just pointing out that from my perspective there is lots of room for improvement on the "intelligent design". Therefore improvements are logical & even expected.

I may not have time today to respond to your post 94 questions today, Monday is very busy for me. But I'll get to that as soon as I can.

[PghPanther]

For me the question is quite hypothetical.

Intelligent Design would be evidence of an intelligent designer. However, there is a huge problem here because you are asking "What does Intelligent Design prove?"

And my question to you would be, "Exactly where do you think we see any intelligent design in nature?"

The illusion of Intelligent Design is most likely due to a total ignorance of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, and biological evolution.

Moreover, after understanding these principles of the natural world, even if we were going to suggest that there might be some sort of intelligent Design at that point, the so-called Intelligent Design would have been in the laws of nature and the material contained within the universe that, on its own, can evolve into highly complex creatures. It most certainly wouldn't be a designer who actually sat down and designed every individual complex thing that exists in the world on an individual basis, and "baby-sat" the processes to cause them to come into being specifically.

So the real question would be to ask whether an Intelligent Designer would even be needed to create a universe that contains the matter and energy configurations that our universe contains. Stuff that can, on its own by natural laws, evolve into highly complex living organisms.

Would there really need to be an Intelligent Designer behind that?

And a second question would then be, "If there was an Intelligent Designer behind this world then why isn't this world very intelligently designed?

Animals that naturally eat other animals to survive is not what I would personally consider to be a very Intelligent Design.

This world seems to be far more likely to be the result of some sort of happenstance than the result of any Intelligent Design.

So I personally don't even see any evidence for any Intelligent Design. To the contrary the bulk of the world appears to me to be pretty badly designed in many ways. Just look at all the diseases, birth defects, natural disasters and dangers in this world. I just don't see anything that appears to have been intelligently designed. Save for the things that humans themselves have designed, but even those things are often highly questionable if we really want to ask just how intelligently they were actually designed.

I am often upset with how engineers have designed things. Although I must also confess that in some cases they have done a pretty good job.

But a world filled with disease and birth defects, etc.? Where is there any intelligence in designing pathogens to attack the best creatures of the design? Who designed those?

It seems to me that the idea that they just evolved naturally because they could is a much more rational conclusion to draw. A designer who purposefully designed all of the horrible diseases in this world would need to have been pretty malevolent don't you think?

By the way, welcome to the forums. I just noticed this thread is your first post.

You silly thinker.........

IDer's would say in fact all of the universe is intelligently designed its just that you don't understand that the after the fall of Adam sin entered into all creation and that's why for instance animals eat other animals and.............uh.............er.........I guess I they would then have to admit the IDer is..........uh (gulp) the God of the Bible?

hehe.............well why do we just call it what it is......

Intelligent design is theology in Christian dogma.

BTW......I'm presuming in their world view that bad bacteria in the gut didn't exist until the fall of man too?

So I guess farts are a result of sin............

What a world view Christianity deals with....

[RonE]

[Replying to post 95 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 94 by RonE]

I wonder if I did what you do,

What is it that "I do"?

if I would get you to show me the evidence, that you can get a new pair of eyes from mutations?

As you know from all your knowledge from studying science & evolution it doesn't work that way. Maybe you should repeat some of that material or some of those other posts correcting you on this site on these issues.

Hello RonE.
I'm waiting for your answer. Are you there?

You must have missed your patience pill.

Or maybe I should try the other one.
Refuse to answer your question, and ask you again, or ask another.

Yes, that's your tactic, as so many others are attesting to even on this topic

Let's say, you have a two year old boy.
One day he says to you, "I can prove to you, that you are my daddy."
"Okay, go ahead." you say.
So your little boy proceeds to tell you, he knows that you are his daddy, becase you are here with his mommy, and you bring things for him.
You laugh with him, and tell him how smart he is.

We know though, that your son hasn't proven anything.
He has just, in his innocence, made a spectaculation.

When he gets much older, perhaps in his teens, he may be able to prove it, by perhaps looking at the results of a DNA test.

It is clear that a two year old who is not on the level of an adult, cannot process the same information as an adult.I put scientists in the category of the two year old, although that's above his level, in comparison to any creator.

He cannot, in his science labs, prove whether God is, or is not.
NOTE* please - in his science labs.
He was born yesterday - so to speak - a mere infant.

In order to prove whether God exists or not, he must grow up, and process things, not at his level of understanding, but at the level of a higher understanding.
Of course, he can never reach the level of any existence that is super intelligent, but just as a child who is growing up amidst adults does... He needs to do.
Sit down and learn.

I have never met a child who is not eager to learn.

If a scientist were willing to recognize the above, and humble himself, then he would find the proof that an all wise creator does exist.
If they did so, they wouldn't be basing their evidence on speculation after speculation after speculation.

For that reason, they cannot reach the level of some in the past, who saw things that can be considered scientific. But because they are not understood, and are even outrightly rejected, they aren't considered scientific.
Like walking on water; Parting the sea; Raising the dead; Instantly restoring a dried up hand, etc., etc.
However, if man's knowledge is so limited, and the so-called greatest experts - the scientists - see things that defy their understanding of what is natural, why do they close their eyes to the probability of miracles, being performed by a supernatural being?
And as I would say again - yet they continue looking for E.T.

I personally believe, as I said before, it's an agenda, to rid God and religion, from the minds of persons.
But, they have failed, because they will never succeed with people of faith. So that even if they kill those individuals, they still fail.
I won't elaborate on why they fail, nor can I get into the

scientific based proof that your god exists

since apparently, I will be breaking forum rules.

As regards the issue of how it is that God could always exist, the same information I previously mentioned applies.
One scientist demonstrated the correct attitude imo.

What I cannot create, I do not understand.

- RICHARD FEYNMAN, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. I, 8-2

Not relevant to the question.

I ask in post #91: (bold added for emphasis)

Okay, so let's go back to the idea of intelligent design. Since you are so well versed in science and scientific methods I challenge you to give me a scientific based proof that your god exists. This has to conform to generally accepted scientific methods, you know what they are cause you have studied science and you like science. So here's your chance. You cannot have intelligent design without a designer so prove your designer exists.

I think that is clear enough.

You made an extraordinary claim of intelligent design, with your god as the creator, your god who supposedly has supernatural powers, another extraordinary claim. I asked you to provide evidence that your creator exists.
You've claimed him to have supernatural powers. That the claim is to supernatural powers doesn't excuse your inability to provide the evidence. You must either provide the evidence or retract both claims.

I am patiently waiting your evidence.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 101 by RonE]

I believe your problem with this concept is that you believe that your god created everything perfect, based on that you don't see that beneficial improvements are possible.

Those are not my words, or my beliefs.

My post was just pointing out that from my perspective there is lots of room for improvement on the "intelligent design". Therefore improvements are logical & even expected.

I may not have time today to respond to your post 94 questions today, Monday is very busy for me. But I'll get to that as soon as I can.

I have faith that improvements will come.
In the same way man uses his mind to act to improve things.
I believe the intelligent creator will use his power to bring about beneficial change.

I may not have time today to respond to your post 94 questions today, Monday is very busy for me. But I'll get to that as soon as I can.

I'll be patient.

[RonE]

no message at this time

[RonE]

[Replying to post 104 by theStudent]

FYI, my reply to your previous post past you in the delivery.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 103 by RonE]

What else can I say but...

As you know [strike]from all your knowledge from studying science & evolution[/strike] it doesn't work that way. Maybe you should repeat some of that material or some of those other posts [strike]correcting you on this site on these issues.[/strike]

to get your answer.
Take care.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 107 by theStudent]

If that is your reply to my request:

[Replying to post 103 by RonE]

What else can I say but...

As you know [strike]from all your knowledge from studying science & evolution[/strike] it doesn't work that way. Maybe you should repeat some of that material or some of those other posts [strike]correcting you on this site on these issues.[/strike]

to get your answer.
Take care.

[Replying to post 95 by theStudent]

I ask in post #91: (bold added for emphasis)

Okay, so let's go back to the idea of intelligent design. Since you are so well versed in science and scientific methods I challenge you to give me a scientific based proof that your god exists. This has to conform to generally accepted scientific methods, you know what they are cause you have studied science and you like science. So here's your chance. You cannot have intelligent design without a designer so prove your designer exists.

I think that is clear enough.

You made an extraordinary claim of intelligent design, with your god as the creator, your god who supposedly has supernatural powers, another extraordinary claim. I asked you to provide evidence that your creator exists.
You've claimed him to have supernatural powers. That the claim is to supernatural powers doesn't excuse your inability to provide the evidence. You must either provide the evidence or retract both claims.

Then you failed miserably.

Perhaps you've lost track of forum rule #5: Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

You've made claims as to the supernatural nature of your god, specifically creation claims. Please provide valid scientific evidence to support your claims or retract them.
You claim your god is responsible for intelligent design, yet you have not provided evidence as requested to support the existence of your god.

[RonE]

To thestudent: I never found a reply from you for my post #80:

[Replying to post 10 by theStudent]

Thank you for this information, theStudent. We are all aware of this info, but it is always amazing to hear it again.

We can all agree that we are very complex organisms.

Unfortunately, one cannot logically connect biological complexity to the concept of a deity.

This seems like a big fat god of the gaps argument to me.

The glaring problem is that you cannot show that your creator exists, you cannot demonstrate by what means your creator created, and this entire postulation cannot be demonstrated, verified, nor falsified by any means.

The elephant in this epistemological room is that there is NO evidence that any of any supposed designer(s) had a hand in creating anything. ANYTHING.

You can assert that Joe built my brain, but if you can't even show that Joe exists you've got a major problem.

No.
The evidence has been demonstrated.
Just because someone shuts their eyes to evidence, does not nullify it.

Here is another simple demonstration of that.
If I saw a huge rock, or rocks carved out in a concave close to the sea.
I could easily conclude that over time, the salt water from the sea as it's waves bashed against the rocks, caused that effect. Same with nearby caves.
I can say this because I see it demonstrated.

You say you concluded that the sea had caused this. So you did not actually witness the sea gradually washing the rocks out, an action that could take 10s, 100s, or 1,000s of years. If you had measured and recorded the progress of the sea action over many years, taken soil samples and other manner of evidence you might be able to build your case that the sea had washed the rocks out. Just observing the actual event or observing later could give you the wrong conclusion, relying on a single observation you might have missed the earthquake 100 years before that was the actual cause of the collapse and the sea has just been washing away the surrounding dirt for 100 years.

Observation not supported by other evidence can be misleading. That's why science & TOE are so strong, they seek support by cross checking evidences. With the knowledge you claim from your studies this should be apparent to you.

[Donray]

theStudent: You have failed to address serval issue with your idea of ID.

Please address the Neanderthals issue.

You failed to address the virus issue.

Why can't you defend your ID theory? Others have noted you seem incapable of any logical discussion about your theory. Since it seems to be your theory then you must all issues and have some sort of logical reply.

Could you at least explain why you don't want to back up your logic with facts?