Intelligent Design....?

Sarkus said:
The Theory of Evolution is hardly an imaginary theory.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, there's no objective evidence that evolution occured through mutations and natural selection...its just speculation....

Sarkus said:
Even to scientists, "intelligent design" IS a logical possibility - just one for which there is no evidence.
Click to expand...
Well...how can evidence be gained? An intelligent cause can solve many problems...

Sarkus said:
The mutations aren't illogical, merely biological.
The objective evidence DOES fit - which is why the theory still exists, and it will continue to be adapted as more evidence is uncovered.

Unfortunately the ID / Creationist people seem to think, fallaciously, that a lack of all the answers by Evolution is evidence in favour of their beliefs.
What a pity there is no actual evidence to support them, though.
Click to expand...
The objective evidence doesn't show that mutations and natural selection occured, this is just what biologists are guessing happened to explain how the DNA changed over time, the evidence simply indicates that there was a change in species over time, of which ID has no problems with..
 
VitalOne said:
Yes it is, there's no objective evidence that evolution occured through mutations and natural selection...its just speculation....
Click to expand...
The theory exists - thus is not imaginary.
Further, there IS evidence for evolution: speciation has been observed in the lab.

Well...how can evidence be gained?
Click to expand...
For an intelligent designer it can not be gained. It is thus NOT a valid scientific theory and is rightfully assigned to the scrap heap.

An intelligent cause can solve many problems...
Click to expand...
So can any "God of the Gaps".
But without evidence it is horse-manure to believe even a valid theory to be the truth - and since ID is not even a valid theory... well... 'nuff said.
 
Sarkus said:
The theory exists - thus is not imaginary.
Further, there IS evidence for evolution: speciation has been observed in the lab.
Click to expand...
Yes the theory exists, it exists as a concept or idea, something imaginary....

The objective evidence shows a change in species over time, this is called evolution, however no objective evidence shows that the change was caused through mutations and natural selection, thats just speculation, the evidence shows that it could've possibly occured through mutations and natural selection, but there's new theories springing up...

So the only thing we actually objectively know is that there was a change in species over time (evolution), how it happened, we're not so sure...

Sarkus said:
For an intelligent designer it can not be gained. It is thus NOT a valid scientific theory and is rightfully assigned to the scrap heap.
Click to expand...
Science should show whatever the objective evidence shows...if the objective evidence indicates an intelligent designer then it should show that...

ID doesn't require a designer just some type of intelligent cause (which could be interpreted as God, aliens, a mind, etc...)

Sarkus said:
So can any "God of the Gaps".
But without evidence it is horse-manure to believe even a valid theory to be the truth - and since ID is not even a valid theory... well... 'nuff said.
Click to expand...
But there is evidence, take for instance the clear design in cells...the design is arguably more advanced than modern computers, it reads code (genetic code), interprets it, and carries out the instructions based on that code, this genetic code is also very complex and advanced, take for instance the total number of base pairs in the simplest form of life (bacteria) is 4 million.....saying that it was not designed is akin to saying your computer by chance just happened to naturally form over time......right now the explanation is spontaneous biochemical reactions instead of design.....

Or how about the blood-clotting example, all the steps are neccessary, thrombin activates accelerin, which cleaves prothrombin, the resulting thrombin cleaves fibrinogen, making fibrin, etc....if any of these were to happen in any other way you would either bleed or clot to death....meaning that if it was really random chance then that means us existing is quite a very highly unlikely probability...
 
VitalOne said:
ID doesn't require a designer just some type of intelligent cause (which could be interpreted as God, aliens, a mind, etc...)
Click to expand...

Design doesn't have to be designed? But it can be caused? Hmmmm. If an intelligence "causes", but doesn't "design", isn't it then all just a big accident?
 
vital said:
But there is evidence, take for instance the clear design in cells..- - - saying that it was not designed is akin to saying your computer by chance just happened to naturally form over time......right now the explanation is spontaneous biochemical reactions instead of design.....

Or how about the blood-clotting example, - - meaning that if it was really random chance then that means us existing is quite a very highly unlikely probability...
Click to expand...
None of that is evidence for design. All of it looks exactly as a product of Darwinian evolution should.

I think the problem here is that you don't know how Darwinian evolution works, and so you don't know what its products would look like in comparison with designed mechanism. You are looking at an organism, and seeing some kind of watch - something disconnected from its environment.

ICC said:
The Bible doesn't say pi equals 3, so what's your problem?
Click to expand...
The Bible specifies the dimension of a special container, which is to have a perfectly circular top 3 units around and 1 across.
 
Last edited:
The Bible doesn't say pi equals 3
Click to expand...

Not in so many words, but it is implied by the only passage in the bible that refers to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
 
It doesn't refer to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, besides, you guys say the ancients didn't know pi anyway, so you're just trying to prove yourself wrong, I don't get it.
 
iceaura said:
None of that is evidence for design. All of it looks exactly as a product of Darwinian evolution should.

I think the problem here is that you don't know how Darwinian evolution works, and so you don't know what its products would look like in comparison with designed mechanism. You are looking at an organism, and seeing some kind of watch - something disconnected from its environment.
Click to expand...
Really? Darwinian evolution is based upon flaws...the flaw is that simple life forms are no more complex than simple chemical reactions, however in light of genetic knowledge we know this is not true...the simplest form of life is very complex and advanced in design...

You can't make that statement since evolution couldn't've had happened without an original life form...and that original life form is bacteria...

But...the earliest form of life (bacteria) clearly has an advanced design...it has genetic code which it reads, transmits, translates, and carries out instructions based upon this code....the fact that it is the earliest form of life indicates that no evolution could've occured...in other words the earliest form of life is what started all life...it didn't evolve the way others life forms did.....

So right now the explanation is that some how random spontanenous biochemical reactions some how came to create a very advanced system that reads, interprets and carries out instructions based upon the most condensed, most advanced form of code (genetic code), genetic code also some how through spontaneous biochemical reactions some how were formed....OR there was an intelligent cause which explains the advanced design...
 
vital said:
You can't make that statement since evolution couldn't've had happened without an original life form...and that original life form is bacteria...
Click to expand...
That is false two ways. You do not need an original life form. If there was one, a bacterium would not be it.

Where are you getting this stuff?

I repeat: you do not understand Darwinian evolution. You don't know how it works, or what its effects are or could be.
vital said:
So right now the explanation is that some how random spontanenous biochemical reactions some how came to create a very advanced system
Click to expand...
Your use of the word "random" is a bit odd. Biochemical reactions are never "random". And what is "spontaneous" doing here? And where is "create" coming from? Surely the reactions do not create the system of which they are part?

Otherwise, you must have noticed that spontaneous biochemical reactions "create" quite complex systems with every acorn that grows.
 
iceaura said:
That is false two ways. You do not need an original life form. If there was one, a bacterium would not be it.

Where are you getting this stuff?

I repeat: you do not understand Darwinian evolution. You don't know how it works, or what its effects are or could be.
Click to expand...
I do know what Darwinian Evolution is....

You even said it yourself, instead of acknowledging the actual objective evidence which says that bacterium was the original life form, you with your Darwinian faith conclude that it cannot be so, not because the objective evidence implies so but simply because it doesn't fit into what Darwin says....

iceaura said:
Your use of the word "random" is a bit odd. Biochemical reactions are never "random". And what is "spontaneous" doing here? And where is "create" coming from? Surely the reactions do not create the system of which they are part?

Otherwise, you must have noticed that spontaneous biochemical reactions "create" quite complex systems with every acorn that grows.
Click to expand...
Please explain what you mean.....this is based off Miller's organic chemical evolution....
 
vital said:
I do know what Darwinian Evolution is....

You even said it yourself, instead of acknowledging the actual objective evidence which says that bacterium was the original life form,
Click to expand...
According to Darwinian Theory, there is no such thing as the original life form.

According to accounts that declare Darwinian Theory inapplicable to the origins of life on Earth, the original form must have been seeded in somehow. It would have been the ancestor of both the Archaea and Bacteria, of course, and so very unlikely to have been a bacterium.

You did not know that.

I am sorry, but you seem to have acquired your knowledge of Darwinian Theory from creationist websites and books. They are not accurate.
 
iceaura said:
According to Darwinian Theory, there is no such thing as the original life form.

According to accounts that declare Darwinian Theory inapplicable to the origins of life on Earth, the original form must have been seeded in somehow. It would have been the ancestor of both the Archaea and Bacteria, of course, and so very unlikely to have been a bacterium.

You did not know that.

I am sorry, but you seem to have acquired your knowledge of Darwinian Theory from creationist websites and books. They are not accurate.
Click to expand...
The Darwinian theory is not the same as the modern evolution theory...modern evolution accounts for everything greatly except for the origin of life....right now based on the ACTUAL objective evidence the earliest found known forms of life are cyanobacteria, dated back to 3.5 billion years, and some cells found off rocks of Greenland dating back to 3.8 billion years, and no this is not information from a creationist site, since they still claim the Earth is 6,000 years old....

When you said "It would have been the ancestor of both the Archaea and Bacteria, of course, and so very unlikely to have been a bacterium" this is not based off actual objective evidence, just what evolutionists suspect it should be....like most of the evolution theory it based off spurious speculations "could've would've should've" implications rather than actual objective evidence...

The problem is these cells (3.5-3.8 billion years old) have a seemingly advanced design, not much different from cells and bacteria of today.....so where did this design with the storing, reading, interpreting, repairing, etc...of genetic code, arguably the most complex, condensed code in the universe, arise from? Doesn't it all seem strange to you a certain "code" within each of your cells determines all of your physical characteristics? This appears to show signs of intelligent design, not natural formations.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top