What's the current state of Intelligent Design?

[AV1611VET]

cdesign proponentsists 101.

I love that term.

I actually do.

And I'm glad they got busted pulling that trick.

 

[HitchSlap]

Negative.

That's ok, he probably never read anything you wrote, either.

 

[HitchSlap]

I love that term.

I actually do.

And I'm glad they got busted pulling that trick.

If it weren't for tricks, they'd have no tricks at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's ok, he probably never read anything you wrote, either.

Here's the kicker though:

We've both read Genesis 1.

 

[pitabread]

Negative.

If you have nothing useful to contribute then, please don't clutter this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it weren't for tricks, they'd have no tricks at all.

DI and ICR get on my nervous system, but at least their hearts are in the right place.

Not to mention the fact that they know how to prioritize.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have nothing useful to contribute then, please don't clutter this thread.

Have your questions in the OP been answered?

If so, what's the problem?

If not, are you saying there's [now] 86 posts of clutter?

 

[HitchSlap]

Here's the kicker though:

We've both read Genesis 1.

Well, at least you admit confusion starts in the beginning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, at least you admit confusion starts in the beginning.

Yup ... read Genesis 3.

"Yea, hath God said ...?"

 

[pitabread]

Have your questions in the OP been answered?

If so, what's the problem?

If not, are you saying there's [now] 86 posts of clutter?

You have a habit of endlessly derailing threads. Last time you did it to one of my threads, it got locked for that very reason.

So I'll ask you kindly take a hike, thanks. Perhaps you can find science on your journey.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a habit of endlessly derailing threads. Last time you did it to one of my threads, it got locked for that very reason.

So I'll ask you kindly take a hike, thanks. Perhaps you can find science on your journey.

Suit yourself.

Adios.

 

[NBB]

You seem to be exhibiting the typical Creationist mix of woeful ignorance of evolution combined with an outdated view of ID.

"I am a not a product of lucky changes" is a fairly typical Creationist trope indicating a poor understanding of even the most basic principles of evolution i.e., random variation (DNA changes) combined with natural selection (successfully producing offspring) lead to evolutionary change.

The evolution of the eye has been well understood for over a century. Heck - even Darwin had this one broadly worked out in 1859 when he published 'The Origin of Species". You can find explanations of eye evolution in most basic evolution primers. Here's Wikipedia's version Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

Intelligent Design was sent to the scientific dustbin in 2005 when a major court decision (Kitzmiller vs Dover) established that it was not a science. The judge also made it clear that ID was little more than Creationism dressed up in a lab coat to create a false 'sciencey' impression.

Irreducible complexity also took a beating in the same court case:

"Professor (Michael) Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." (from Judge Jones' summation)​

The now infamous irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum argument has been shown to be scientifically incorrect along with the concept of irreducible complexity itself. What Behe failed to consider was that components with a specific function could combine, or be modified, to form a new part with a new (or enhanced) function.

ID/Creationists have yet to define 'design' in a way applicable to the evolution argument after decades of trying.

May I suggest that you familiarise yourself with the history of ID and its dishonest attempts to sneak Creationism into US schools through the back door.

You might also spend a little time in getting to understand evolution before embarking on this type of critique from ignorance.

OB

And yet God exists and interacts with people, and people is ignorant of that, also the evolution of the eye is understood?, lies, they make stories of how could have become, sure a photosensitive cell just 'appeared' just where the animals needed it? i don't think so.

Evolution couldn't create humans the same as a simple process or animals can't either create complex things, you would think there would be by now a computer process to create something, not even the most advanced ai can create good stuff, and you tell me little lucky changes yes lucky even evolutionists say luck is involved, and natural selection can create anything meaningful?. do me favour, the deluded ones here are the evolution people thinking God was not involved and evolution alone could create us. God is crazy stuff to people, but is not so crazy at all once you understand a bit.

 

[Speedwell]

And yet God exists and interacts with people, and people is ignorant of that, also the evolution of the eye is understood?, lies, they make stories of how could have become, sure a photosensitive cell just 'appeared' just where the animals needed it? i don't think so.

And the theory of evolution agrees with you.

Evolution couldn't create humans the same as a simple process or animals can't either create complex things, you would think there would be by now a computer process to create something, not even the most advanced ai can create good stuff, and you tell me little lucky changes yes lucky even evolutionists say luck is involved, and natural selection can create anything meaningful?.

So-called "genetic algorithms" based on random variation and selection are widely used in industry to design new products.

do me favour, the deluded ones here are the evolution people thinking God was not involved and evolution alone could create us. God is crazy stuff to people, but is not so crazy at all once you understand a bit.

This is the creation/evolution forum. There are theists, including Christians, on both sides of the issue. If you want to discuss theism vs. atheism there is another forum for that.

 

[NBB]

And the theory of evolution agrees with you.

So-called "genetic algorithms" based on random variation and selection are widely used in industry to design new products. This is the creation/evolution forum. There are theists, including Christians, on both sides of the issue. If you want to discuss theism vs. atheism there is another forum for that.

Those algoritms take predefined solutions to choose from they don't create all from 'scratch' like evolution needs to do.

 

[Speedwell]

Those algoritms take predefined solutions to choose from they don't create all from 'scratch' like evolution needs to do.

Evolution doesn't create anything "from scratch." It always builds on pre-existing systems

 

[Shemjaza]

Those algoritms take predefined solutions to choose from they don't create all from 'scratch' like evolution needs to do.

No, just like evolution they create variety by adding random small changes.

We know how mutations work. We know that mutations make changes. That's where the new variety comes from... then selection comes from the better option being more successful.

 

[NBB]

No, just like evolution they create variety by adding random small changes.

We know how mutations work. We know that mutations make changes. That's where the new variety comes from... then selection comes from the better option being more successful.

with just a little google search i find:

"This notion can be applied for a search problem. We consider a set of solutions for a problem and select the set of best ones out of them."

so yes there is set solution evolution needs to build from scratch.

 

[NBB]

Evolution doesn't create anything "from scratch." It always builds on pre-existing systems

Oh yes?, do you even believe we once were an amoeba or something, now, build a brain lungs bones etc, that seem from scratch to me.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh yes?, do you even believe we once were an amoeba or something, now, build a brain lungs bones etc, that seem from scratch to me.

No doubt it does. Scientists know differently. Are you a philosophical Realist?

 

[NBB]

No doubt it does. Scientists know differently. Are you a philosophical Realist?

Well, i didn't know that this was a thing, but i think reality has truth in it even if not in someone mind of course, that is what is supposed to mean? because for example if there were no people but the universe existed, the universe will still be there with the law of physics and everything working but without anyone to contenplate it. Pretty obvious isn't it?

But what scientist know about evolution that i am missing in this subject, in the topic we were talking about about building from scratch, so for example the eye, they say it started by 'getting' an light sensitive cell, now how exactly this animals are 'getting' this things, did the animal got light sensitive cell in every part of the body, until someday it settled in the correct place? how, and how it knew 2 eyes were optimal and they need to be in the correct distance from each other etc, too much 'coincidences' going on here, it seems more like a deliberate design choice to me. You can't deny things seem to be done on purpose on this world, with something in mind.

Even this first step in getting a light sensitive cell, is from scratch, you understand? this little step had no earlier step, so it has to be done from scratch....
that is what i doubt, evolutoin can't come up with this solutions at all, and the 'genetical algorithms' like i said, are selecting from already made solutions.

You know light sensitive cells have 'science' in them right? its not that easy to come up with this, they need to explain somewhere where with a mutation some thing 'simple' like an amoeba can 'invent' a light sensitive cell.