Intelligent Design / Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

Only an evolutionist can take pride in those examples.

It's not a book, it is 66 books, and its older than 2000 years. But I would not expect you to get bogged down with facts. Evolutionists aren't used to using them.

Well, that's the thing about facts, most cdesign proponentsists have trouble understanding them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Interesting but not surprising that so many here chose to overlook the point. The arrogance is accepted even celebrated as science working as it should. What a twisted view and tell tail sign of how the evolutionary process is allowed to work.

What point am I supposed to have overlooked?

 

[idscience]

Science is often a battlefield.

This is a fine example of drawing a flawed conclusion based on the data.

Think of it as a syllogism:

1. Many great ideas were initially reviled by the establishment and were later proven to be true

2. This idea is reviled by the establishment

3. ERGO: This idea will likely be proven true

(word games and shell games) I said nothing of the sort but twisting words and ideas is a fine art around here.

It doesn't follow. Should we assume the TimeCube guy is "onto something" because almost no one thinks he's sane or rational? Probably not.

Intelligent Design is an almost purely unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The IDist usually relies on a couple of tools:

1. The appearance of design
2. The statistical likelihood of a structure arising from random chance.

The first can be thought of as putting the cart before the horse. Remember a creature will only thrive in an environment where it can thrive. It will die in an environment which would kill it. Ergo if an organism adapts to survive in a given environment it will end up looking like it was "designed" for that environment. Kind of like a puddle of water in the ground. Was the hole made to fit the shape of the water or vice versa?

The second is nice, but not how evolution works. Perhaps when discussing the origins of life one can deal in more "random" statistics, but then when the origins are discussed chemically statistical factors come into play anyway. We use stochastic explanations for many things in chemistry. Reactions not the least of them!
(The more random, the better for evolution)

Evolution tends to bias the outcome, meaning that adaptations are hardly all just random changes.

Science is self-correcting. Why? Because the ideas that work work.
(self correcting? good one. Try suppressive and arrogant)

It's sad that some great scientists didn't get their just desserts at the time they came up with the idea. But great ideas should be trialed by fire. They can't be shouted onto the stage and even "black holes" cannot be legislated into acceptance by the scientists.
)Trialed by fire. What fantasy are you living in. They were dismissed and ignored, their ideas buried. Wait while I go get my boots on, it's getting pretty deep)

Human endeavors are what they are because we fight for our understanding. (speeking of deep)

And yes there are people who will not accept a new idea no matter what. It is true in all walks of life. Even good ideas!

So you and yours keep working on intelligent design and developing the hypothesis. Who knows....maybe someday someone will provide sufficient evidence for God that "ID" becomes common sense.

But just don't assume it will get traction because you can find examples where good ideas were overlooked in the past. Remember that people have been trying to "find" this "Intelligent Designer" for millenia. And we've got about 15 zillion different versions of him/her/it. And none of them are sufficient to displace the others using evidence.

evolutionnointelligenceallowed

 

[RocksInMyHead]

3. ERGO: This idea will likely be proven true

(word games and shell games) I said nothing of the sort but twisting words and ideas is a fine art around here.

What was the point of your post then, if not to suggest that because all of these other previously ridiculed theories were later accepted, ID should be accepted as well?

(The more random, the better for evolution)

No, not really. Evolution is selective, not random.

(self correcting? good one. Try suppressive and arrogant)

Then why were all of these theories later accepted? ID and creationism are far more arrogant and suppressive than science.

)Trialed by fire. What fantasy are you living in. They were dismissed and ignored, their ideas buried. Wait while I go get my boots on, it's getting pretty deep)

And later accepted when they had enough evidence to convince enough people. That's what we call "trial by fire." Don't put away your boots yet though - I think that hole you're digging is about to hit the water table.

evolutionnointelligenceallowed

How is this any different from your last list of previously ridiculed, later accepted, theories?

 

[idscience]

Gorilla Genome Researchers Fall Back to Weaker Arguments for
Common Ancestry​

"A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome--amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA--contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans. That's the big news revealed last week with the publication of the sequence of the full gorilla genome. But there's a lot more to this story"

 

[Jazer]

particular interpretation of a 2000 year old book, is in fact its greatest strength.

3500 years old. Your not going to understand the 2000 year old NT if you do not understand what Moses wrote 3500 years ago.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Gorilla Genome Researchers Fall Back to Weaker Arguments for​

Common Ancestry​

"A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome--amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA--contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans. That's the big news revealed last week with the publication of the sequence of the full gorilla genome. But there's a lot more to this story"

You should leave the implications to the experts. You guys are doing it wrong!


What’s the difference between the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute?

March 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm

PZ Myers
Nothing. Nothing at all.
The ICR is a young earth creationist organization; we know they’re a bunch of anti-scientific loons. The Discovery Institute claims to be pursuing an “evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. So why is the DI echoing the ICR’s totally bogus claim that 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes?

The bottom line is that the gorilla genome has confirmed that there is not a consistent story of common ancestry coming from the genomes of the great apes and humans. Hundreds of millions of base pairs in the gorilla genome conflict with the supposed phylogeny of great apes and humans. They might think their explanation salvages common ancestry, but clearly the gorilla genome data badly messes up the supposedly nice, neat, tidy arguments which they use to claim humans are related to the great-apes.
​

That’s breathtakingly wrong. I’ve already explained that incomplete lineage sorting is an expected outcome of evolutionary theory (see also Joe Felsenstein’s complementary explanation of the same phenomenon). There is a consistent explanation; coalescence does not represent a conflict with the phylogeny; the gorilla genome data does not mess up any arguments of common descent. That the Discovery Institute will so baldly mangle the evidence and distort its conclusions shows how dishonest or incompetent the organization is.
The article is by Casey Luskin, which does tilt the interpretation in the direction of incompetence. What a clown.

 

[idscience]

You should leave the implications to the experts. You guys are doing it wrong!


What’s the difference between the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute?

March 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm

PZ Myers
Nothing. Nothing at all.
The ICR is a young earth creationist organization; we know they’re a bunch of anti-scientific loons. The Discovery Institute claims to be pursuing an “evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. So why is the DI echoing the ICR’s totally bogus claim that 30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes?

The bottom line is that the gorilla genome has confirmed that there is not a consistent story of common ancestry coming from the genomes of the great apes and humans. Hundreds of millions of base pairs in the gorilla genome conflict with the supposed phylogeny of great apes and humans. They might think their explanation salvages common ancestry, but clearly the gorilla genome data badly messes up the supposedly nice, neat, tidy arguments which they use to claim humans are related to the great-apes.
​

That’s breathtakingly wrong. I’ve already explained that incomplete lineage sorting is an expected outcome of evolutionary theory (see also Joe Felsenstein’s complementary explanation of the same phenomenon). There is a consistent explanation; coalescence does not represent a conflict with the phylogeny; the gorilla genome data does not mess up any arguments of common descent. That the Discovery Institute will so baldly mangle the evidence and distort its conclusions shows how dishonest or incompetent the organization is.
The article is by Casey Luskin, which does tilt the interpretation in the direction of incompetence. What a clown.

Slee Z myers has a personal agenda and easily fits the character of those arrogant suppressors of history past, who has a personal problem with DI and Casey inparticular. I guess because Casey takes him apart regularly. Giant egos hate that. He is far from non bias. A man pretty pleased with himself.

All your showing here is you believe who ever supports your faith. I am ok with that. Imagine spending aaaaalll that time trying to debunk something that isn't science. Something only bafoons embrace. So much time, so much effort to hang onto your Godless belief structure. He is driven because he has to be. He is barely in the double digits of society. Atheism that is. He has a chip on his shoulder and is feeling a little unaccepted. Naturally he is going to "act out" and launch personal attacks. A more biased blogger you could not have found.

There is no way, no how, he would ever admit the possibility of a creator. He has dedicated his life to proving there is non.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Slee Z myers has a personal agenda and easily fits the character of those arrogant suppressors of history past, who has a personal problem with DI and Casey inparticular. I guess because Casey takes him apart regularly. Giant egos hate that. He is far from non bias. A man pretty pleased with himself.

.

This Casey Luskin?!?!?

BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Casey Luskin: Liar, Hypocrite, Imbecilic Assclown. - YouTube

Don't worry, Luskin insn't qualified to hold PZ's jock.

 

[CabVet]

Gorilla Genome Researchers Fall Back to Weaker Arguments for
Common Ancestry​

"A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome--amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA--contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans. That's the big news revealed last week with the publication of the sequence of the full gorilla genome. But there's a lot more to this story"

Oh, does that mean that a mere 70% of the gorilla genome supports the standard phylogeny? Interesting... I thought support was going to be lower than that since the divergence started about 10 million years ago.

 

[idscience]

For those who are reading and not participating in this thread because of the ridicule and insulting remarks you will receive from the Atheists, that's ok. As you can see they have little constructive to add to the conversation. All you have to do is critically think through the jibber jabber being passed off as evidence to find the flaws in their arguments. Much of the Atheist counter attack is of a personal nature. This is an effective form of suppression. Remember, that everything that is considered evidence to prove evolution starts from the premise that evolution is a fact. The evidence is expected to support it so it does. If it doesn't, it is made to. One reason is to keep the funding coming in. If you don't produce, you don't get any money. This also enables atheists to hang out on Christian forums to ridicule and insult those who oppose their ideology. One poster on here actually posted his mission to do that very thing. Sad waste of time.

ROMANS 1:20
"For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."​

Some statements in the bible do not line up with current scientific understanding. Many facts don't line up with evolutionary thinking. Science is not to be shunned by the believer. God created the laws and principles we live under and by. How is science going to disapprove the one who created it? Darwin proposed a "simple, elegant theory" of how we may of got here. Little did he know 150 years later the whole house of cards stands on no more than it did then. We see small changes in nature, the evolutionary leap is, all life came from one simple cell. Turns out, there is no "simple cell". They are all staggeringly complex and perplexing to modern science. The arrogance to emphatically state how all life arose when they cannot even figure out the single cell arose. Sure there have been many discoveries regarding adaptation and variation, but non that prove common descent, despite what the evolution lobby may say.
The atheist will will call upon the time god, and the assertion that the simple becomes the complex. No evidence, just conjecture. Evolution stands on inference, hope, and "positive assertions". Sure, there are many similarities within the millions of species on the earth. What a surprise! A grade school student could predict that. Mendel discovered genetics without Darwin. He was ignored, and the evidence dismissed because it didn't line up with Darwin's theory.​

There are clear lines of separation within the animal kingdom. That is why we don't see enumerable animals that are indistinguishable from other animals through out the animal kingdom. Cats, dogs, horses, fish, birds insects, primates, humans. All separate and distinct. If evolution had a foot to stand on, there would be a smooth line of animals from the last most common ancestor to now, somewhere, for something. There isn't. What there is, is spin to address it.​

Is it convenient that evolution has stopped? It certainly is for the one trying to prove it exists at all. Why did it stop for the living fossils that roam the earth today, exactly the same as they did 100s of millions of years ago. They have an spin for that. Why doesn't the Darwin Tree progress nicely in a vertical direction as predicted, but sideways, downwards, and all over the place like a bush or a web? Evolution has a spin for that too. What about the gaping holes in the fossil record, with a serious lack of transitional forms. Surely there would be many. (they were not around long enough to fossilize is the spin on that one)
So you see the sea of spin and the gymnastics needed to fit it all into evolutionary hypothesis. All the while evolution cries, it is all predicted. Evolution delivers far less than it promises. Yes, micro-evolution is a fact and is compatible with the bible. Evolution is clueless when it comes to origins, so you would think there would be no ridicule there. Still, mud is slung even without any working theory of their own. Why? because it is about God or no God. Look at the poster children for this belief in evolution. Anti-God, Anti-Intelligence atheists under the guise of neutral scientists. Yes, theologians have jumped on board. In my personal opinion, they have compromised God word, God said "My word will never pass away". This is where the atheist will invoke numbers (consensus) to try and shore up support. In actuality, the atheist is well out gunned as poll after poll shows at under 2% of the U.S. population. They are fighting for their very lives.​

Evolution is an undirected process. No God, no direction, just blind chance. Those atheists who hold to this are no friend of the theist. They only use them to make the numbers look better. Polls show that those who think God had nothing to do with evolution is in the mid teens, yet they feel they have the platform to insult and disrespect those who believe in God. Not only that but to play the consensus card to boot. Don't be taken in, it's all smoke and mirrors.​

The age of the earth is an assumption on both sides. The bible does not specify how old the rocks are that make up the earth so don't get bogged down there. Ten thousand or ten million years, doesn't matter and isn't enough to call God's word into question. When you remove all the science we agree on, and that which evolution doesn't address, there isn't any hard evidence left for the evolutionist. Remember they push and push the overwhelming evidence misinformation. It is the base of the house of cards. The reality is, variation is agreeable to everyone, the misinformation is it is applied to common descent as well. That premise is the same as saying because a house catches fire, given enough time, the whole world will burn down. Take that away and what do they have? Speciation" We know what a farce that is. If you don't I will be blogging about it shortly. To equate reproductive isolation without morphological change to complete change of body plans is a little presumptuous. Like the house fire.​

There is good reason for the evolution lobby to stifle Intelligence. There is good reason so much time, effort and resources are used to suppress Intelligence. Careers are dedicated to this suppression, websites, even organizations are popping up to combat a science they say isn't science. Smear campaigns have been launched to bury something that is ridiculous. Does it make sense to you that all the time and effort and energy is spent because there is nothing to it? Did you know ID could end the world as we know it? That is will stop all science and cause the loss of life, and needs to be censored? Same tactic as the global warming alarmists. They are promoting and urgency to stifle any and all information before the sky falls down. Before anyone looks it, and sees it is legitimate. They are right about one thing. Intelligence is a threat to evolution. If it wasn't you can be sure, money and energy would be trying to stop it. Lets be clear, the fight is not against evidence and theory, it is about God. The main argument against ID is from the atheist lobby trying to stop religion being taught in school. If ID gets into the science class, atheism could plummet from the 2% they enjoy now. (However less than 2% of the U.S. population describes itself as atheist wiki)​

With all the arguing and rhetoric surrounding the evidence one way or the other, remember it is only about the existence of God for the atheist, who is by definition Anti-God. It is a very, very small minority, who are blowing the most smoke in this issue. You need not be concerned about being shouted down by a noisy few. Only 16% of all America believe God had no part in man's existence. And Americans are split down the middle on whether evolution had any part to play in the diversity of life. So those of you who are the silent majority, you are more solid ground consensus wise then the noisy minority.​

There are problems with evolution, big bang theory, and origins science. That doesn't stop people from accepting them anyways. God's word has and will stand the test of time. Let the atheist stand on his sliding ruler, the believer stands on the unchangeable rock, the firm foundation. No one was around with the world was created. Too many assumptions have to be made to be certain of anything.
The bible is true, you cannot separate God from science. My blog and website will continue to have current uncensored news and information regarding Intelligence and Anti-Intelligence.​

 

[CabVet]

My blog and website will continue to have current uncensored news and information regarding Intelligence and Anti-Intelligence.

Oh, I knew you had an agenda, now I know what it is: promoting your blog and website. What's going on? Not getting enough traffic just from google?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You know, I really don't see the point replying to you anymore. You ignore 90% of what I say and insist on attacking me as an atheist (which I am not).

Furthermore, you keep repeating the same tired points over and over in this thread, despite the number of times that I and others have pointed out your errors.

Until you're willing to apologize for slandering me and address my questions, consider me out of this thread.

 

[idscience]

What point am I supposed to have overlooked?

What was the point of your post then, if not to suggest that because all of these other previously ridiculed theories were later accepted, ID should be accepted as well?

No, not really. Evolution is selective, not random.

Then why were all of these theories later accepted? ID and creationism are far more arrogant and suppressive than science.

And later accepted when they had enough evidence to convince enough people. That's what we call "trial by fire." Don't put away your boots yet though - I think that hole you're digging is about to hit the water table.

How is this any different from your last list of previously ridiculed, later accepted, theories?

The point was how closed minded science is to new ideas. How inflexible and dogmatic.

semantics

accepted decades later. More like trial by arrogance. The scientist of the time couldn't look past their own bias. Trial by fire is trial by testing, not by stifling and suppressing.
define arrogance for ID? Does declairing your opposition arrogant in any way change your own degree of arrogance? (not you personally)

That was a mistake, double post.

 

[Incariol]

The point was how closed minded science is to new ideas. How inflexible and dogmatic.

All you are doing is showcasing your own ignorance. If you think science doesn't do new ideas, you aren't paying attention.

 

[Blayz]

My blog and website will continue to have current unreviewed fictitious nonsense regarding Intelligence and Anti-Intelligence.

Fixed that for ya.

I also ran your sites through some traffic estimators.


I didn't know anything could be ranked that lowly. I mean, that's *seriously* sad.

Maybe it's the migraine inducingly bad color scheme?

I also get to say yet again that IDers just whinge about other people's work, being incapable of performing any of their own.

 

[idscience]

So it appears that idscience is trying to say that because ID is a currently rejected and ridiculed theory and other past rejected and ridiculed theories have later become accepted, then we should just skip a few steps and accept ID.

That is your logic, no?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. All of these formerly rejected and ridiculed theories were accepted because the evidence for them grew to the point that it was obvious that they were true. ID hasn't even come close to that. First of all, it is non-testable (as pointed out many times already in this thread). No one has yet to pose a successful test for design and the results can't be repeated since none of us is this "Intelligent Designer" (aka God). Second, the majority of your arguments consist of "well, evolution can't explain it, so it must have been designed." I hate to break it to you, but logic doesn't work like that.

No, one does not suggest the other. This is one of the problems with evolutionists. You are trained to read into data.
All it means is just because main stream science is rejecting ID today, lends no credence to it's legitimacy.

You make it sound like these guys were just put off until riggerous testing could prove their theories. It was plain old censorship and ignorance.

Ok now your just talking down to me, and you want me to be nice to you. As mentioned several time, not everyone thinks there is not test for intelligence. If the current test doesn' t pass muster today, a better more accepted test may arise.

Again as stated before, my arguments for ID are not based on evolutions failure. I am quite sure I will be repeating myself again and again as people don't read the former posts. YOu statement is a canned response that is parroted by anti-intelligent people. A well know tactic to redefine the discussion. Who knows, maybe it has worked on you. Maybe you are ignorant to what ID says.

IF you found a dead body in a room after a tornato, and the body has had some organs missing. Would it be possible to determine if the tornato or an intelligent agent caused the trauma? if the organs were ripped out or surgically removed?

Scientists use tests for intelligence all the time. They may not call it that and someone may not have defined it quantatatively speaking, but certainly it can be determined if intelligence was involved in many areas.

So you must be an "evolutionist" then, since you're using those examples as grounds to have ID accepted. ID would then become one of those examples, and you take pride in ID, right?


What does the exact age and number of books have to do with anything? I'll restate:

"A whole bunch of examples of science not only correcting its mistakes, but honoring the people in involved. Once again, what you see as a weakness of science because of your slavish devotion to a particular interpretation of 66 really old books."

Happy now?

I really don't know how to respond to this. I thought you were joking, accept for the insulting part.
How you connect my post with your first statement excapes me. I am guessing your a young fella. I was equating ID not with the other scientists, who had nothing to do with evolution anyway, but the treatment of their novel theories. Who were dominated by the arrogant mindset of those scientists who were in a position to help and further science instead of stifle it.
No where anywhere in my post did I state anything even remotely close to suggesting ID should be accepted because those on my list were not. You are not reading what is being said, your responses are colored by your bias, and only condidering what you expect me to say or perceive me to say. I don't know which.

You statement about science some how redeemed itself by redicovering something that whs brought to them 30 and 40 years earlier doesn't impress me. How many other ideas were squashed and have not been rediscovered? all this talk about science being skeptical and scientists only follow evidence is nonsense. Science is as political as anything else, and ID is suffering for that today.

True, but the theory of evolution also makes predictions, which are testable and observable, and, by and large, they've proven correct.
The only testable part of evolution that is proven is variation within species. I include speciation, in there because of it marginal and conflicting definition. Outside of speciation there are no tests. In this article it says;

• "Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show
  punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages."​

Which we all recognise "rapid evolution" as no evidence was left behind. Could ID get away with such a statement? "We have no evidence so it must have happend to fast". don't think so. Sounds an awfull lot like another canned statement anti-intelligent people say though.​

All of which consist of Goddidit, a non-testable hypothesis.
All ready answered



Show me one place where evolution has predicted that dogs can evolve into cats.
Really? Where are you getting this stuff. And you wonder why I am not answering you?

You should be careful about who you call Godless.


And it could apply just as equally to you. Again, I do, in fact, believe in God. I kindly ask you to stop stating otherwise.
My comment was general, it was not meant for your personally.



It has nothing to do with atheism, at least not for me. I simply see evolution as a way of better understanding the world.
Evolution has everything to do with atheism. What is it about it's definition don't you understand? Just because you have co-opted it doesn't change that fact. Evolution compromises God's word. On several levels it says that the word of God is wrong on some points. When you go there, it is no longer a light, because you now have to deside what you will believe and what you won't.

"Goddidit" is not enough for me - I want to know how.
You are going to one disappointed individual. I don't know how long you have been a believer, but God doesn't tell us lots of things. Why our brother died, or child, why our job was lost or people are allowed to go hungry and children beaten.
God told you how you got here, evolution says he is a liar, you are believing evolution and not God? Or, your are not believing he has left us a correct record and bible to follow. Which is it for you?

What if Abraham told God to forget it unless he layed out his plan first? or Moses, or king David, or Josheph? or a hundred others in scripture.

When you actually look critically at evolution, and get rid of the all the proof that is agreed about. All that is left is common descent for which there is no evidence outside the variation we see today and inference to similarity in the fossil and genome record. Exlpained by common design. The bible says God created living things in segments of time, man being last. This could account for the layers of fossils. There are many assumptions that have to be made to infer events millions of years ago. Or even to assert it was milllions of years ago. That is information scientists just don't have. The problem isn't evolution, it is questioning the validity of the whole bible by the believer. Either it's right or it isn't. The next thing to question is Jesus. God, or just a good guy. If it's wrong on some points it may be wrong on others.

What will you do if you are around at the end times when the false prophet does his miracles and fools the world into believing he is god? Is that the kind of proof you will accept? or will you stick by the bible? where do you draw the line on where it is correct and where it is ok to question it?

 

[Incariol]

No, one does not suggest the other. This is one of the problems with evolutionists. You are trained to read into data.

Unlike ID and creationists, who literally cannot read data sections at all.

All it means is just because main stream science is rejecting ID today, lends no credence to it's legitimacy.

You make it sound like these guys were just put off until riggerous testing could prove their theories. It was plain old censorship and ignorance.

Are you saying that "riggerous[sic] testing" can indeed prove ID. Give us your abstract and a DOI, then.

Ok now your just talking down to me, and you want me to be nice to you. As mentioned several time, not everyone thinks there is not test for intelligence. If the current test doesn' t pass muster today, a better more accepted test may arise.

Again as stated before, my arguments for ID are not based on evolutions failure. I am quite sure I will be repeating myself again and again as people don't read the former posts. YOu statement is a canned response that is parroted by anti-intelligent people. A well know tactic to redefine the discussion. Who knows, maybe it has worked on you. Maybe you are ignorant to what ID says.

IF you found a dead body in a room after a tornato, and the body has had some organs missing. Would it be possible to determine if the tornato or an intelligent agent caused the trauma? if the organs were ripped out or surgically removed?

Scientists use tests for intelligence all the time. They may not call it that and someone may not have defined it quantatatively speaking, but certainly it can be determined if intelligence was involved in many areas.

Why aren't you naming any?

I really don't know how to respond to this. I thought you were joking, accept for the insulting part.
How you connect my post with your first statement excapes me. I am guessing your a young fella. I was equating ID not with the other scientists, who had nothing to do with evolution anyway, but the treatment of their novel theories. Who were dominated by the arrogant mindset of those scientists who were in a position to help and further science instead of stifle it.

Oh look he can call someone a "young fella". With those ad hominems we clearly know that we have a superior being here.

No where anywhere in my post did I state anything even remotely close to suggesting ID should be accepted because those on my list were not. You are not reading what is being said, your responses are colored by your bias, and only condidering what you expect me to say or perceive me to say. I don't know which.

You statement about science some how redeemed itself by redicovering something that whs brought to them 30 and 40 years earlier doesn't impress me. How many other ideas were squashed and have not been rediscovered? all this talk about science being skeptical and scientists only follow evidence is nonsense. Science is as political as anything else, and ID is suffering for that today.

That, and ID has no scientific evidence going for it.

 

[USincognito]

For those who are reading and not participating in this thread because of the ridicule and insulting remarks you will receive from the Atheists, that's ok.

Peanut gallery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thaumaturgy]

evolutionnointelligenceallowed

Hey thanks for the link! I started to read through it ran across this bit:

There are clear lines of separation within the animal kingdom. That is why we don’t see enumerable animals that are indistinguishable from other animals through out the animal kingdom. Cats, dogs, horses, fish, birds insects, primates, humans. All separate and distinct. If evolution had a foot to stand on, there would be a smooth line of animals from the last most common ancestor to now

(emphasis added)

Then I remembered that even the Bible didn't quite see the "difference" in some animals!

Lev 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 11:15 Every raven after his kind; 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.