Intelligent Design....?

[iceaura]

I suggest testing Behe's theory of irreducibilty.

It rather simple: Stating that certain components of biology can not simply happenstance onto functionality.

That has nothing to do with Darwinian theory, however.

It depends on defining "functionality" in advance, which Darwinian theory specifically does not.

Nothing is irreducibly complex unless its function (and context) have been defined inadvance. That's not how Darwinian evolution works.

 

[valich]

There's a lot more unintelligent design in Nature than intelligent design with humans being one of them. As was mentioned, 99% went extinct. Must've been pretty dumb.

 

[Ophiolite]

What people forget is that a billion years is a very very long time.

After a billion years the memory just isn't so good, so the forgetting is understandable.

 

[VitalOne]

Your logic is flawed and you have not applied Occam's Razor.

ONE POSSIBILITY is that of I.D. - requiring the existence of the "designer" - for which we have no evidence. It is an unknown.

Another possibility is that the fossils have simply deteriorated over the past million years or so. This does not require an unknown. It certainly makes proving the theory more difficult - but other evidence might present itself later.

Which is more likely?

Answer: that the fossils have simply deteriorated.

THIS IS LOGICAL.

THIS IS THE MORE LIKELY EXPLANATION - NOT ID.

ID remains a possibility due to the lack of evidence to contradict it - the way the FSM remains a possibility.
But ID is NOT the most likely explanation, not even in your bizarre assumptive case....

...you start your "logical analysis" with the assumption that the entire earth has been excavated for the fossils. When this happens maybe you can come back to the table with ID - and you will still be in a less-logical position than other alternatives.

Intelligent design doesn't require any God just intelligence...its like someone saying the Great pyramids being intelligently designed requires a God...

Really? So all the other fossils dated back to millions of years some how survived in the same environment but just one species magically disappeared right? All other fossils are there but the evolutionists explains that some how it that one missing link just seemed to disappear...this is logical? AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Evolutionists don't even consider ANY other possibilities....

Evolutionists will say or do anything to get things to fit into Darwinian evolution, they've even hoaxed fossils!! At what level will evolutionists go to prove that Darwinian evolution is true.....

But you, and all other ID supporters to-date, have failed to provide any evidence that concludes there is an intelligent designer.

Lack of evidence for a simpler explanation IS NOT evidence for a complex explanation.


You only think this because you appear to have no grasp of either science or logic...


Or geology.

I'm not really an ID supporter, I'm just wondering why evolutionists seem to always avoid all the claims....instead they start to ridicule ID instead of seriously addressing any of the claims made by IDers

Lack of evidence is indeed evidence for a complex explanation...what you're telling me is that if there is no evidence indicating that the Great Pyramids were natural formations...that doesn't mean that were intelligently designed...it could be anything right?

Lack of evidence of missing links (which modern evolution requires) is indeed evidence that something else happened and evolution doesn't work the way we think it does....it doesn't mean that ID is true...but it does mean that something is seriously wrong with modern evolution....there's some type of missing knowledge...thats all I'm saying...

 

[VitalOne]

There's a lot more unintelligent design in Nature than intelligent design with humans being one of them. As was mentioned, 99% went extinct. Must've been pretty dumb.

There's also many flaws in things humans intelligently designed....take for instance the flaws in almost any human invention....does that mean they weren't intelligently designed and instead naturally formed?

 

[Ophiolite]

Vital One, go away and study - I mean study, not glance through a couple of googled links - just what it takes to fossilise a life form. The odds against anyone entity being fossilised are enormous. The chances of the entity then being discovered by a palaeontologist are almost as great. What is remarkable is not that we have so few of the missing links, but that we have so many.

 

[Sarkus]

Intelligent design doesn't require any God just intelligence...its like someone saying the Great pyramids being intelligently designed requires a God...

Intelligent design REQUIRES A DESIGNER!!!


You really have no clue as to what comes out of your... er... fingers.

ID claims that we were "intelligently designed" - and that has the absolute logical implication that there WAS A DESIGNER.

This "designer" is otherwise called GOD.
You may not refer to it as God - but I did.
It really makes no difference what you refer to it as.

If YOU don't call it God - what DO you call it, this "designer" who supposedly used his intelligence to design us?

 

[iceaura]

All other fossils are there but the evolutionists explains that some how it that one missing link just seemed to disappear...this is logical?

No. For the second time from me, probably the fortieth from others: all the other fossils are not there. Very few fossils are there. The fossil record is missing entire eras, time spans of millions of years, continent-wide ecosystems, entire kinds of living things. It isn't just missing individual links, it's missing whole phyla of links.

That is one reason the fossil record is only one small part of the evidence taken to support Darwinian evolution.

The assumption that "evolutionists" are ignorant, idiotic dumbfucks coordinating their nonsense with each other is very strange.

 

[VitalOne]

Intelligent design REQUIRES A DESIGNER!!!


You really have no clue as to what comes out of your... er... fingers.

ID claims that we were "intelligently designed" - and that has the absolute logical implication that there WAS A DESIGNER.

This "designer" is otherwise called GOD.
You may not refer to it as God - but I did.
It really makes no difference what you refer to it as.

If YOU don't call it God - what DO you call it, this "designer" who supposedly used his intelligence to design us?

ID itself does not require God just some type of intelligence...this intelligence can be interpreted as anything...

No. For the second time from me, probably the fortieth from others: all the other fossils are not there. Very few fossils are there. The fossil record is missing entire eras, time spans of millions of years, continent-wide ecosystems, entire kinds of living things. It isn't just missing individual links, it's missing whole phyla of links.

That is one reason the fossil record is only one small part of the evidence taken to support Darwinian evolution.

The assumption that "evolutionists" are ignorant, idiotic dumbfucks coordinating their nonsense with each other is very strange.

You're right very few fossils are found. However fossils are still very important to biology and evolution.

Modern evolution requires that one species evolved from another species. Here's what modern evolutionists say; there's species A and species C, their DNA is very similar, this means that species C must have evolved over time from species A, we can see it in the DNA, so that means there would have to be many species in between species A and C before species C ever existed....if no evidence of these species in between are ever found, who cares, modern evolution is still true, lets not try to find out what actually happened...lets just stick to the same old theory and assume some how all evidence of the species in between some how vanished....

All of a sudden evolutionists and atheists don't require any empirical evidence, but when it comes to things like God and mythological stories all of a sudden they need evidence...they'll never say all evidence simply vanished as with the missing species...

 

[James R]

...there's species A and species C, their DNA is very similar, this means that species C must have evolved over time from species A...

That conclusion does not follow at all. Similarity between the DNA of species A and C merely indicates a common ancestor for A and C somewhere on the evolutionary tree. The degree of similarity tells us the closeness of the relationship.

 

[VitalOne]

That conclusion does not follow at all. Similarity between the DNA of species A and C merely indicates a common ancestor for A and C somewhere on the evolutionary tree. The degree of similarity tells us the closeness of the relationship.

Yeah....so you're basically agreeing with what I said...as for one coming first you're right...but as per modern evolution humans came after monkeys....there's some common ancestor with monkeys and humans thats probably monkey-like..

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Tree shrew."

 

[James R]

but as per modern evolution humans came after monkeys....there's some common ancestor with monkeys and humans thats probably monkey-like..

Well, it would have been as human-like as it was monkey-like, just before the point where the two species diverged.

 

[Ophiolite]

Modern evolution requires that one species evolved from another species. .

Modern evolutionary theory does not require this at all. Modern evolutionary theory has determined that this is the best explanation for millions of observations in palaeontology, genetics, comparative anantomy and developmental biology. You are erecting strawmen which are wholly irrelevant to the debate.

Here's what modern evolutionists say; there's species A and species C, their DNA is very similar, this means that species C must have evolved over time from species A,

James R has addressed this point very precisely. The fact that you made such an erroneous statement demonstrates that you have no idea of what evolutionary theory actually says. I am startled by your readiness to debate a complex topic from a standpoint of such ignorance. Such presumption would, I am sure, have been considered evil by Christ. I just think its dumb..

so that means there would have to be many species in between species A and C before species C ever existed....if no evidence of these species in between are ever found, who cares, modern evolution is still true, lets not try to find out what actually happened...lets just stick to the same old theory and assume some how all evidence of the species in between some how vanished..

It was exactly these issues that T.N.George, in the 1950s searching for a 'rate gene' and that led Eldredge and Gould in 1971(?) to propose punctuated equilibrium. In short, the evidence was not swept under the carpet, but systematically and repeatedly examined, and the older theory modified in the light of the facts. That is how science works. Alternative techniques are useful for writing children's stories, but are ineffective at approaching the truth.

All of a sudden evolutionists and atheists don't require any empirical evidence, but when it comes to things like God and mythological stories all of a sudden they need evidence...they'll never say all evidence simply vanished as with the missing species...

Dumb. Just dumb.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

"Punctuated equilibrium," that's were the supposed morphing happened so fast that there's no fossil record of it, right Ophi?

 

[Ophiolite]

Or where the record reveals very rapid change.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

And where is this supposed rapid change revealed in the fossil record? (This oughta be good.)

 

[Ophiolite]

Off the top of my head look at the evolution of the morphololgy of the suture line in Jurassic ammonites. Alternatively I think simplification of stipe and thecal character in the graptolites, especially in the late Orodvician, show similar effects. There are doubtless hundreds more. Show me that you have some serious intent by investigating the first of these yourself and I shall be happy to provide a fuller list.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

No, that's "just fine."

 

[Ophiolite]

So you wish to remain ignorant, foolish and something of a prick?