What things can't ID explain? What things can't evolution explain? Bring it on!

[Split Rock]

ID can't explain the gall bladder as well as evolution can. I recently had mine removed after 6 years of agonizing flare ups. The surgery is the most commonly performed in the U.S.


.......


Why is faulty design present?

You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.

We are living in a Fallen Creation, therefore any and all poor designs are explained away as being "degenerated" by The Curse.

Just don't ask exactly how The Curse works, because The Laws of Physics were different back then (at least according to Dadology).

Hope that helps!

 

[MemeBuster]

You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.

We are living in a Fallen Creation, therefore any and all poor designs are explained away as being "degenerated" by The Curse.

Just don't ask exactly how The Curse works, because The Laws of Physics were different back then (at least according to Dadology).

Hope that helps!

But what about

(KJV) Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

But there whole bunch of things evilotion can't explain,

If evolution is true how come if a person has tattoos his children don't have the same tattoos?

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?

Evolution can not explain how something as complex as human eye came to be.

And oh yeah, evolution can't explain love.



MB.

 

[Lilandra]

I was hoping to get a novel answer from an IDer besides The Fall. (I hate that answer, it pretends to explain but at the same time it explains nada)

Now you've gone and blown it.

Indeed

You are forgetting The Fall and The Curse.

We are living in a Fallen Creation, therefore any and all poor designs are explained away as being "degenerated" by The Curse.

Just don't ask exactly how The Curse works, because The Laws of Physics were different back then (at least according to Dadology).

Hope that helps!

 

[urbanxy]

If evolution is true how come if a person has tattoos his children don't have the same tattoos?

You are not seriously asking this question, are you?

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. It is my understanding that we are closely related genetically with modern African apes, and share a common ancestor with them.

Evolution can not explain how something as complex as human eye came to be.

How is the human eye too complex to have evolved?

And oh yeah, evolution can't explain love.

Please define love. Many would consider love, or any other emotion to ultimately be a survival tool adapted through evolution.

 

[TeddyKGB]

ID just sets out to prove that there is a designer. It doesn't need to prove who it is.

O RLY?

ID shows a designer with a mindset to keep things different.

If you have to prop up your "theory" by appealing to the designer's "mindset," you are in serious trouble.

 

[MQTA]

I think we have 3 issues:

Evolution

God did it Creationism, 6000 years ago

Atheistic Intelligent Design: Yahweh and the Elohim created all life on this planet after terraforming it a bit, and the ultimate creation was US, in their image and likeness. All from DNA manipulation, which we're on the verge of doing, ourselves, so maybe we can understand that's where we got our start

and What's the Square Root of 361?

 

[MemeBuster]

You are not seriously asking this question, are you?

I didn't make up those questions, I have seen creationists ask those questions on DBs before.

This thread is a farce, people with half-baked understanding of the ToE offering the same old tired strawman arguments.

I'm just having some fun and being thankful that we do live in a time that church is not powreful enough to pursecute and burn scientists alive at the stake to protect its dogma.

Theory of Evilution is here to stay. Sure, it will be modified, revised, and extended, but it will never be replaced with YEC or ID.

Ignorance may slow down the progress of science but I don't think it will overtake again. Human race has grown up a bit and now it is a little bit more immune to being slaved to religious ignorance.

If you are a YECist or an IDist, well, ...., I'll pary for you!


MB.

 

[urbanxy]

I didn't make up those questions, I have seen creationists ask those questions on DBs before.

This thread is a farce, people with half-baked understanding of the ToE offering the same old tired strawman arguments.

I'm just having some fun and being thankful that we do live in a time that church is not powreful enough to pursecute and burn scientists alive at the stake to protect its dogma.

Theory of Evilution is here to stay. Sure, it will be modified, revised, and extended, but it will never be replaced with YEC or ID.

Ignorance may slow down the progress of science but I don't think it will overtake again. Human race has grown up a bit and now it is a little bit more immune to being slaved to religious ignorance.

If you are a YECist or an IDist, well, ...., I'll pary for you!


MB.

[duh] Oops, I missed your point. [/duh]

 

[Split Rock]

[duh] Oops, I missed your point. [/duh]

Poe's Law Strikes Again!!!

 

[Split Rock]

I was hoping to get a novel answer from an IDer besides The Fall. (I hate that answer, it pretends to explain but at the same time it explains nada)

Now you've gone and blown it.

Indeed

Technically, IDers have to pretend that they don't know that the reason is The Curse, because they have to pretend not to be Creationists.

 

[Praxiteles]

Poe' Law has well and truly struck.

MemeBuster's post has found its way onto FSTDT!

 

[jleslie48]

The other thread I started kept drifting off topic, even though it was a nice friendly one (certain evolutionists will remain nameless who just have to bash ID or creation, even when the thread is a friendly and neutral one)

But anyway................

This'll be a fun thread.

Here are the rules, and I ask everyone to abide by them:

If you're an evo supporter, post something you think ID can't explain; but also post if you think evolution can explain it. If it can, show how.

If you're an ID supporter, post something you think evolution can't explain; but also post if you think ID can explain it. If it can, show how.

Okay?

To answer a question on a different thread:

An octopus has better wiring for sight than most mammels, because it's harder to see under water then on land. So it's design reflects need for better wiring.

Well, I've read through this entire thread, and I can't find it.
Not one thing that ID says that has anything to do with science. Not one. So far it seems that the entire body of thought encompassing ID is that The theory of Evolution has a lot that it can't explain, so therefore ID must be correct.

This is very bad science. ID, if it is science, should be able to say something, anything, and not even mention the word Evolution. If this is the case please state it, otherwise ID gets dumped on the trash heap with the Moon Hoax Believers, Geocentric world believers, and the Flat Earth Society.

 

[MQTA]

AID is creation from DNA. That's not science?

 

[Tomk80]

The problem with ID is that it can explain anything. If all wings would have the same design? Than it's because they have a common designer. But they don't have the same design. Well, that can be explained just as easily. I mean, the designer is a creative designer, so he could easily make different designs. This is why ID explains nothing. Because it just ad-hocs it's way into explaining whatever you want.

Not for evolution. If wings would show a common design (for birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles (pterodactyles), it would be hard to explain for evolution, because they come from different lineages. The differences in design between wings are caused because of the wings developing at a later point, after the lineages already split.

You see, no matter how wings would look, ID could explain it. But evolution can only explain certain patterns in how wings would look, but could not explain certain others. That makes evolution falsifiable (and thus science), while it makes ID useless.

 

[MQTA]

The problem with ID is that it can explain anything. If all wings would have the same design? Than it's because they have a common designer. But they don't have the same design. Well, that can be explained just as easily. I mean, the designer is a creative designer, so he could easily make different designs. This is why ID explains nothing. Because it just ad-hocs it's way into explaining whatever you want.

Well, the information I read supposed comes from the creators themselves. They say they when they created the birds, they had their artists join the scientists. There's 7 different races of them, and they had contests to who could be the most creative in color and design, when they did the birds. As evolution says they came linearly progressive and changing. They say they're just different versions. They also had to create the ecosystem and food chain with each sect... under water, in the air, on the ground, etc.

Not for evolution. If wings would show a common design (for birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles (pterodactyles), it would be hard to explain for evolution, because they come from different lineages. The differences in design between wings are caused because of the wings developing at a later point, after the lineages already split.

They say we have the wrong idea about interspecies evolution. Natural selection is within genetically compatible species... another species doesn't come popping out.

You see, no matter how wings would look, ID could explain it. But evolution can only explain certain patterns in how wings would look, but could not explain certain others. That makes evolution falsifiable (and thus science), while it makes ID useless.

They say ID is PURE science, and evolution was contstructed from observation of back tracking. This is a real monkey wrench in what I thought had most merit, too, but since reading the 5 book ebook, I can't make it not make any sense. Before reading it, same reaction as you. But now... it seems clearer.

I don't know... headspinner and MMF, for sure.

I always thought it was really inconsequential.. but of that, now, I'm not so sure, either. I got some more reading to do... but this is what I gleaned so far. All while CF was being upgrade. LOL

 

[Lilandra]

Technically, IDers have to pretend that they don't know that the reason is The Curse, because they have to pretend not to be Creationists.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, the information I read supposed comes from the creators themselves. They say they when they created the birds, they had their artists join the scientists. There's 7 different races of them, and they had contests to who could be the most creative in color and design, when they did the birds. As evolution says they came linearly progressive and changing. They say they're just different versions. They also had to create the ecosystem and food chain with each sect... under water, in the air, on the ground, etc.

Does evolution say they came linearly progressive and changing? How?

And the above kind of proves my point, doesn't it. If the design is common, it's because only the scientists were involved. If it's different, it's because artists helped with the effort. Nice ad-hockery, but inherently unfalsifiable in any way.

They say we have the wrong idea about interspecies evolution. Natural selection is within genetically compatible species... another species doesn't come popping out.

Then why do we observe speciation? How is speciation not 'another species ... come popping out'.

They say ID is PURE science, and evolution was contstructed from observation of back tracking. This is a real monkey wrench in what I thought had most merit, too, but since reading the 5 book ebook, I can't make it not make any sense. Before reading it, same reaction as you. But now... it seems clearer.

How is ID 'pure' science, if it is not constructed from observation? That's what science is supposed to do, isn't it. Observe, and then draw conclusions from the observations.

I don't know... headspinner and MMF, for sure.

I always thought it was really inconsequential.. but of that, now, I'm not so sure, either. I got some more reading to do... but this is what I gleaned so far. All while CF was being upgrade. LOL

From what you write, I can't really say I'm in any way convinced. I think it's just as shoddy as all other forms of ID and creationism I've seen as of yet.

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

I'm pretty sure evolution can't explain quantum physics.

Just a hunch, but you know.

Oh, and ID can't explain the observational fact of evolution. Sorry guys.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm pretty sure evolution can't explain quantum physics.

Just a hunch, but you know.

Oh, and ID can't explain the observational fact of evolution. Sorry guys.

Of course it can. That's where God uses evolution to create, as opposed to the times the God didn't use evolution to create.

You see, it's really simple. God (or aliens) didn't have to specially create everything. He (they) had to instill some mechanism of adaptation. So He (they) created an evolutionary mechanism in organisms, so they could adapt. But in cases where it is convenient, he specially created the structures.

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

If you use that then what's the point? To say that we can adapt but in certain circumstances we didn't? And why does convinience apply to a god?