Intelligent Design

[Smidlee]

It hurts non-theistic ID. For instance, you never find vestigial propellers on jet engines, and for good reason. However, you find their analogue in biological organisms.

not true. It possible to even have a vestigial jet engines on a plane. Of course it not good when it happens. Even if the engine falls off it doesn't make the plane less design.

Yes, we know IDists like to run away from evidence.

Actually Darwinist are running a lot more from the evidence.
You do realize this is a double standard right? This is probably why many evolution avoids the vertigial debate. If you are going to nickpick evidence to claim "God wouldn't do it", "God didn't do it" then this open the doors wide open for creationist (not just ID) to claim here evidence that "God did it" and "Only a creator like God could have done it.". We have learn so much by studing how living things are designed in nature.
Again I've seen this double standard in science years ago before I knew anything about YEC or ID groups. I'm amazed at how much design evolutionist believes their theory can produce while when they find a simple tool buried besided a ape-looking creature they never doubt this tool was created. Not once did anyone say well maybe with luck nature produced it. Scientist want to find tools besides ape-like creatures to prove man evolution but they reject any idea of intelligent design in biology because this goes againest their beliefs.

And maybe God used evolution as the design mechanism.

So far I haven't seen evolution design much of anything. Darwinist has become too dogmatic and made extreme claims while calling their beliefs science.
I do believe living cells can do amazing things as we are direct evidence of this. The question does cells have these supernatural-selection powers or is a cell limited to the information (DNA) and software build into them. Or maybe God directly involved in forming us and his creation. It still amazing that one cell could have all the knowledge to build not only the human brain but the rest of the body.

 

[MartinM]

not true. It possible to even have a vestigial jet engines on a plane.

You don't actually know what 'vestigal' means, do you?

 

[Smidlee]

You don't actually know what 'vestigal' means, do you?

I was just playing with words.

 

[Loudmouth]

not true. It possible to even have a vestigial jet engines on a plane. Of course it not good when it happens. Even if the engine falls off it doesn't make the plane less design.

No, it makes it poor design, or the lack of intelligent design. However, if airplane designers were forced to keep old design features in their new designs, just as evolution is forced to do, then you would expect vestigial structures.

Actually Darwinist are running a lot more from the evidence.
You do realize this is a double standard right? This is probably why many evolution avoids the vertigial debate.

Actually, I try and push it to the forefront. I think vestigial organs, atavisms, and developmental atavisms are some of the strongest evidence found in living species. Creationists, in defense, have to bring out their strawman definition of vestigial (ie "it has a function") to counter the argument.

If you are going to nickpick evidence to claim "God wouldn't do it", "God didn't do it" then this open the doors wide open for creationist (not just ID) to claim here evidence that "God did it" and "Only a creator like God could have done it.". We have learn so much by studing how living things are designed in nature.

Yes, we have learned how to design things in nature. And when we design things we violate the twin nested hiearchy. We then look to before humans starting designing and notice that life followed a nested hiearchy. Ergo, life before man was never designed.

Again I've seen this double standard in science years ago before I knew anything about YEC or ID groups. I'm amazed at how much design evolutionist believes their theory can produce while when they find a simple tool buried besided a ape-looking creature they never doubt this tool was created.

Independent evidence of a tool maker is needed for assigning design to an object. Notice that this is the right way to do it.

Not once did anyone say well maybe with luck nature produced it.

And some tools are considered to be borderline between naturally occuring rock and tools. Some even think that Homo habilis used naturally occuring tools and only mildly modified them.

Scientist want to find tools besides ape-like creatures to prove man evolution but they reject any idea of intelligent design in biology because this goes againest their beliefs.

So now detection of design is a bad thing?

So far I haven't seen evolution design much of anything.

The mechanisms of evolution produced a radio, not to mention software and other useful circuits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

Darwinist has become too dogmatic and made extreme claims while calling their beliefs science.

Name one thing within the theory of science that is not supported by evidence. Go ahead, I dare you.

I do believe living cells can do amazing things as we are direct evidence of this. The question does cells have these supernatural-selection powers or is a cell limited to the information (DNA) and software build into them.

DNA is used by both bacteria and man, so it must be capable of producing both.

Or maybe God directly involved in forming us and his creation.

Or maybe He wasn't. The only way to tell is through forming testable theories, something that IDists haven't done.

It still amazing that one cell could have all the knowledge to build not only the human brain but the rest of the body.

I agree, it is amazing, but we shouldn't be afraid of the answers when we find them.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

You do realize this is a double standard right? This is probably why many evolution avoids the vertigial debate. If you are going to nickpick evidence to claim "God wouldn't do it", "God didn't do it" then this open the doors wide open for creationist (not just ID) to claim here evidence that "God did it" and "Only a creator like God could have done it." We have learn so much by studing how living things are designed in nature.

We didn't say God did not do it, but he may have been drunk when he designed our jury-rigged eyes.

We have learn so much by studing how living things are designed in nature.

"Goddidit" doesn't explain anything. Intelligent design conjectures predict things "as they are" and for that reason any phenomenon that can be explained by "Goddidit" is every bit as consistent with "it's just a by-product of your imagination" or a glitch in the Matrix.

Let me ask you this. Since both perfection and imperfection are both qualifying criteria for ID, how do you test the ID conjecture? What observation if ever observed, would contradict ID? The answer is none. There's no way you can falsify conjectures that the entire universe is just a by-product of your imagination, or that the universe just popped into existence 5 minutes ago, with even our memories of "earlier" events intact. I never typed this even though I remember doing it and my fingerprints are on the keyboard, and even though I appear to be 18 I'm really only 5 minutes old - these hypothesis simply predict things as they are. In other words "what will be, will be."

Theories like Newton's law of gravitation is testable since it predicts that Fg will always be (m1∙m2)/(d^2), and anything found to be outside that prediction would falsify Newton's law (such as observing an instance where Fg=(m1∙m2)/(d^2)). A testable theory should include things that we should expect to see, and more importantly, what we expect NOT to see.

Unless you admit that ID is not science, and therefore does not belong in science classrooms, please tell us what observation if observed, would falsify the ID hypothesis? What should we NOT expect to see?

See Scientific Proof? for more info.

Scientist want to find tools besides ape-like creatures to prove man evolution but they reject any idea of intelligent design in biology because this goes againest their beliefs.

...

Darwinist has become too dogmatic and made extreme claims while calling their beliefs science.

Science isn't a religion. Scientist must commit themselves to accepting whatever the data says even if it contradicts their own beliefs, otherwise they are pseudo-scientist. So far all the evidence points to evolution.

The question does cells have these supernatural-selection powers or is a cell limited to the information (DNA) and software build into them.

It would really help if you understood what natural selection is. This statement shows you have no understanding of it at all. Organisms do not consiciously select themselves, the enviornmental pressures do.

This picture might help:

Source.

Mutations are random, but those with advantagous traits will become "selected," that is produce in greater frequency than those without the trait. Natural selection is not random.

Or maybe God directly involved in forming us and his creation.

That's a false dioctomy. It's like saying either 1+1 is 5, or 1+1 is 7. Debunking 1+1=5 does not verify 1+1=7 by process of elimination.

 

[biochemrex]

Since Evolutionists are unable to defend their shonky theory by evidence or rational argument they argue purely by vilification. Calling anyone who objects to it by demeaning names, insults. But the simple examination of the facts shows how thread bare it is. Even Darwin did not believe in Evolution! What he believed in was not supportable by the evidence, but at least he knew that Evolution was an absurdity. He only went along with this term reluctantly because he had a pathological need to be famous and paid the price. He certainly became famous - or infamous.
There is no law that says that you have to believe that the Universe was a product of pure chance and has no meaning and there is no law that says you have to disbelieve in God, but to make a hybrid of believing in God and not believing in God is plainly absurd. You have to make choices. You cannot have all thing.s You can have God or you can hanbe Evoilution. You cannot have both. You have to decide.
I have heard this ridiculous theory that God used Evolution to create the world. It is so absurd. It pictures God there with a stick poking every sparrow like Homer Simpson saying " Hey don't mate with that one mate with the one over there.
If a Man was to create a Universe I hardly think he would be so foolish as to mess about like that. And I doubt that God would be more foolish than a man? What do you think? Keith

 

[Lucretius]

Even Darwin did not believe in Evolution!

 

[Elduran]

Wow, what a complete and total lack of facts...

 

[Brennin]

"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages."
-- Richard Lederer

Not by anyone who has more than a pedestrian understanding of Late Antiquity and Medieval Civilization.

 

[notto]

Since Evolutionists are unable to defend their shonky theory by evidence or rational argument they argue purely by vilification. Calling anyone who objects to it by demeaning names, insults. But the simple examination of the facts shows how thread bare it is. Even Darwin did not believe in Evolution! What he believed in was not supportable by the evidence, but at least he knew that Evolution was an absurdity. He only went along with this term reluctantly because he had a pathological need to be famous and paid the price. He certainly became famous - or infamous.
There is no law that says that you have to believe that the Universe was a product of pure chance and has no meaning and there is no law that says you have to disbelieve in God, but to make a hybrid of believing in God and not believing in God is plainly absurd. You have to make choices. You cannot have all thing.s You can have God or you can hanbe Evoilution. You cannot have both. You have to decide.
I have heard this ridiculous theory that God used Evolution to create the world. It is so absurd. It pictures God there with a stick poking every sparrow like Homer Simpson saying " Hey don't mate with that one mate with the one over there.
If a Man was to create a Universe I hardly think he would be so foolish as to mess about like that. And I doubt that God would be more foolish than a man? What do you think? Keith

What do I think?

I think you know little about evolution. That isn't vilification, that is evidenced by your own statements.

I also think that you are a hypocrite.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Not by anyone who has more than a pedestrian understanding of Late Antiquity and Medieval Civilization.

How about some simple observation of modern antiquity and middle eastern civilization? Doesn’t even your modern theistic beliefs hold women as second class citizens? Face it, it may not be you, but every religion has it’s own brand of Taliban™. All you need to do is add power and you’ll have book burnings left and right. Heck, if the fundies had their way now evolution would be stricken from the knowledge base. Either you are sheltered or in denial.

 

[Brennin]

Who preserved the knowledge of Antiquity: Christian clergy

When did the first European universities spring up: during the Middle Ages

When did Scholasticism spring up: during the Middle Ages

Did the Christian Byzantine Empire advance mathematics and science from Late Antiquity until the twilight of the Middle Ages: yes

What group ushered in a "Dark Age": Germanic Barbarians

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Since Evolutionists are unable to defend their shonky theory by evidence or rational argument they argue purely by vilification.

In my experience any legitimate question or point has been met with more than enough evidence and patience from the supporters of the ToE. The only people that get vilified are the villains from what I’ve seen.

Calling anyone who objects to it by demeaning names, insults. But the simple examination of the facts shows how thread bare it is. Even Darwin did not believe in Evolution!

Even a cursory examination of the facts here reveal that you have not examined any facts that don’t coincide with your beliefs. In fact, I will assume that you are ignorant of the fact that Darwin never expressed disbelief in evolution. Otherwise you would be a liar and therefore a villain. As it stands now it only illustrates how you never looked into the claim that Darwin did not believe in evolution and accepted it as truth because it fit your beliefs. I challenge you to show us any evidence of this. I’ll even give you a friendly heads up. If you quote mine Darwin you will be vilified.

What he believed in was not supportable by the evidence, but at least he knew that Evolution was an absurdity. He only went along with this term reluctantly because he had a pathological need to be famous and paid the price. He certainly became famous - or infamous.

Got any substantiation? Sorry but you are lying or have been lied to bio.

There is no law that says that you have to believe that the Universe was a product of pure chance and has no meaning and there is no law that says you have to disbelieve in God, but to make a hybrid of believing in God and not believing in God is plainly absurd.

What is absurd is how people like you have been brainwashed into believing this false dichotomy. Evolution does not equal atheism bio. Evolution does not assert the universe is a product of pure chance. Evolution does not claim that there is no meaning to our existence. Evolution does not say you must disbelieve in your god™. There are all strawmen that someone has filled your brain with and you have accepted without question. You have been deceived.

You have to make choices. You cannot have all thing.s You can have God or you can hanbe Evoilution. You cannot have both. You have to decide.

False dichotomy. Why are there so many theistic evolutionists? Are they not true Christians™? Why are you the minority here?

I have heard this ridiculous theory that God used Evolution to create the world. It is so absurd. It pictures God there with a stick poking every sparrow like Homer Simpson saying " Hey don't mate with that one mate with the one over there.

Nice strawman, but theistic evolutionists don’t assert this either.

If a Man was to create a Universe I hardly think he would be so foolish as to mess about like that. And I doubt that God would be more foolish than a man? What do you think? Keith

I think that the only foolish person here is you. You are foolish to have swallowed this rubbish hook, line, and sinker. It’s about time you started to use your own brain and stop letting other people think for you. Everything you have presented here is a lie or a strawman. Whoever told you this is deceiving you and should be held accountable when you confront them for making you look so bad.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Who preserved the knowledge of Antiquity: Christian clergy

When did the first European universities spring up: during the Middle Ages

When did Scholasticism spring up: during the Middle Ages

Did the Christian Byzantine Empire advance mathematics and science from Late Antiquity until the twilight of the Middle Ages: yes

What group ushered in a "Dark Age": Germanic Barbarians

You can try to spin it however you want. The fact remains that when the church ruled mankind stagnated, if not declined, until the age of reason. The intention of the religious fundamentalist is thinly veiled. If the church had the power it enjoyed during the dark ages today then evolution would be stricken from mankind’s knowledge and substituted with some kind of “goddidit” theory like ID. Any attempt to look for real knowledge would be persecuted the same way supporters of a heliocentric universe were. Face it, ID and it’s ilk do nothing to advance man’s knowledge while true science advances and brings us useful breakthroughs all the time. If the church had the power mankind would stagnate again. Universities, and Scholasticism would be a joke and we would usher in another dark age. Honestly, can you really state seriously that if the fundies had power that they wouldn’t do away with the ToE and any other knowledge that didn’t coincide with their archaic beliefs?

 

[Caphi]

Since Evolutionists are unable to defend their shonky theory by evidence or rational argument they argue purely by vilification. Calling anyone who objects to it by demeaning names, insults.

To be informed that your knowledge is incomplete is scarecely vilification.

But the simple examination of the facts shows how thread bare it is. Even Darwin did not believe in Evolution! What he believed in was not supportable by the evidence, but at least he knew that Evolution was an absurdity. He only went along with this term reluctantly because he had a pathological need to be famous and paid the price. He certainly became famous - or infamous.

Mmhmm... and by what conspiracy were his drawings of finches verified, the mechanism which he proposed found to be perfectly in place, and in general large amounts of evidence supporting his hypotheses found? Or are you just spouting rumors without actually knowing what you're talking about? Oops, do you feel vilified now?

There is no law that says that you have to believe that the Universe was a product of pure chance and has no meaning and there is no law that says you have to disbelieve in God, but to make a hybrid of believing in God and not believing in God is plainly absurd. You have to make choices. You cannot have all thing.s You can have God or you can hanbe Evoilution. You cannot have both. You have to decide.

Wonderful! Fallacy of false dichotomy, emotional arguments, and the age-old "it's not a law" line which I used in preschool. Do you have any formal debate training at all?

I have heard this ridiculous theory that God used Evolution to create the world. It is so absurd. It pictures God there with a stick poking every sparrow like Homer Simpson saying " Hey don't mate with that one mate with the one over there.

Even better. This is the best emotional I've seen in a long time.

If a Man was to create a Universe I hardly think he would be so foolish as to mess about like that. And I doubt that God would be more foolish than a man? What do you think? Keith

Whoops, spoke too soon. And by the way, if God is wiser than man, how is it that man has devised a better system of capturing images into data than your God (viz. the camera versus the eye)?

 

[biochemrex]

The fact is that Evolution has put the clamp on the search for real knowledge. We won't get a real cure for cancer or even a cure for the common cold untill we can overcome the shackles of Evolutionary theory
Louis Pasteur was a pious Christian and he was fought by the Evolutionary Atheists. Can you imagine the world if they had won? Because of Evolution we are forced to believe that Homosexuality is normal, so what chance of a cure?
Because of Evolution we are forced to believe we have evolved to live on junk food and that it is normal to have by pass surgery every couple of years.
Evolution is just a faith belief and I would not mind it nor would I mind Islam, only these aggressive Religions seek to impose their will on everyone - believer or not. Keith
'Each in his own Tongue'A fire-mist and a planet, A crystal and a cell,A jelly-fish and a saurian, And caves where the cave-men dwell;Then a sense of law and beauty And a face turned from the clod, --Some call it Evolution, And others call it God.A haze on the far horizon, The infinite, tender sky,The ripe, rich tint of the cornfields, And the wild geese sailing high;And all over upland and lowland The charm of the golden-rod, --Some of us call it Autumn, And others call it God.Like tides on a crescent sea-beach, When the moon is new and thin,Into our hearts high yearnings Come welling and surging in:Come from the mystic ocean, Whose rim no foot has trod, --Some of us call it Longing, And others call it God.A picket frozen on duty, A mother starved for her brood,Socrates drinking the hemlock, And Jesus on the rood;And millions who, humble and nameless, The straight, hard pathway plod, --Some call it Consecration, And others call it God. -- William Herbert Carruth

 

[nvxplorer]

The fact is that Evolution has put the clamp on the search for real knowledge. We won't get a real cure for cancer or even a cure for the common cold untill we can overcome the shackles of Evolutionary theory
Louis Pasteur was a pious Christian and he was fought by the Evolutionary Atheists. Can you imagine the world if they had won? Because of Evolution we are forced to believe that Homosexuality is normal, so what chance of a cure?
Because of Evolution we are forced to believe we have evolved to live on junk food and that it is normal to have by pass surgery every couple of years.
Evolution is just a faith belief and I would not mind it nor would I mind Islam, only these aggressive Religions seek to impose their will on everyone - believer or not. Keith

Okay, I’m stumped.

Parody or sincerity?

 

[biochemrex]

fanatical Darwinists I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science. They just believe the fairy tales their Atheist Sunday teachers have taught them without question in perfect trust. After all it takes a lot of work to read hundreds of books on a subject and with so much fun to be had it is bliss to be ignorant. Reading books only confused a perfectly happy placid mind. It is disturbing to discover that no one really knows all that much and there are millions of con men out there trying to pull a swift one over you. How much nicer to believe that one could trust some one. Like trust Scientists. Scientists by some fluke of "Evolution" are incapable of telling lies or acquiring knowledge that it not absolutely true. And the less you know about Science the more you can beleive. Keith

 

[notto]

fanatical Darwinists I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science.

I noticed that earlier you commented on Darwins works. Have you read any of them cover to cover? What is the main problem you see in the content of his work. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.

 

[nvxplorer]

fanatical Darwinists I notice have no knowledge or experience with biology and absoluty no reading in the History of Science. They just believe the fairy tales their Atheist Sunday teachers have taught them without question in perfect trust. After all it takes a lot of work to read hundreds of books on a subject and with so much fun to be had it is bliss to be ignorant. Reading books only confused a perfectly happy placid mind. It is disturbing to discover that no one really knows all that much and there are millions of con men out there trying to pull a swift one over you. How much nicer to believe that one could trust some one. Like trust Scientists. Scientists by some fluke of "Evolution" are incapable of telling lies or acquiring knowledge that it not absolutely true. And the less you know about Science the more you can beleive. Keith

I’m disappointed. Keith. You should save your best work for the encore. I enjoyed “atheist Sunday school teachers,” but that pales in comparison to “atheistic evolutionary junk food eaters.”

(We all know Mick Jagger is addicted to Doritos...or are they really Diablos?)

-- pleased to meet you. Wont U. Guess Myname