Do you support Intelligent Design or Creation?

Question

If yes, what experiments can be done to support your hypothesis? This means a simple experiment that anyone can replicate and get the same results plus it must follow the scientific method. No psuedoscience please.

They are similar but not the same. Creationists believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis. Intelligent Design proponents believe that a "designer" was the creator of the universe. Also, to say that you know God's word would mean that the bible is actually written by a god, but men wrote that book and men are prone to making things up. If we are to believe that a god created everything, there must be some obvious features of the universe that experimentally confirm that belief, if not you are just making an assumption.

bacha2_33461:

That is not a real experiment. All that would prove is that electronics cannot rebuild themselves. Think harder.

Lori, you are using many logical fallacies in your answer, also you deduce god as your conclusion but offer no alternative explanations. When you invoke god you are making an assumption because nothing you say actually has any direct evidence of a creator.

Questioner:

Watch this video for a reason why your explanation is fallacious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI&mode=related&search=

Answer 1

The main thing that Mr. Computer Components In A Box isn't taking into consideration is that elements react to each other while computer components are inert.
Signed,
Your friendly neighborhood agnostic.

Answer 2

Intelligent Design, yes, because it seems the only logical answer.

Creation.... I'm neutral but if I had to decide, right now I would support it. The Bible has shown itself correct on other points, I am willing to take a little leap of faith in something I cannot prove.

I'm not into science though. History is my field. I don't care how atoms work because I know they will work whether I know how they work or not. The earth will keep rotating whether I know exactly how fast it rotates.

Okay simple experiment to prove Creation...... Look in one area and see if something just pops into existence from nothing. If nothing does, then there must be something needed to bring every physical thing into existence. :)

Answer 3

Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

Life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine.

Now, information is something different from matter and energy. For example, a book contains information, but the paper and ink are not the information—they can only transmit it.

Life is an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language using four nucleotide bases. It has been estimated that if transcribed into English, the DNA in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

And, of course, an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place that makes it meaningful. The language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA.

And we know from experience: If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, said, “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required ...There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”

-------------------------------------------------------------
-Edit:
OK, I watched it. So, my arguments are fallacious because I quoted from Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Werner Gitt? Then cut out those quotes and deal with my arguments:

1. Reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

2. Life is an information-based process and information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of information has only ever been shown to come from a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

Also, I think Kevin Padian is wrong. Take a look at this:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Answer 4

There is more than one scientific method. Which would you like to use? The inductive method, or the deductive method?

Creation means that life comes from life, and from nowhere else. This experiment is replicated in every seed-bearing plant, child-bearing woman, and reproduced in every animal. Experimentation has revealed that life cannot be reproduced from inert chemicals. One would expect that, if life is simply a chemical reaction, injecting a dead tree with the correct chemicals would reanimate it. It does not. Therefore, we can deduce that life comes from life. This is observable, and can be reproduced. What remains is discovering the source, the origin of life.

We begin with the proven hypothesis that life comes from life. If we move backwards, we can go in several different directions. From the evolutionary standpoint, we can move from multi-cellular complex forms of life, backward to single cell forms of life, and still we see that life comes from life. Microscopic life is existing. On the molecular level, life is existing. With our best existing equipment, we understand that life is existing that cannot be seen or readily observed. Yet, we still have not come to the source of life itself. The source is unobserved, yet all evidence suggests that there is a source. Supporters have named that unobserved source, God.

Answer 5

I support Evolution. Intelligent Design and Creation are two names for the same thing.

Answer 6

I support Evolution. Science supports Evolution.

Answer 7

Experiment

Take all the necessary components to make a computer, put them in a box, store them away for millions of years, and come back and see if it is assembled, programmed and running.

That is evolution in a nutshell, my brother.

Answer 8

I don't think it needs my support it has plenty of support already. I am an unbiased observer.

Answer 9

Yes. It is not science. It is God. God is not a God of reasoning, facts, or figures. I believe in Him because He is. And since I believe in Him, I believe in His word. In His word it is explained that He created the world, the animals, and humanity. It says this, so I believe. No proof needed.

Answer 10

Big or invisible to the naked eye: spheres.