Intelligent Design: Extinct?

[CrusaderFrank]

Intelligent design is as wrong as evolution.

crusaderfrank is not intelligent design.

If that gives you comfort, go for it.

In the meanwhile, why don't you walk me through your understanding of Random Mutations, how do they work?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jesus, one of the central cores of Evolution and I've asked now in two threads and have not gotten a single response.

 

[Hister]

Jesus, one of the central cores of Evolution and I've asked now in two threads and have not gotten a single response.

Maybe because that makes no sense. Jesus the central core of evolution? wtf?

 

[antagon]

Jesus, one of the central cores of Evolution and I've asked now in two threads and have not gotten a single response.

random mutation can come about for a various reasons. you're welcome to explain to the parents of a child with downs syndrome that you think it is hokus pokus. its not the major mechanism that evolution relies on, however. natural selection, genetic drift and variation ring a bell?

 

[antagon]

where do they go? many evolution skeptics/ID supporters made their flimsy cases, but once challenged to support the non-scientific basis of the concept with some logic, they've vanished.

i say this is happening on scales larger than this message board. the movement has been quiet since stomped out of education five years ago. the wedge is certainly extinct, even if ID lives on for proud scientific illiterates.

 

[rdean]

If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.

Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?

I hope not. It delegitimizes real science and devalues proven scientific discovery.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Of course they teach them both. They just don't call them the same theory. Or perhaps the nuance is not deemed to be important at the junior high level so they don't differentiate. Probably differs from teacher to teacher. Either way, it's not Evolution's problem. Evolutionary theory is very clear on what it claims and doesn't claim. It makes no statements about the origin of lift (and the big bang doesn't fall into biology anyways), just the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is interesting, but is decidedly more controversial with less data to support any current notions (i.e. primordial goo vs. RNA world, etc).

So they do co-mingle them.

I am still curious how ID is "observable" while evolution is not (again, considering that they use the same mechanisms).

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock. Life has never been observed to come from non life and monkeys have not been observed to evolve into humans.

On the other hand, variations within species can and have been observed.

 

[Hister]

Of course they teach them both. They just don't call them the same theory. Or perhaps the nuance is not deemed to be important at the junior high level so they don't differentiate. Probably differs from teacher to teacher. Either way, it's not Evolution's problem. Evolutionary theory is very clear on what it claims and doesn't claim. It makes no statements about the origin of lift (and the big bang doesn't fall into biology anyways), just the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is interesting, but is decidedly more controversial with less data to support any current notions (i.e. primordial goo vs. RNA world, etc).

So they do co-mingle them.

I am still curious how ID is "observable" while evolution is not (again, considering that they use the same mechanisms).

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock. Life has never been observed to come from non life and monkeys have not been observed to evolve into humans.

On the other hand, variations within species can and have been observed.

So archeologists are all charlatans? You actually think that your god put man on this earth in his present form? Poor you.

PS nobody ever said life came from a rock.

 

[geauxtohell]

Of course they teach them both. They just don't call them the same theory. Or perhaps the nuance is not deemed to be important at the junior high level so they don't differentiate. Probably differs from teacher to teacher. Either way, it's not Evolution's problem. Evolutionary theory is very clear on what it claims and doesn't claim. It makes no statements about the origin of lift (and the big bang doesn't fall into biology anyways), just the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is interesting, but is decidedly more controversial with less data to support any current notions (i.e. primordial goo vs. RNA world, etc).

So they do co-mingle them.

Only if the science teacher is being lazy. Again, that's not evolutionary theory's problem.

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock. Life has never been observed to come from non life and monkeys have not been observed to evolve into humans.

And neither does evolution. You really can't wrap your mind around the fact that ID uses the exact same mechanism as evolution can you? In fact, one could say ID is just a bastardization of ET with some theology sprinkled in.

And it once again leads me to wonder if you even know what the fuck you are arguing for or against.

You guys always tip your ignorance hand when you claim that evolution claims monkeys evolved into humans.

Why don't you actually study ET before castigating it?

Well, I think I know the answer to that. You are afraid of what you might learn, aren't you?

On the other hand, variations within species can and have been observed.

That is true and it is also what ET claims.

 

[konradv]

Sorry buddy, can't take one verse in the Bible and then edit out the rest with evolution. Well, I suppose you can for your purposes, however, the truth that "God created" has not and will not change. Further, Everything that has been created is created by God. (John 1)

ID, evolution? Just take the Bible up and read it with the Creator in mind, and it can create wonderful change in your life.

I'll take the observable and provable, thank you. To do otherwise would be to say that God lies to us. If evolution didn't occur, what of all the fossils that show changes over time? Who put them there? Why are trilobite and dolphin fossils not found in the same strata. To say evolution hasn't happened is to deny reality, IMO, and that God plays games with us.

I feel God gave us rules to follow, but does not directly influence events. That's what "free will" is all about. I cringe when I here "everything happens for a reason" and "God has a plan for my life". That sounds very paganish to me, as if God were one of the Olympians manipulating the mortals!!! For all the bad press the RCC has gotten lately, at least they don't screw up people's minds with that kind of false doctrine. Things OFTEN happen for no reason and I'M the one responsible for the plan of my life. To say otherwise is to deny free will and makes life nothing more than a rigged game, IMO.

You can follow evolution, it does happen in small ways. We cannot deny that. One species to another, not provable or observable.

Don't throw out evolution, but no fool can deny that there is awesome evidence of design in what we see by the use of scientific knowledge. What is the fear of seeing that and admitting it. Many scientists do, some of whom are not even Christians.

The statement, "everything happens for a reason" is an overstatement. Romans 8:28 clears that on up quickly. "For we know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are the called according to His purposes." This does not mean that all things are good, it just means that God can take things and make something good of them. His ultimate plan will happen, but along the way there is good and bad in the mix that we cause or do. Some things do happen for a reason, but we do not know what those things are necessarily. God created man as man, and other creatures as they are. In time some evolution has taken place, but not species to species. There is no prood of observable evidence to contradict that statement.

You seem to be wrong on many fronts. Evolution and the development of new species are definitely observable in the fossil record. I'm no fool, but the only evidence of design are the laws of the physical universe. Evolution itself derives from those laws, but there is no design aspect to the final result. The contradictions to your statement are all over the fossil record. Why are trilobite and dolphin fossils NEVER found in the same geological strata? If evolution never occured, why did dolphins suddenly appear a billion years after trilobites? I've heard of puntuated evolution, but you'd have us believe there's such a thing as punctuated creation!!!

 

[antagon]

the evolution skeptics are raising tired arguments long taken out of their misery, but what about the topic of the thread, ID? what of the foundations of ID? biologists have theorized evolutionary pathways for some of IDs pivotal examples of irreducible complexity. an understanding of the evolution of the eye complete with living examples of creatures indicating primitive traits and independently evolved traits preceded ID, in fact. it's not that ID debates the theory of these scientists, instead it claims that there is no way that the connections drawn between the diverse examples of eyes are valid. it supposes that because of the ID theorist's lack of education, creativity or willingness to investigate the validity of his characterization of irreducible complexity, that it is so by default. then there is the issue whereby this theorist's failure constitutes a leap to presume that design by this designer is responsible. what a gap.

is there a connection to science that i am missing?

from a strictly spiritual sense, is ID proposing that this method of inept investigation is the new surrogate for faith?

is there a connection to christianity or the bible that i am missing?

 

[Old Rocks]

dunno, modo. its been such a flash in the pan, i dont think it should make the history books either.

I think it would be a perfect topic to cover in a critical thinking course as an example of a non-falsifiable theory. Great example.

Of course, if theology is offered, it also belongs there.

But, agreed. It really NEEDS to stay away from any science curriculum. There already are the climate dilettantes polluting the logic of scientific discovery and it can't afford any more corruption.

The same people that have researched the evidence for AGW also were involved in the total rejection of ID. The geologic comunity has been one of the groups providing background evidence for evoltution, and for AGW as well.

Your cheap shot at applying your failed political philosophies to real science is noted, Si.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course they teach them both. They just don't call them the same theory. Or perhaps the nuance is not deemed to be important at the junior high level so they don't differentiate. Probably differs from teacher to teacher. Either way, it's not Evolution's problem. Evolutionary theory is very clear on what it claims and doesn't claim. It makes no statements about the origin of lift (and the big bang doesn't fall into biology anyways), just the mechanism of speciation. Abiogenesis is interesting, but is decidedly more controversial with less data to support any current notions (i.e. primordial goo vs. RNA world, etc).

So they do co-mingle them.

I am still curious how ID is "observable" while evolution is not (again, considering that they use the same mechanisms).

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock. Life has never been observed to come from non life and monkeys have not been observed to evolve into humans.

On the other hand, variations within species can and have been observed.

Speciation has been observed. And some very close things to life have been built in the lab.

The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Nobody has claimed that man came from monkeys. We shared a common ancestor with the modern apes. Our link with the monkey goes much further back, possibly to just after the Creteceous.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You actually think that your god put man on this earth in his present form? Poor you.

You got a better idea?

PS nobody ever said life came from a rock.

Where DID it come from?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Only if the science teacher is being lazy. Again, that's not evolutionary theory's problem.

Wow, we have a country full of lazy teachers then, of which I fully agree.

And neither does evolution. You really can't wrap your mind around the fact that ID uses the exact same mechanism as evolution can you? In fact, one could say ID is just a bastardization of ET with some theology sprinkled in.

I know it doesn't claim that. It is the little shell game of evolutionists.

And, no, ID is just a practicalization of ET with a valid solution to how life began.

Why don't you actually study ET before castigating it?

Should I also study sun worship in depth before condemning it too?

I know enough about it to know it is a lie.

Well, I think I know the answer to that. You are afraid of what you might learn, aren't you?

I'm not the one saying ID cannot be taught in schools. YOU are. Are you afraid of what you might learn???

That is true and it is also what ET claims.

No, evolutionism claims that everything had a common ancestor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thus far, the evidence indicates that everything did have a common ancestor. Care to present some evidence from genetics research that indicates otherwise?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Thus far, the evidence indicates that everything did have a common ancestor. Care to present some evidence from genetics research that indicates otherwise?

Yes, the evidence is called deductive logic. Care to present what this first life form snacked on? And of course how it came about?

 

[antagon]

Thus far, the evidence indicates that everything did have a common ancestor. Care to present some evidence from genetics research that indicates otherwise?

Yes, the evidence is called deductive logic. Care to present what this first life form snacked on? And of course how it came about?

antagon contends that the origin of life may or may not have a link to evolution. this depends on what you call life. i also remind that bacteria and archaea can snack on sulfur and ammonia and in environments not conducive to life as we know it now. their processes are related to the development of the environment which we live in, however, and there is a strong tie between the evolution of the environment of the planet, the life in this environment, and the roles such monocells played (and continue to play) in its development.

edit: hopefully it's occurred to you that life can munch on sunlight?

 

[THE LIGHT]

Thus far, the evidence indicates that everything did have a common ancestor. Care to present some evidence from genetics research that indicates otherwise?

Yes, the evidence is called deductive logic. Care to present what this first life form snacked on? And of course how it came about?

antagon contends that the origin of life may or may not have a link to evolution. this depends on what you call life. i also remind that bacteria and archaea can snack on sulfur and ammonia and in environments not conducive to life as we know it now. their processes are related to the development of the environment which we live in, however, and there is a strong tie between the evolution of the environment of the planet, the life in this environment, and the roles such monocells played (and continue to play) in its development.

So the first life form snacked on sulfer and ammonia, but for some reason decided (now there's a problem right there) that it wanted to snack on something better so it turned itself into something it could eat. Self canabalism? Simply amazing.

That still doesn't get us to the question of where life came from. Any ideas?

edit: hopefully it's occurred to you that life can munch on sunlight?

REALLY?????

I'll have to taste some sunlight next time I'm outside. And maybe even remember that for when I get really hungry.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Faith, or science:

Science: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com