Intelligent Design Is Only Theorized

[rjs330]

Lol. Will you be publishing soon?

The arrogance of those least informed; I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Are you mocking me?

I think that might be against the rules. When I say I didn't look deeply and the ID concept KW was talking about its because long ago I decided that creation shows that an intelligent designer created all of it. When I argue ID it not based upon some website or group that decided what ID was. I decided what ID meant to me. Which is simply that all of nature, including the universe shows there was an intelligent designer of it all. And he created it all out of nothing. Evolution was not involved. None of it was an accident.

 

[rjs330]

The natural world does show design in everything; from the colors of the flowers to the intricacies of a complex eye. The difference is that ID denies things that are foundational. The six day creation is restated in Exodus when Moses received the ten commandments among other laces. Adam and Even are referenced by Christ in describing marriage and divorce. Adam's sin and the fall of man show the sinful nature of man and his need for a savior. The Great Flood shows the wrath of God against sin and corruption and reiterates that the wages of sin are death. Jesus even said that if you didn't believe what Moses wrote you would not believe in what He taught.

The lost and godless proclaim that the Bible is full of myth and contradictions. They latch onto things that they don't understand to discredit it; like saying that Genesis 2 is a contradictory creation account when anyone reading it knows that it describes the formation of man which was done on day six. ID denies all of this and continues the narrative that Adam and Eve, if they existed at all, were born to the last of the non human progenitors.

The flood is critical. How are we to believe that God will destroy the world in the future if we deny that He destroyed it in the past? The flood is the only time when each kind of animal was reduced to one breeding couple (or more in some cases). All speciation emanates from them. That is the commonality. Common descent is not universal. It has its origins some 4,500 years in the past.

I agree with everything you said. I guess I have my own definition of intelligent design. I never once posted that I believe that intelligent design is akin to evolution in any way shape or form. I believe nature shows intelligent design. That being God designed everything to work the way it was and he created all of it. Evolution as stated as a mechanism from which all things evolved from a common ancestor is NOT part of God's creation and his design.

By the way just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of saying I support evolution.

I'm just trying to be clear to others who might try and misconstrue what I say.

 

[rjs330]

And right away you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are arguing against. The only ones that describe evolution as "by accident" are those that have no understanding at all of how evolution occurred. And there is no evidence at all that anyone has presented yet for ID.



There are variations on the theme.



Since it never supported its claims in the first place there is not much point in doing so.


Sorry but you are simply mistaken. Your inability to understand evolution does not mean that it could not have happened.

Actually it is an accident or it is by design. The claim it's not an accident is bogus. A mutation is something that occurs and it is either beneficial or detrimental. Either one is luck of the draw.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually it is an accident or it is by design. The claim it's not an accident is bogus. A mutation is something that occurs and it is either beneficial or detrimental. Either one is luck of the draw.

Can you point to something that isn't designed?

What about a rain puddle? Is a rain puddle designed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it is an accident or it is by design. The claim it's not an accident is bogus. A mutation is something that occurs and it is either beneficial or detrimental. Either one is luck of the draw.

That is a false dichotomy. And though there is an element of randomness in evoluiton it is clearly not a randome process. A ball rolling down a slope in a pachinko game may look like it is traveling randomly, but the force of gravity does make it hit the bottom eventually.

Evolution is an process that occurs in large populations. A large population will have span of traits that can be calculated and modeled. Natural selection is the "force" that makes evolution a non-random event just as gravity is the force that makes a pachinko ball move down the board.

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you mocking me?

I think that might be against the rules. When I say I didn't look deeply and the ID concept KW was talking about its because long ago I decided that creation shows that an intelligent designer created all of it. When I argue ID it not based upon some website or group that decided what ID was. I decided what ID meant to me. Which is simply that all of nature, including the universe shows there was an intelligent designer of it all. And he created it all out of nothing. Evolution was not involved. None of it was an accident.

Don't you owe it to yourself to actually investigate the facts and consider what the experts have to say, rather than base a point of view on a feeling?

Also, could you be wrong about what you have "decided" to be true?

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually it is an accident or it is by design. The claim it's not an accident is bogus. A mutation is something that occurs and it is either beneficial or detrimental. Either one is luck of the draw.

Do you realize that most mutations are neither beneficial or harmful?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anything that can be attained by science is not eternal, and therefore renders science ultimately useless.

How's that pc and central heat working out for you?

How about your car? Your health care? Your electricity? Your TV? Your phone? Your GPS? Your house? Your ability to travel to the other side of the world in less then a day?

You'ld have none of that if it weren't for science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, the implications of the theory on the other hand ....

Haaa, there it is....

"believe it, or else..."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mean like LSD or mustard gas?

I could live without mustard gas.

We'ld have missed out on a lot of awesome music without LSD though.

 

[rjs330]

Don't you owe it to yourself to actually investigate the facts and consider what the experts have to say, rather than base a point of view on a feeling?

Also, could you be wrong about what you have "decided" to be true?

What experts exactly?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What experts exactly?

Probably the actual scientists who actively work in the field, you know, all the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Bhuddists along with the Atheists and Agnostics that all come to the same conclusion?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Actually it is an accident or it is by design. The claim it's not an accident is bogus. A mutation is something that occurs and it is either beneficial or detrimental. Either one is luck of the draw.

False Dichotomy - A mutation could very easily be neutral, not being beneficial nor detrimental to the organism. This bit is random. Natural selection then weeds out most of the detrimental mutations through various aspects of nature, this bit is not random. Are you aware that around 75% of all human pregnancies auto-abort and will seem just like a normal menstrual cycle? There's a stack of non-starting mutations right there - either that, or if your God exists and is responsible for everything here in this universe, then he's the most prolific mass murderer of babies that ever existed...

 

[rjs330]

False Dichotomy - A mutation could very easily be neutral, not being beneficial nor detrimental to the organism. This bit is random. Natural selection then weeds out most of the detrimental mutations through various aspects of nature, this bit is not random. Are you aware that around 75% of all human pregnancies auto-abort and will seem just like a normal menstrual cycle? There's a stack of non-starting mutations right there - either that, or if your God exists and is responsible for everything here in this universe, then he's the most prolific mass murderer of babies that ever existed...

Natural selection is random and an accident. A woman has a miscarriage for a number of reasons. A bad mutation is just one reason.

Seven Most Common Miscarriage Causes

But my point stands. Mutations are accidental changes. Natural selection implies a design if it is purposeful. If it does not then it's pure chance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural selection is random and an accident.

It's not. As @Bugeyedcreepy says: mutation is random, natural selection is not.

But my point stands.

Your point is rooted in ignorance, false dichotomies and strawmen.

Mutations are accidental changes

They are random changes. An "accident" has baggage that is not applicable to genetic mutation.

Natural selection implies a design if it is purposeful

No, it does not.

If it does not then it's pure chance.

It is not.

If my genes make me better at hunting then you, it is not "pure chance" that I end up outcompeting you so that I have enough food while you are starving.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Natural selection is random and an accident. A woman has a miscarriage for a number of reasons. A bad mutation is just one reason.

Seven Most Common Miscarriage Causes

But my point stands. Mutations are accidental changes. Natural selection implies a design if it is purposeful. If it does not then it's pure chance.

Stand back while I eviscerate your claim. Looking through that list, they are all reasons attributable to natural selection with the possible exception of lifestyle - and that's debatable. Mutations are accidental changes, though this is as accidental as gravity. Natural selection doesn't imply design, but let's look at your list and see how we go...:

1. Chromosomal Abnormalities - If an organism's DNA isn't up to par to carry out its complex biochemical reactions, it's a non-starter. No intelligence required.
2. Uterine Abnormalities and Incompetent Cervixes - if the parent organism carries mutations that prevent reproduction (such as these deformities) then again, no matter how competent the embryo, it has a reduced chance for being born, and the parent's abnormalities aren't passed on. No intelligence required.
3. Immunologic Disorders - These are traits usually of the Parent organism's immunologic responses incorrectly attacking the pregnancy which again reduces the chances of a successful pregnancy, no matter how viable the embryo is. No intelligence required.
4. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - As stated, ever more common in infertility due to the imbalance of male/female hormone of the female parent. If left to run its natural course, a pregnancy is much less likely to be successful, removing these adverse parental traits from being passed on. No intelligence required.
5. Bacterial Infections - as indicated, If the parent organism's immunological defences are strong, then there's an increased chance that these advantages in immunities result in a pregnancy carried to term and advantages passed onto the child, otherwise, a failure of the organism to overcome biologically superior organisms (in this case, bacteria) resulting in failed pregnancies. No intelligence required.
6. Lifestyle - As I mentioned, this point is debatable. An organism that has bad self-control or is born with traits making it more susceptible to addictions that lead to degraded health could easily be a victim of natural selection by means of its own self-harm. Apart from its own choices and course of action putting it at a disadvantage for reproduction, No intelligence required.

So, in every example above, natural selection acts upon the organisms (whether they be parent or child) preventing the disadvantageous traits from being passed on just as gravity attracts bodies of matter. It isn't like a filter makes smart decisions about what to let through and what not to, it's just preventing the natural flow of contrary matter through the inherent laws of physics in our universe, and nothing more. None of it is pure chance and by the same measure, no intelligence was required either...

 

[rjs330]

It's not. As @Bugeyedcreepy says: mutation is random, natural selection is not.



Your point is rooted in ignorance, false dichotomies and strawmen.




They are random changes. An "accident" has baggage that is not applicable to genetic mutation.



No, it does not.



It is not.

If my genes make me better at hunting then you, it is not "pure chance" that I end up outcompeting you so that I have enough food while you are starving.

You genes that make you a better hunter came by accident. Pure chance and luck. Natural selection has no way to show that it was purposeful.

Two genes develope a mutation. How did that happen? Luck and accident. It was either that or there was a design involved. The Natural selection answer is grasping at straws because it makes claims it can't prove. Accident or design. Which is it? There cannot be an in between answer.

Stand back while I eviscerate your claim. Looking through that list, they are all reasons attributable to natural selection with the possible exception of lifestyle - and that's debatable. Mutations are accidental changes, though this is as accidental as gravity. Natural selection doesn't imply design, but let's look at your list and see how we go...:

1. Chromosomal Abnormalities - If an organism's DNA isn't up to par to carry out its complex biochemical reactions, it's a non-starter. No intelligence required.
2. Uterine Abnormalities and Incompetent Cervixes - if the parent organism carries mutations that prevent reproduction (such as these deformities) then again, no matter how competent the embryo, it has a reduced chance for being born, and the parent's abnormalities aren't passed on. No intelligence required.
3. Immunologic Disorders - These are traits usually of the Parent organism's immunologic responses incorrectly attacking the pregnancy which again reduces the chances of a successful pregnancy, no matter how viable the embryo is. No intelligence required.
4. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome - As stated, ever more common in infertility due to the imbalance of male/female hormone of the female parent. If left to run its natural course, a pregnancy is much less likely to be successful, removing these adverse parental traits from being passed on. No intelligence required.
5. Bacterial Infections - as indicated, If the parent organism's immunological defences are strong, then there's an increased chance that these advantages in immunities result in a pregnancy carried to term and advantages passed onto the child, otherwise, a failure of the organism to overcome biologically superior organisms (in this case, bacteria) resulting in failed pregnancies. No intelligence required.
6. Lifestyle - As I mentioned, this point is debatable. An organism that has bad self-control or is born with traits making it more susceptible to addictions that lead to degraded health could easily be a victim of natural selection by means of its own self-harm. Apart from its own choices and course of action putting it at a disadvantage for reproduction, No intelligence required.

So, in every example above, natural selection acts upon the organisms (whether they be parent or child) preventing the disadvantageous traits from being passed on just as gravity attracts bodies of matter. It isn't like a filter makes smart decisions about what to let through and what not to, it's just preventing the natural flow of contrary matter through the inherent laws of physics in our universe, and nothing more. None of it is pure chance and by the same measure, no intelligence was required either...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You genes that make you a better hunter came by accident. Pure chance and luck. Natural selection has no way to show that it was purposeful.

Except that he'll get to eat at a better rate than someone else who can't hunt as well... He is therefore better equipped to survive! Natural selection in action!

Two genes develope a mutation. How did that happen? Luck and accident. It was either that or there was a design involved.

Sure, DNA replication is an imperfect process. That is what you call luck & accident, though everyone else would say 'random'. Natural selection is the next step....

The Natural selection answer is grasping at straws because it makes claims it can't prove. Accident or design. Which is it? There cannot be an in between answer.

Natural selection isn't a subset of mutation via reproduction, it is in fact the opposite. Natural selection is part of the evolutionary process, the Non-random part that filters out the weaker organisms, whether by failed mutations in genes that cause auto-abortions, or lacking/not as successful at some aspect of survival once born, natural selection filters out the results of random mutation within the organism's genes & DNA - eg. the weaker running prey animals in the herd are picked off as the easiest meals for predators, a predator that has a fur coat that is easier to see against the background will find a hard time sneaking up on its prey/next meal, etc.

So, you quoted my post yet didn't really attempt to respond to it. Do you dispute what was written, or do you accept them as valid? Why or why not?

** EDIT ** A thought occurred to me since you explain this as if natural selection decided what to do to his genes:

You genes that make you a better hunter came by accident. Pure chance and luck. Natural selection has no way to show that it was purposeful.

Natural Selection literally has no say in what mutation happens to an organism's genome. it's only a nameplate we give to all the subsequent events that act on whatever comes from that process, after the fact. It isn't any kind of mystical force or 'designer' at all...

 

[Hallstone]

How's that pc and central heat working out for you?

How about your car? Your health care? Your electricity? Your TV? Your phone? Your GPS? Your house? Your ability to travel to the other side of the world in less then a day?

You'ld have none of that if it weren't for science.

Like I said the temporal aspect of science renders it ultimately useless, it has no eternal value, that's why a person doesn't really need it. It will be done away with, like the rest of the creation, and God will fashion a new universe and earth.
The electric lights will go out, the machines will grind to a halt, and the power will go off forever.

 

[Kylie]

You genes that make you a better hunter came by accident. Pure chance and luck. Natural selection has no way to show that it was purposeful.

True.

BUT...

Whether those genes keep you alive long enough for you to pass them to your offspring is another matter entirely, isn't it?

Two genes develope a mutation. How did that happen? Luck and accident. It was either that or there was a design involved. The Natural selection answer is grasping at straws because it makes claims it can't prove. Accident or design. Which is it? There cannot be an in between answer.

You seem to be unaware that a change in a gene is not the only part of the process.