Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by addygrace
You seem to have left out, intentionally or unintentionally, the very next part of your cited link… the part where predictions are made based on the
"ways designers act while designing".
I left it out because I supplied a link, and it's against the rules to quote too much off-site content. Intentionally? This always happens from
dogmatic atheists. They just attack the person.
Table 2. Predictions of Intelligent Design
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.9
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.10
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.29
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".30
1. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked. It's even been debunked in a court of law at this point.
In a court of law?
Wow. Is this serious? If it is, I have to ask, Is the judge the Peer Review we should be looking for in this matter.
Yet evolutionists do not
admit that their theory is falsified by the presence of these unevolvable structures. Instead they turn to explanations of gene duplication and
co-optation to build these complex structures.3 While these sorts of explanations still leave the details to the dice and lack strong explanatory
power, it should be noted that evolutionists have not allowed their theory to be falsified. As long as there is some protein with some homology to
some part in the irreducibly complex structure, evolutionists believe it could have been put their through some combination of gene duplication,
co-optation, and micromutation. Thus, evolution makes essentially untestable claims of high improbability to explain the origin of irreducibly complex
2. Except we find transitional forms. Based on the reasoning presented here, we shouldn't ever find them, especially given how difficult it is
to achieve the conditions under which fossils will actually form.
There are many evolutionary scientists who disagree. They even came up with
a revised theory based on this observation.
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design,
indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for
gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology,
vol.6(1), January 1980,p. 127.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms;
transitions between the major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p. 24.
Paleontologists have paid an
exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of
evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
Stephen Jay Gould 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI95), May 1977, p.14
3. Common ancestry explains this equally well and without the unnecessary complication of adding a designer to the mix, for which there is no
Are you serious? Common Ancestry explains, genes and fuctional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms? How
so? I was under the impression that common ancestry says genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only
shared by related organisms.
4. We seem to have plenty of non-coding DNA.
It says functionless "junk" DNA. Many types of non-coding DNA sequences do have known
So three out of the four predictions made by intelligent design are wrong and it shares the fourth with evolution. But somehow intelligent
design is still the right answer. Amazing.
You do realize you just quoted the rest of the evidence, right?
The rest of your post is the usual "it's too pretty to not have been created"
Where did I say or infer, "it's too pretty to not have been created"? This is such a copout. "MAJOR complexity, that performs a specific
function", isn't inferring something to be pretty or , "look this is so cool God made it". It's simply stating; A random chance complexity
performing a specific function acted upon by a specific condition, is not a logical explanation. Specific functioning complexity has never been
observed to be random, so why would I conclude that it was random, unless I'm just trying to deny it was designed for dogmatic reasons.?
and "it's just a theory" arguments. All you get for that is a yawn.
A common tactic for people who believe the Theory of Evolutiont to be a fact, is to claim it's so set in stone it can't be refuted. It's the
ultimate truth. Yet they don't realize is, they are putting it on the same level as a Dogma.
The National Academy of Science (U.S.)
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or
observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense
is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.
This is a very odd statement
for the National Academy of Science to make, because there are many scientists who question whether descent with modification occurred.
In all reality, why would anybody, especially a scientist, stop questioning any theory unless we've learned all we can learn/ Stating it as fact,