Intelligent Design is Dead, page 3

reply to post by daggyz

---

Thats funny I thought evolution was dead principle. I haven't seen onme convincing thing yet.

And that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it? It doesn't really matter how much evidence you're given in support of the theory of evolution, you'll never accept it. But you don't need to. The scientific community does and they, in turn, use the theory of evolution to develop new technologies of which you'll reap the benefits. So, whether you decide to consciously accept the theory of evolution or not, your continued existence will be testament to it enough.

It takes more faith to believe that all you see came from a microbe living in a slime pit after volcanoes created the soil that came from a planet that formed by revolving around a sun that came from an explosion that came from.... well, they don't actually know where all that matter came from do they? Who created all the matter that existed bore the so called big bang. If nothing exists how can it bang.. etc etc etc . They don't know where the matter came from.

The perpetual strawman argument returns for another round. Conflating evolution and abiogenesis is bad enough, but then you try and add cosmology into the mix. It's very Hovindian of you.

reply to post by jondave

---

Early America was colonized by the English, Dutch, French, and Spanish. Why are there still Englishmen, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, and Spaniards?

reply to post by Barcs

---

Barcs, I'm impressed. I've found that I can only do what you've done here after ramming my head into a wall repeatedly or by asphyxiating myself immediately before posting.

(Aside: anyone who thinks Barcs is being super-cereal in this post needs to go back and read his posts in other threads in the O&C forums.)

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

---

The theory of evolution has never brought any light to how life began,

Nor should it. It's a theory that explains biodiversity, not the origins of life.

or how diversity of life came about,

Except that's exactly what the theory of evolution speaks to.

or how symbiotic relationships in life exist.

You sure about that? Maybe you should read up on quorum sensing in bacterial colonies and co-evolution of macroscopic species.

The theory of evolution has never explained how we man have decided to marry and have offspring, and many time marry with weak mates.

Why would evolution explain societal behavior?

The theory of evolution has never explained why life decided to become male and female.

Maybe you should read up on the origins of sexual reproduction and the benefits it confers.

The theory of evolution is a belief which requires faith to continue to believe as it is not testable or repeatable.

You seem to have some easily rectified misconceptions about evolution.

Let me state for a fact fossils are not a proof of evolution.

Even though they are evidence for evolution, I'll play along. Maybe you should read up on how the genetic evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that, even in the complete absence of a fossil records, it would still be one of the best supported scientific theories in existence today.

Because a bone in the ground is just that you have to speculate and assume that it had offspring, or that it was a different species of its parents.

And that's one of the basic concepts that creationists can never seem to wrap their head around -- every offspring is the same species as its parent. You yourself have somewhere between 50 and 200 mutations that differentiate you from either of your parents, but you're still the same species. Compound those differences over enough generations and, while Species A and Species B may be the same species, Species A and Species Z may not be.

This verse was written 100's of years ago and yet is just as true today as then people are willfully ignorant as to have no conscience of their lusts that take them farther from God.

"Evolution offends my delicate sensibilities and, therefore, must be wrong."

reply to post by mamabeth

---

I've always suspected that your avatar wasn't a picture of a pet. Thanks for the confirmation.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Intelligent Design is Dead
Victory ? victory!
...it is not

I told myself I would wait until the thread had run for at least a page before posting again on it. I wanted to see what sort of response it would receive from the creationists and ID defenders of ATS. Surely at least one would try to offer some kind of evidence that the ID movement is still alive and well.

But two and a half pages have come and gone, and the only direct attempt to refute the opening proposition was this:

Post by sinthia on Page 1

---

I fail to see how ID is dead when one of the most fervent campaigners for evolution is promoting a $50,000 prize for someone to provide a realistic explanation for the origin of life.

I call it pretty sad if that’s all ID supporters have to say in defence of it. And guess what? Even that sad little claim is a distortion of the truth.

Harry Lonsdale is a chemist in Bend, Oregon, who made a fortune when he sold his drug development and research company to Pfizer more than 25 years ago. Since then, he has leveraged his wealth for social, civic, and political causes, including a series of unsuccessful bids to become a U.S. senator. Source

The way sinthia writes, one would think it was the Venter Institute or the Richard Dawkins foundation offering this prize. Turns out to be a 79-year-old eccentric who was only ever technically a member of the scientific community anyway, and was certainly never an evolutionary biologist.

‘One of the most fervent campaigners for evolution,’ my foot. Sinthia’s post is typical creationist truth-twisting. And aside from it, all the creationists posting in this thread have been able to do is quote Scripture at us or rehash the same tired old anti-evolutionist arguments for the umpteenth time.

Of all who have expressed a creationist or pro-ID position on this thread, I ask: is the objection you raised a new one? Hasn’t it been expressed many times before – not least by yourself? And haven’t you – if you’re honest about it – seen it debunked before too, probably more than once?

If one of you folk could come up with something new, then maybe you can fairly claim that ID isn’t dead. Three pages into this thread, your score on that account is zero. This alone would suggest that my opening proposition is true – even if there wasn’t so much other evidence for it.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

And that's one of the basic concepts that creationists can never seem to wrap their head around -- every offspring is the same species as its parent.

While this is true in most cases, it is not true 100% of time. Eventually you will get an offspring that cannot produce viable offspring with the previous generation, but can do so with its current generation. That is the definition of speciation. Of course it is determined on a generational basis and not an individual one as many Creationists seem to believe.

reply to post by boymonkey74

---

Have homo-sapiens adapted?

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38

The theory of evolution has never brought any light to how life began, or how diversity of life came about, or how symbiotic relationships in life exist.

Except it doesn't try to explain how life began. Look up the term speciation.

The theory of evolution has never explained how we man have decided to marry and have offspring, and many time marry with weak mates

.

Well, I like apple pie. Your point on this is moot.

The theory of evolution has never explained why life decided to become male and female.

Do you know what a science book is? Or ever heard of biology?

The theory of evolution is a belief which requires faith to continue to believe as it is not testable or repeatable.

Again I like apple pie (See above) Yes it has been tested and repeated Here is an example...

Let me state for a fact fossils are not a proof of evolution

.

Really? You state for a fact fossils are not proof of evolution, Wow man that's a tough point to beat I guess you win this topic.

Because a bone in the ground is just that you have to speculate and assume that it had offspring, or that it was a different species of its parents

.

Radiometric dating says "Hi, welcome to 1905"

Romans 1:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Quoting the bible in no way shape or form is scientific. Thats like getting instruction on how to swim from a paraplegic.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think it is time for supporters of scientific truth to quietly celebrate a hard-earned victory.

There is no such thing as "scientific truth."

If that is what you believe in, then all you have done is invent a new religion.

What is the purpose of science?
Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.

www.sciencemadesimple.com...

All science can really provide us with is "useful models of reality." In other words, it provides explanations for the truth, which exists all around us and which we experience continuously.

So the debate is really over which model works the best, or is most useful.

"Intelligent Design" has been accused of being a pseudo-scientific cover story for biblical creationism.

But when I think of "intelligent design" that's not what I think of, or what I am talking about.

When you design something, do you use intelligence in the process? Good.

So, who or what designed life forms? That's the real question. And it makes a big difference.
Because which "model" you use to answer this one affects a lot of other areas of scientific inquiry and human activity. We have tons of evidence supporting the "evolution model" for life on earth. But this model does not explain all data ever gathered by scientists or investigators using the scientific method.

One huge chink in this model is the ET problem. It is a very real problem. Another chink is the past life data, which includes some data collected by real academicians without the use of regressive hypnosis. Yet another problem has been encountered in the field of quantum mechanics. And there have also been experiments done into the phenomenon of remote influencing.

What all this data adds up to is the possibility of a non-physical cause. It is not that all phenomena have non-physical causes. But there are some phenomena that are best explained by a "model" of non-physical causation. What the above sampling of "chinks in the armor" lead us towards is a more important role of non-physical causation in physical phenomena. And those phenomena would include the design of plants and animals.

And that is why I cannot agree with your premise.

reply to post by l_e_cox

---

There is no such thing as "scientific truth"... All science can really provide us with is "useful models of reality." In other words, it provides explanations for the truth, which exists all around us and which we experience continuously.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a philosopher in the house.

Anything new to add to the topic under discussion? Something relevant to the claim that intelligent design (as an intellectual or political movement) is dead?

If you wish to debate philosophy with me, there is a different forum on ATS for it. I should be only too happy to oblige you there. You will lose.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

---

True. Now that I've gotten some sleep I remember reading about a species of flower that experienced a complete chromosomal amplification in a single generation. But I'd argue that's the exception, not the rule.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by boymonkey74

---

Well,your ancestors may have swung from trees and peeled
bananas with their feet,mine didn't.

Your ancestors was dirt from the ground and BBQ spare ribs from a man right?


And also, ID died about 150 years ago.

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 12 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: