Intelligent Design / Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

The only rub here is God. If ID is right, then God might exist.

So, what if it turns out you're right, but the designer is actually Cthulhu? Huh? Then what smart guy.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what if it turns out you're right, but the designer is actually Cthulhu? Huh? Then what smart guy.

Sagan's Dragon would eat Cthulhu for breakfast.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Sagan's Dragon would eat Cthulhu for breakfast.

Silly rabbit, dragons don't eat breakfast.

 

[CabVet]

For all the talk about proof, proof for ID there are many reasons for inference throughout the thread. Much like common ancestry is nothing but inference and is accepted by those calling for "absolute" proof from ID.

Nobody is asking you to provide "proof", only evidence for ID and you have failed to do it so far. Nothing in your long post comes remotely close to being evidence for ID. And here once more:

Intelligent design does not start with science, it starts with the assumption that apparent design implies the existence of a designer. You cannot start science with your conclusion already drawn.

 

[idscience]

So, what if it turns out you're right, but the designer is actually Cthulhu? Huh? Then what smart guy.

ID science cannot identify the designer so it doesn't matter. All ID theory does is suggest there is one from inference. You guys are a little hung up on who he is. ID theory can't help with that.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Love the tags.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

ID science cannot identify the designer so it doesn't matter. All ID theory does is suggest there is one from inference. You guys are a little hung up on who he is. ID theory can't help with that.

ID = whole bunch of real neat looking science thingys' that I don't have time to learn about... goddidit.

 

[idscience]

ID = whole bunch of real neat looking science thingys' that I don't have time to learn about... goddidit.

You can be as condescending as you like. We have heard no defense of gaping holes in evolution hypothesis, only condescention. Evolution science can't even figure out what a species is yet the whole hypothesis seems to hinge on it.
Evolution science doesn't know:

• what a species is
• why the fossil record exhibits stasis instead of the predicted gradualism
• how co-option actually works
• why a tree of life can't be defined
• how complex systems like the flagellum formed
• where information came from
• how base pairs orange themselves
• how a 4 letter code originated all at once
• why junk DNA has function
• why a couple hundred original vestigial organs are down to a couple
• what came first proteins or DNA
• why they can't speciate fruit flies
• why 100 million year old fossils are walking around today unchanged
• why punctuated equilibrium is still around if there is so much evidence for gradualism
• why biologists can't get beyond two steps of change after millions of generations of bacterial experiments.
• why every year a new find rewrites the history of something or other

There are a few scientific thingy's they could try and learn first. What does evolution know, that is, what doesn't change every few months.

• Things change! Nailed that one down.
• other things change
• some things change more than others
• some things change faster than others
• speciation occurs, just don't know how, never seen it, can't make it happen, can't really define it anyway
• mutations happen! nailed that one.
• natural selection drives change, except when it is horizontal gene transfer, or jumping genes, or something we haven't discovered yet
• if there is no evidence of change happening slow, it happened fast
• DNA isn't building instructions, isn't a language, isn't a code of any kind. Seem to know a lot about DNA in a very short time to be that dogmatic.
• more time equals more change, there is nothing that can't happen given enough time.
• we are not wrong

There really isn't any room for condescension. I have noticed a relationship between condescension and lack of relevant responses to the failures of evolution hypothesis. It almost seems personal with some.

I don't understand why the facts can't be argued without being disrespectful. It is hard to discuss things with someone who is just angry.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, yet more "evolution is wrong because..." posts. We get it.

Now, where is the evidence FOR ID, not evidence AGAINST evolution, evidence F-O-R ID, do you comprehend these are different things?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

have noticed a relationship between condescension and lack of relevant responses to the failures of evolution hypothesis. It almost seems personal with some.


I don't understand why the facts can't be argued without being disrespectful. It is hard to discuss things with someone who is just angry.

OK, this time get someone to read it to you. I can post the evidence but I can't help you with your comprehension.

Hypocrisy makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[idscience]

It is too easy to get pulled into a negative discourse. I am guilty of that as well, so I am only going to reply to proper posts, without personal attacks.
It is too easy to go down that road

 

[Blayz]

It is too easy to get pulled into a negative discourse. I am guilty of that as well, so I am only going to reply to proper posts, without personal attacks.
It is too easy to go down that road

Explain the intelligence in the design of flightless birds that still have hollow bones, and flying mammals that have solid bones.

 

[idscience]

Nobody is asking you to provide "proof", only evidence for ID and you have failed to do it so far. Nothing in your long post comes remotely close to being evidence for ID. And here once more:

Intelligent design does not start with science, it starts with the assumption that apparent design implies the existence of a designer. You cannot start science with your conclusion already drawn.

Isn't that what common descent does?

the conclusion is it happened, now the evidence has to fit that.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

It is too easy to get pulled into a negative discourse. I am guilty of that as well, so I am only going to reply to proper posts, without personal attacks.
It is too easy to go down that road

OK, so how about some POSITVE evidence FOR ID?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Isn't that what common descent does?

the conclusion is it happened, now the evidence has to fit that.

Again, see, here you are arguing AGAINST evolutionary theory, not actually providing evidence FOR ID, see the difference?

 

[idscience]

OK, so how about some POSITVE evidence FOR ID?

YOu don't accept any evidence. Every time I post you just come back and say post some evidence. When I post failures of evolution you say post some evidence.

you don't answer any questions, you don't cite any evidence supporting the failures brought up. You just keep repeating yourself. YOu seem perfectly fine accepting the failures of your own believed hypothesis, why wanting more and more evidence for ID.

I have been clear on this thread about what features of living things leads ID to infer intelligence. You don't accept them. That is ok. There has certainly been enough information posted you could pick out specific problems that I can address.

Just saying show me, show me, is not helpful.

 

[idscience]

So, yet more "evolution is wrong because..." posts. We get it.

Now, where is the evidence FOR ID, not evidence AGAINST evolution, evidence F-O-R ID, do you comprehend these are different things?

Why do you so happily accept what is wrong with evolution?

 

[idscience]

Is it better to believe in something that doesn't hold up because there is nothing better? common descent is better than nothing?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Isn't that what common descent does?

the conclusion is it happened, now the evidence has to fit that.

no. that's not how science works. the conclusion is there because of the evidence (150 years of research).

 

[idscience]

no. that's not how science works. the conclusion is there because of the evidence (150 years of research).

That is how evolution science works. common descent happened so make the evidence fit.