Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

[52ndStreet]

I saw a show the other night about the how scientist were at a lost to explain the tremendous amount of new species of animals and plants that suddenly appeared during the Cambian period millions of years ago on Earth.

They stated the info from the fossils , puts in question Darwins theory of Evolution. Darwins theory states that species developed from small single cell life forms , to more
complex advanced life forms. "From the bottom up".

The intelligent design theory, which the Cambian period in the Earths development shows,was from the "Top down". Which showed that they were many complex life forms
already developed, that then evolved into more complex life form. And this indicates some form of intelligent design with regards to life forms here on Earth.

The program stated that Darwin could never fully explain the abundance of new life forms
that were on the Earth during this Cambain period. And he felt it would eventually challenge his theory of evolution and natural selection.

I for one accept the intelligent design theory. It seems more logical and practical for todays world and for the world of the past.

Any other opinions?

 

[rdean]

Thanks man,
You are helping prove my point on:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...just-come-out-and-tell-us-what-they-want.html

 

[Jay Canuck]

what did God have in mind when he shit 52nd street out?

 

[rightwinger]

Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

Ummm...no its not

 

[Old Rocks]

No, there was life before the Cambrian. Very interesting life.


Vanished Precambrian Life Forms Were Like Nothing Before or Since - Ediacarans - io9

For a brief span of time, about 542 million years ago, the world belonged to the Ediacarans, a group of life forms so physiologically unique that biologists have considered giving them their own taxonomic kingdom.

An essay by Richard Corfield in Astrobiology Magazine points up the strange history of the Ediacarans, a group of anatomically diverse organisms that lived during the Ediacaran period (between 635 and 542 million years ago). These creatures, which predated nearly every form of animal life that exists today, stood rooted in bacterial bases on the seafloor, drawing nutrients from the water.

As best we can tell, the Ediacarans lacked mouths and recognizable digestive systems, and their bodies are thought to have looked like "sacks of mud, disks, hubcaps and mattresses." They were among the first complex life forms to appear on the planet, but they bear no discernible resemblance to anything else in the fossil record:

 

[Old Rocks]

From abiogenisis to the present, there is no period where there is a need to resort to mythology, either primitive, or the modern primitive, ID, to explain the developments in evolution on this planet.

 

[José]

Just a small correction, 52ndStreet.

Intelligent Design, aka, God, is not a scientific theory, it is philosophical speculation.

Just like Quantum Cosmology, a "scientific" attempt to explain the cause of the Big Bang, is not a theory either but only "scientific" speculation. The result of cosmologists letting their imagination run wild in their free time.

I'm not trying to disparage Intelligent Design and Quantum Cosmology just making an important distinction.

If every crazy idea (and not so crazy speculation) people have is a scientific theory then NOTHING is a scientific theory.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

Ummm...no its not

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase. Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

 

[Lee Bowman]

Intelligent Design Theory, is gaining more acceptence.

Ummm...no its not

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase.

Interesting logic.

Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

I regard ID (not IDC or Creationism) as a logical response to the evidence. Not faith based, but evidentiary.

Regarding the Cambrian, there have been various answers to no pre-cambrian fossils to speak of, but the prime evidences of 'design' are design inferences in biologic systems.

But regardless, I agree with 52nd St. ID IS gaining ground. Not necessarily with working scientists, however, for obvious reasons. But of the new generation of 'rational thinkers', i.e. skeptics of the current NDE synthesis.

Rational thinking may be moving in a new direction, that of truly analyzing data objectively, rather than as being instructed to in a classroom. Or becoming a fan of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richie Dawkins. And regarding the holy holy Darwinian Dogma, does a tenured PhD prof necessarily hold-these-truths to be self-evident? Meaning the ones being proferred? Remember, s/he may have been 'indoctrinated' in a like way.

So what may alter instructional methods in today's world? The Internet, self study, and most important of all, rational thot.

I couldn't help noticing that all responses to Mr. 52 were negative, and that the first commenter equated ID with Republican idiots. That may be true in some cases, but regarding ID support, the majority would primarily consist of the ones with a religious agenda. True rational thinkers like myself, a staunch liberal, have found that the evidence points to cosmic intervention in bio designs, but I'm open to any new evidences that might contravene my stance, and am willing to address any presented here.

So whether it's the Omni Hotel or Club '21', 52nd Street rocks!

 

[IanC]

evolution is just the tip of the cone of the mechanics needed to understand how life started and developed on earth. evolution is obviously insufficient to explain a great many things and will obviously be supplanted by another theory that explains darwinian evolution as well as many other things. not unlike how Newtonian physics was shown to be wrong but useful by quantum mechanics.

 

[Diuretic]

Yo Ian, it's okay for now eh? It works. Here's to future theories!

 

[Alvin]

I have one problem with IDs inherrent logic.

If initially there was a creator. - Who created him/her/it?

 

[Old Rocks]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

 

[Shogun]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.



cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

 

[52ndStreet]

Ummm...no its not

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase.

Interesting logic.

Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

I regard ID (not IDC or Creationism) as a logical response to the evidence. Not faith based, but evidentiary.

Regarding the Cambrian, there have been various answers to no pre-cambrian fossils to speak of, but the prime evidences of 'design' are design inferences in biologic systems.

But regardless, I agree with 52nd St. ID IS gaining ground. Not necessarily with working scientists, however, for obvious reasons. But of the new generation of 'rational thinkers', i.e. skeptics of the current NDE synthesis.

Rational thinking may be moving in a new direction, that of truly analyzing data objectively, rather than as being instructed to in a classroom. Or becoming a fan of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richie Dawkins. And regarding the holy holy Darwinian Dogma, does a tenured PhD prof necessarily hold-these-truths to be self-evident? Meaning the ones being proferred? Remember, s/he may have been 'indoctrinated' in a like way.

So what may alter instructional methods in today's world? The Internet, self study, and most important of all, rational thot.

I couldn't help noticing that all responses to Mr. 52 were negative, and that the first commenter equated ID with Republican idiots. That may be true in some cases, but regarding ID support, the majority would primarily consist of the ones with a religious agenda. True rational thinkers like myself, a staunch liberal, have found that the evidence points to cosmic intervention in bio designs, but I'm open to any new evidences that might contravene my stance, and am willing to address any presented here.

So whether it's the Omni Hotel or Club '21', 52nd Street rocks!

"Thank you. Moreover, the scientist stated that given the tremendous amount of new never before seen species that appeared during the Cambian period, that they could not have developed by way of a Darwinian evolutionary process ,given the the short period of time that the Cambian period lasted here on Earth. These were all University Scientist.

They stated that given the complexity of the creatures, and that animal and plant DNA do not differentiate into new species without mutation. Mutation only occurrs to change a species over many hundreds of millions of years, and the amount of species that were present during the Cambian period, that Darwins theory could not explain the Cambian period.

Some intelligent force was active to cause the development of the millions of species that
were present during the Cambian period." This was all stated on the show.

 

[rdean]

Well here me out on this one... As the global population increases so does the number of stupid people. So naturally the number of people who believe in intelligent design will increase.

Interesting logic.

Now this is not to say that every one who believes in intelligent design is an idiot and everyone who believes in evolution is a genius but just that there is a propensity for the unintelligent and/or generally ignorant to subscribe to intelligent design.

I regard ID (not IDC or Creationism) as a logical response to the evidence. Not faith based, but evidentiary.

Regarding the Cambrian, there have been various answers to no pre-cambrian fossils to speak of, but the prime evidences of 'design' are design inferences in biologic systems.

But regardless, I agree with 52nd St. ID IS gaining ground. Not necessarily with working scientists, however, for obvious reasons. But of the new generation of 'rational thinkers', i.e. skeptics of the current NDE synthesis.

Rational thinking may be moving in a new direction, that of truly analyzing data objectively, rather than as being instructed to in a classroom. Or becoming a fan of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richie Dawkins. And regarding the holy holy Darwinian Dogma, does a tenured PhD prof necessarily hold-these-truths to be self-evident? Meaning the ones being proferred? Remember, s/he may have been 'indoctrinated' in a like way.

So what may alter instructional methods in today's world? The Internet, self study, and most important of all, rational thot.

I couldn't help noticing that all responses to Mr. 52 were negative, and that the first commenter equated ID with Republican idiots. That may be true in some cases, but regarding ID support, the majority would primarily consist of the ones with a religious agenda. True rational thinkers like myself, a staunch liberal, have found that the evidence points to cosmic intervention in bio designs, but I'm open to any new evidences that might contravene my stance, and am willing to address any presented here.

So whether it's the Omni Hotel or Club '21', 52nd Street rocks!

"Thank you. Moreover, the scientist stated that given the tremendous amount of new never before seen species that appeared during the Cambian period, that they could not have developed by way of a Darwinian evolutionary process ,given the the short period of time that the Cambian period lasted here on Earth. These were all University Scientist.

They stated that given the complexity of the creatures, and that animal and plant DNA do not differentiate into new species without mutation. Mutation only occurrs to change a species over many hundreds of millions of years, and the amount of species that were present during the Cambian period, that Darwins theory could not explain the Cambian period.

Some intelligent force was active to cause the development of the millions of species that
were present during the Cambian period." This was all stated on the show.

So, is Gawd still magically making "creatures" shimmered into "being" out of a little dirt and thin air?

 

[José]

Interesting logic.



I regard ID (not IDC or Creationism) as a logical response to the evidence. Not faith based, but evidentiary.

Regarding the Cambrian, there have been various answers to no pre-cambrian fossils to speak of, but the prime evidences of 'design' are design inferences in biologic systems.

But regardless, I agree with 52nd St. ID IS gaining ground. Not necessarily with working scientists, however, for obvious reasons. But of the new generation of 'rational thinkers', i.e. skeptics of the current NDE synthesis.

Rational thinking may be moving in a new direction, that of truly analyzing data objectively, rather than as being instructed to in a classroom. Or becoming a fan of David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Richie Dawkins. And regarding the holy holy Darwinian Dogma, does a tenured PhD prof necessarily hold-these-truths to be self-evident? Meaning the ones being proferred? Remember, s/he may have been 'indoctrinated' in a like way.

So what may alter instructional methods in today's world? The Internet, self study, and most important of all, rational thot.

I couldn't help noticing that all responses to Mr. 52 were negative, and that the first commenter equated ID with Republican idiots. That may be true in some cases, but regarding ID support, the majority would primarily consist of the ones with a religious agenda. True rational thinkers like myself, a staunch liberal, have found that the evidence points to cosmic intervention in bio designs, but I'm open to any new evidences that might contravene my stance, and am willing to address any presented here.

So whether it's the Omni Hotel or Club '21', 52nd Street rocks!

"Thank you. Moreover, the scientist stated that given the tremendous amount of new never before seen species that appeared during the Cambian period, that they could not have developed by way of a Darwinian evolutionary process ,given the the short period of time that the Cambian period lasted here on Earth. These were all University Scientist.

They stated that given the complexity of the creatures, and that animal and plant DNA do not differentiate into new species without mutation. Mutation only occurrs to change a species over many hundreds of millions of years, and the amount of species that were present during the Cambian period, that Darwins theory could not explain the Cambian period.

Some intelligent force was active to cause the development of the millions of species that
were present during the Cambian period." This was all stated on the show.

So, is Gawd still magically making "creatures" shimmered into "being" out of a little dirt and thin air?

Exactly, rdean.

SOME INTELLIGENT FORCE

No connotative definition of that force, no description of it, no causative relationship between that force and Cambrian life forms, no nothing...

Just SOME INTELLIGENT FORCE.

I couldn't have described philosophical speculation any better myself.

 

[Lee Bowman]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

• seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

• cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.
  
  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

To begin to understand irreducible complexity, Google 'webvision' and 'retina'.

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

• Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, there have been many periods of very rapid evolution. All you have to do is look at the radiation of the mammals after the K-T Extinction to see that.

Unfortunetly, we do not have a lot of good sites for the early Cambrian.

Yes, there was a tremendous expansion of body plans during the early Cambrian. But you also have to consider that what represented Chordata at that period.

Palaeos Vertebrates 10.200  Chordata: Chordata (2)

 

[52ndStreet]

ID is the lazy mans way of avoiding asking the hard questions. As we learn more about the genetics of life, such twaddle becomes less neccessary. It is merely a modern version of "God created it, stop asking so many questions".

• seriously. And, instead of boring the shit out of me with claims about a theory lets see the fucking EVIDENCE.

• cartoon images of jesus riding a triceratops just doesn't impress me.

• First point: The evidences of design are 'design inferences', based on specified complexity, and complexity beyond that which could evolve by small, discreet steps. These intermediates would offer no reproductive advantage, and in most cases cause the organ being modified to stop working. No repro advantage = not becoming fixed in the population, and thus not evolving the complex organ alteration proposed.
  
  Optical systems are one of the best examples. Various biologists, Darwin being one, have proposed that a light sensitive patch invaginated stepwise, becoming eliptical, then circular, then forming a lense, and ultimately a camera eye (insect eyes are totally different). Erik Nilsson in a 1996 paper conjectured that this happened multiple times, in relatively short time periods (a mere 400,000 steps), and in separate lineages. He even termed his estimate 'conservative'.
  
  What Nilsson and the others don't address is the plethora of ancillary mechanisms (iris, aiming musculature, focusing muscles, tear ducts, lense have a variable refractive index, retinal construct including the 'fovea', and the formation of a complex metabolic replentishment systems for the retina to name just a few). Nor do they address how the retina formed into a complex, multilayered receptor grid, with rods and cones, pigments, metabolic refresh channels, and of the glial fibre optic rods between the receptors to transmit single photons without distortion to the photoreceptors.

To begin to understand irreducible complexity, Google 'webvision' and 'retina'.

There are so many co-dependent systems that must function synergistically (co-dependently), that if one were missing, the eye wouldn't function. This example of IC (Irreducible Complexity) is strong evidence of design, NOT Biblical scripture. Are you starting to get it? ...

• Second point: You're citing one of the Young Earth Creationists' ploys. ID is NOT Creationism.

Additionally, the scientist realized that molecular protein differentiation, a process not yet fully understood by biomechanical scientist, in any replicating organism, is not a random,
event, but an event that makes many different species of animals here on Earth develop into
the multitudes of species that we see today on the Earth. Moreover the DNA molecule itself
with its repeating code -->AGCT-->AGCT code of adonine guanine, and cytosine, indicates
a molecular pattern, for a specific biological task.---> this equals some kind of set design.
Which is not random, or accidental.