• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Intelligent Design New Evidence

Whether you guys agree with ID or not..... is not the point.

Whether you like or not, there is a compelling evidence for it. There is a controversy among scientists.
It is being debated.

That there is a debate going on about it.....speaks for itself.
There wouldn't be a discussion or an argument or a debate among scientists if everyone agrees that ID is out.


Some of you will try to say - oh those pro-ID scientists are doing it because of their religious belief.
Baloney!

If it has no merit it will be thrown out in the trash can by the science community and we'll never hear about it again!
 
Last edited:
This article below may've given answers to some of the other poster's questions. Sorry if I missed any posters that has something to say (and worth responding to). It might've been lost among the lot that don't really say anything.
If I did, pls re-post it.

An excerpt from...


Fine-tuning evidence has raised compelling questions about the universe's beginning, evolution and eventual end.

God and the Multiverse

While anthropic reasoning gave rise to increased physics research, it also ignited a philosophical debate over the role of a supernatural creator in physics. If certain fundamental constants are finely tuned for life and they easily could have been different, then why do we happen to live in the universe that sustains life?

Philosophers and physicists are generally divided between two answers to this question. One group argues that God created the universe and intended for life to exist, hence the finely tuned values of certain constants. On the other hand, most physicists argue that our universe is only one of an infinite amount of others that exists. Within this “multiverse,” we are lucky enough to live in one of the universes that supports life.

Perhaps the most well known proponent of the God hypothesis within the physics community is Frank Tipler, a mathematical physicist at Tulane University and co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

Tipler uses fine-tuning evidence for his argument, but he also draws from thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and special relativity. Although the principle relies on a variety of physical theories for support, anthropic reasoning forms the crux of the argument. From this principle, Tipler argues that the universe was designed to have life-sustaining properties by a creator, namely God.

Most physicists, however, remain unconvinced by Tipler's argument. Instead, a large majority of physicists try to keep God out of their explanations because they think religion lies outside the realm of science. The multiverse reasoning doesn’t explicitly deny God’s existence but simply sidesteps the issue.

“A lot of physicists don’t endorse the fine-tuning argument because it’s so controversial,” said Monton.

Despite the small amount of support for these design arguments in physics and philosophy academic circles, political organizations supporting intelligent design, such as the Discovery Institute, have yet to use them.

“These groups really only focus on biology-based arguments, but the fine-tuning argument is really interesting,” said Monton. “People take it seriously, and I don’t know why [these groups] aren’t latching themselves onto it.”

Fine-tuning arguments suggest that science and religion may be more intertwined than previously thought. Although these arguments have yet to truly enter the public arena, scientists and philosophers alike continue to fervently debate the topic. Meanwhile, researchers continue to search for evidence of finely-tuned properties of our universe, reminding us that the smallest of particles can raise some of the universe’s biggest questions.

Buzz Blog: Life, Design and the Multiverse
 
Last edited:
Instead, a large majority of physicists try to keep God out of their explanations because they think religion lies outside the realm of science.

The multiverse reasoning doesn’t explicitly deny God’s existence but simply sidesteps the issue.


“A lot of physicists don’t endorse the fine-tuning argument because it’s so controversial,” said Monton.



What's "controversial" got to do with it?
 
William Rea said:
Why is the rest of the Universe so hostile to us?
Click to expand...

Yes! Excellent question!

Why are all life forms concentrated on one single planet.....and the rest of the universe is so "hostile" to us?

Life-forms on this planet are tripping over each other....and yet, there's nothing out there. Hmmmm.


Ummmm.....maybe nobody else around got a few accidents, never mind the ludicrous infinite "accidents" that our planet had to end up sustaining life?

Odd. Do you find that odd? Not even our neighboring heavenly bodies benefited from our infinite accidents to have made it possible for them to harbor even a single life-form that could live in whatever biosphere they happened to accidentally develop.


If the constants doesn't have to be exactly "just right" to sustain life-forms, surely there would've been some ripple effects among the heavenly bodies within close proximity to us to be able to sustain their own life-forms.
We'd see some forms of life in other places!

Why is it that our biosphere is the only one that can sustain life?
Why can't there be a different biosphere that can sustain non-earth life-forms?


......or, maybe we're meant to just be on this planet? That's why the rest of the universe is "hostile" to us?



You don't see that your question supports design? :2razz:
 
Last edited:

Nope, I'm waiting for this strong evidence. That's all.
 

Yes, I knew you'd latch onto that but, remember, the subject is YOUR strong evidence.
 

Controversial because it isn't Science.

I kind of knew that you'd be a 'Cut and Paster for Jebus'.
 

There is no controversy in Science about this.

There are a lot of 'God botherers' trying to push their a priori beliefs into Science and failing, and trying to push it into the classroom and largely failing.
 
William Rea said:
There is no controversy in Science about this.

There are a lot of 'God botherers' trying to push their a priori beliefs into Science and failing, and trying to push it into the classroom and largely failing.
Click to expand...

Au revoir for now, William...:2wave:

See what I mean? I Will respond to you when you stop blowing smoke and deflecting.....and decide to get right on topic and indeed participate in a real discussion.

If I've got to do a monologue here....hey, I'll do it. After all, you did say the floor is mine.
All mine! Nya-ha-ha. :mrgreen:
 
tosca1 said:
Au revoir for now, William...:2wave:

Will respond to you when you stop blowing smoke and deflecting.....and decide to get right on topic and indeed participate in a real discussion.
Click to expand...

So what have you presented as evidence then?
 

Now you're jumping to an entirely different topic, abiogenesis. And going with an appeal to ignorance. "We can't know how it started!" That's not evidence we were designed, buddy.

I'd ask this question:

What are you made of?
 

No, there isn't evidence. You have speculation. You are misapplying the word evidence.

Intelligent Design has been thrown out by the science community, because there isn't any evidence in its favor.

You have absolutely no way to determine whether the nuclear strong force was designed. There's no experiment that tells you this. There's no evidence you can gather, there's no prediction you can make. "This seems unlikely if not designed" banks on this strange idea that universal constants would have been randomly shuffled if not designed intelligently. But why would you think that? Why do you think it's even possible for the universal constants to be anything else?
 
Deuce said:
Now you're jumping to an entirely different topic, abiogenesis. And going with an appeal to ignorance. "We can't know how it started!" That's not evidence we were designed, buddy.

I'd ask this question:

What are you made of?
Click to expand...


That's the automatic go-to responseby evolutionists when they're asked about the beginning of life.

"Foul! Foul! That's abiogenesis. That's separate!"

Translation: Don't ask about something we don't know.

And yet they're so darn sure it isn't by design.


For the life of me, evolution has to start somewhere! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

Evolutionists. Another dead giveaway for the creationism-in-disguise crowd. Because if you were really just examining scientific evidence about intelligent design, you'd be an "evolutionist." You'd be well aware that life evolves, because that's what the science shows us. And this idea is not inherently conflicted with intelligent design. Nor is abiogenesis. However, both of these ideas are conflicting with the "poof" theory, creationism. The idea that humans were created more or less in their present form a few thousand years ago.

I'm sorry this bothers you so much, but abiogenesis, evolution, and the origins of the universe really are separate topics. The theory of evolution speaks nothing to how life first formed, because that is not within its scope. I mean, the theory of gravity doesn't explain the origins of life either, how come you aren't sneering about that?

I asked a question, that might lead you towards an answer about abiogenesis. You didn't answer.

What are you made of?
 
Deuce said:
No, there isn't evidence. You have speculation. You are misapplying the word evidence.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not!

ID has more ground to stand on than your macro-evolution (which is pure speculation).....and you cry foul?
Looks like there's a double standard of some sort here....
 
deleted.
 
tosca1 said:
No, I'm not!

ID has more ground to stand on than your macro-evolution (which is pure speculation).....and you cry foul? Looks like there's a double standard of some sort here....
Click to expand...

And there it is. You're not an ID-er. You're a creationist. ID is not incompatible with evolution, nor is evolution "pure speculation." You slipped up, chief. You gave away your real motivations. You're just another member of the anti-science religion crowd.

There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution. You just have personally not been exposed to it. Somebody, under the color of religious authority, told you some things they think disprove evolution, and you bought them as, well, gospel. Do you want to talk about evolution or the origin of the universe? Why do you seem to think those are the same topic?
 
Deuce said:
Evolutionists. Another dead giveaway for the creationism-in-disguise crowd.
Click to expand...

Well, creationism isn't in disguise at all if we're talking about design!
All one has to do is understand the full implication!

It'll just be a question of who....or what, maybe?

Of course, as a Christian I'll say my God is the Creator.

I gave you a what-if scenario and you didn't respond. Here, let me repost it and I'll wait for your response. This is related to that statement.


Suppose you went to Pluto and found a domed structure that's set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, the humidity, are just right. Water is abundant. There's even an oxygen recycling system, a system to have energy, and a whole system for the production of food.

Put simply, it is a fully functioning biosphere.

What logical conclusion would come to mind? That all these happened just by chance? By accident?

No one created it?


What is your logical conclusion if you find that on Pluto?
 
Last edited:

This is an explanation of how carbon chemistry can start to create life.

Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | Talk Video | TED.com

It's a good video.

You will need to define what exactly life is to progress this discussion though and that's very hard.
 
You need to decide for yourself whether you want to talk about religion or whether you want to talk about science.

You have dodged a much simpler question of mine twice, don't expect me to answer yours.
 

It would obviously be the product of artifice. It would obviously be the product of design.

Look at it this way;

A space alien lands on the White House lawn and knocks on the front door.

I would expect that the alien has at least been modified to be able to breath our air and live in the conditions of Earth now because these conditions are peculiar to Earth now. Many times in the past the Earth's air would have killed us. Other planets will be more different to here and we are unlikely to be able to survive on them without at least modification.

If we were to examine this space alien and found that it was capable of breeding with others of it's kind then it's offspring would be subject to the pressures of evolutionary selection as everything is.

If when we examined this creature we found that the way it was built was sensible, with good design choices made and redundant bits eliminated we would further confirm that it was a designed thing. If, however, we found that it was a cobbled together set of botches and work arounds with multiple redundant bits doing things in strange overly complicated ways we would think that if it was designed it was done in a strange, and bad, way.

If we managed to work out what it was using for the equivalent of DNA the we would be able to see that it had (or hadn't) gone through a process of evolution over a vast number of costly experimental mutations over a huge time scale.

If we were able to travel to it's home and found a load of other animals sharing much of it's biology and were able to see where and how it was related to these other animals we would say it had evolved.

If we could dig up fossils from it's home world which clearly showed that it was the product of billions of years of evolution we would again have much more than 100% proof that this was an evolved creature and not a product of design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…