ID explained on the radio tom...

[LuvRPgrl]

Dennis Prager, KRLA am in los angeles, is nationally syndicated, will be interviewing a well reknowned Jewish scientist who will be discussing ID.

I really dont know that much about the details of either evolution, or ID. I know enough to know that evolution, at the micro level could not have occured. Irreducable complexity of the single cell has not been refuted by evolutionists, so that alone is good enough for me.

evolutionists also havent explained why it is so many mammals went back into the sea, and why it is ONLY the mammals who have adapted to every aspect of returning to the sea, fins, skin adaptation, eyes, etc, but they havent ADAPTED TO BREATHING UNDERWATER. They have adapted to holding their breath for long periods of time, but not actually breathing underwater.

Now, I ask you, if you were forced to live underwater, and you had two of three choices, you would be given 1) you would have your body changed in a way to make you able to swim under water with the greatest of ease
2) you would have your skiin adapted to underwater, and no need for wet suit, mask for your eyes etc. and 3) you would be given the ability to breath underwater, never needing a tank, refills, to come to the surface to breath,,,

which would you choose? If you choose breathing underwater as your first choice, then you chose against evolution ideas, if you choose anything else, I submit you are not being honest.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Dennis Prager, KRLA am in los angeles, is nationally syndicated, will be interviewing a well reknowned Jewish scientist who will be discussing ID.

I really dont know that much about the details of either evolution, or ID. I know enough to know that evolution, at the micro level could not have occured. Irreducable complexity of the single cell has not been refuted by evolutionists, so that alone is good enough for me.

evolutionists also havent explained why it is so many mammals went back into the sea, and why it is ONLY the mammals who have adapted to every aspect of returning to the sea, fins, skin adaptation, eyes, etc, but they havent ADAPTED TO BREATHING UNDERWATER. They have adapted to holding their breath for long periods of time, but not actually breathing underwater.

Now, I ask you, if you were forced to live underwater, and you had two of three choices, you would be given 1) you would have your body changed in a way to make you able to swim under water with the greatest of ease
2) you would have your skiin adapted to underwater, and no need for wet suit, mask for your eyes etc. and 3) you would be given the ability to breath underwater, never needing a tank, refills, to come to the surface to breath,,,

which would you choose? If you choose breathing underwater as your first choice, then you chose against evolution ideas, if you choose anything else, I submit you are not being honest.

If you could survive by not breathing in the water, what would be the reason for change then? You seem to misunderstand the principle of natural selection. If, for example, a whale who could hold it's breath really long would have the same chance of living as a whale that could not, there'd be no reason to evolve. Evolution isn't about convenience; it's about survival.

 

[Powerman]

I know enough to know that evolution, at the micro level could not have occured.

Even though you just told us that you know little about the topic. Amazing.

evolutionists also havent explained why it is so many mammals went back into the sea, and why it is ONLY the mammals who have adapted to every aspect of returning to the sea, fins, skin adaptation, eyes, etc, but they havent ADAPTED TO BREATHING UNDERWATER. They have adapted to holding their breath for long periods of time, but not actually breathing underwater.

Well they aren't extinct so I guess it seems to be working out ok for them.

 

[Powerman]

Now, I ask you, if you were forced to live underwater, and you had two of three choices, you would be given 1) you would have your body changed in a way to make you able to swim under water with the greatest of ease
2) you would have your skiin adapted to underwater, and no need for wet suit, mask for your eyes etc. and 3) you would be given the ability to breath underwater, never needing a tank, refills, to come to the surface to breath,,,

which would you choose? If you choose breathing underwater as your first choice, then you chose against evolution ideas, if you choose anything else, I submit you are not being honest.

I couldn't possibly think of something more irrelevant. We don't have conscious choices in how we evolve. If you are trying to come up with an argument against evolution at least come up with one that means something. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dennis Prager, KRLA am in los angeles, is nationally syndicated, will be interviewing a well reknowned Jewish scientist who will be discussing ID.

I really dont know that much about the details of either evolution, or ID. I know enough to know that evolution, at the micro level could not have occured. Irreducable complexity of the single cell has not been refuted by evolutionists, so that alone is good enough for me.

Define "irreducably complex"

evolutionists also havent explained why it is so many mammals went back into the sea, and why it is ONLY the mammals who have adapted to every aspect of returning to the sea, fins, skin adaptation, eyes, etc, but they havent ADAPTED TO BREATHING UNDERWATER. They have adapted to holding their breath for long periods of time, but not actually breathing underwater.

Obviously the mammals who returned to the sea did so because there was more food for them their and less predators to kill them.








if life on Earth must have been made by an "intelligent designer" because it is so "irreducably complex" (whatever that means), it would follow that the intelligent designer is also irreducably complex, and hence must itself have a creator, which would imply that creator needs a creator, and on down to infinity which means ID is fundamentally flawed. The "intelligent designer" cannot have spontanesouly come into existance by the very same arguments that ID uses to claim that life on Earth could not have spontaneously come into existance. It is a logically flawed theory, not to mention empircally unverifiable.

 

[Powerman]

Not to be an ass but we don't really need to listen to the radio to know what ID is all about. If you're interested then check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not to be an ass but we don't really need to listen to the radio to know what ID is all about. If you're interested then check out this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Do any of the ID proponents have a definition of "irreducably complex" - or should we go with the one Powerman presented? (In which case, you need to define "function" Powerman)

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

I know enough to know that evolution, at the micro level could not have occured.

Did you mean to say "macro level"? Micro evolution is happening all around you and is something that I thought even ID proponents weren't arguing against. One only has to look at viruses to see evolution in action. The flu shot you get this year won't protect you next year because the virus has evolved so much.

Irreducable complexity of the single cell has not been refuted by evolutionists, so that alone is good enough for me.

One thing that people who argue "irreducable complexity" seem to discount is that evolution works both ways: enhancing valued traits and discarding unnecessary traits. If you look at symbiotic relationships, it is possible, if not likely, that both organisms were self sufficient before the relationship developed. Once the relationship solidified, neither organism needed to expend energy in creating duplicated services and they gradually lost the ability to perform those functions on their own. The end result is something that is irreducably complex (take either organism away and the whole thing dies) but didn't start out that way. ID proponents look at the cell as being irreducably complex but the fact that mitochondria have totally separate DNA suggests that our cells might not have started out with mitochondria. In fact, prokaryotic cells don't have mitochondria and they do just fine. Our cells probably had the ability to create their own energy at one point but lost that ability once we cemented our relationship with mitochondria. Mitochondria probably had the ability to live outside our cells but lost that ability as well.

 

[Bullypulpit]

From the perspective of ID, one's nose was designed to hold one's glasses up.