Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Well it certainly seems that those are the only ideas on the table -like I've said before, irrespective of who the creator is or what the alternative mechanism of evolution might be, either things were created or they created themselves -those are our two major options. Like I've mentioned before, the complexity of living systems IS the main evidence for creation. The lack of evidence for evolution and it's supposed mechanism, and the evidence against evolution having occurred is also evidence for creation.

Actually evolution doesn't even begin to pass the scientific method test since all they have is minor variations in things like finch beaks and peppered moths and intelligent breeding of dogs and a lot of hypothetical philisophically-based extrapolation of what is actually observed on their side. Decades of experimentation with rapid turnover in things like bacteria and fruit flies only produce mutants and in the best scenario, more bacteria and more fruit flies, nothing original there.
It's all about history and what they imagine must have happened -in the absence of God, of course.

The Ediacaran fauna also possessed a wealth of complexity and diversity, and they predate the Cambrian. And there are many, many other instances of sudden appearance n the fossil record.What does the disappearance of the Ediacaran fauna tell us about the designer? What evidence leads you to conclude he designed ex nihilo?What evidence leads you to believe that the Cambrian fauna were perfect? And if they were perfect why did they go extinct? And isn't "perfect" an unscientific and ambiguous term anyway? How is the absence of "half-baked ideas" in the fossil record evidence for a designer?--Percy

Refuting evolution doesn't remove the possibility that life arose without a creator in some other way. But "complexity", as you put it, presents no real problems for the ToE. Complexity can and does arise from chemical and physical propeties alone. The ToE relies on mountains of evidence. To claim a lack of evidence is self-delusion, especially when you rely entirely on the "falsity" of that evidence to define your position! No it is not. Evidence against the ToE would refute the ToE as a mechanism, it would not equate to a demonstration of the existence of a creator.The ToE has nothing to do with design, so why refer to it?

What about the impossibility of converting things like reptiles to birds by considering the known rate of mutations, the general pathological changes that mostly result from mutations; the fact that the mutations have to be in the reproductive cells and the fact that those mutations have to be in the lucky reproductive cell that passes onto the next generation, the mutations can't just be neutral but have to cause morphological change that preferably doesn't contribute to the demise of the offspring. You have to have lots and lots of these hypothetical positive mutations that all just have to happen in a concerted way to produce entirely new systems like a whole new respiratory system (without killing the hypothetical bird-like creature)- lets face it, you really just have to have faith that evolution of the sort that evolutionists believe in actually has any possibility at all of happening.And you think we have a problem with our methods...

Actually, there is only one option, evolution. In order for ID to be considered an alternative to evolution it would have to uncover and replicate positive evidence and employ it to make accurate predictions. Only then could it be considered science and an alternative to evolution, and only then could evidence against evolution strengthen the position of ID.So under current circumstances where ID has no supporting scientific evidence, arguing against evolution does nothing to strengthen the position of ID, and arguing ignorantly against evolution (for example, simply ignoring the rarity of the three events of fossilization, preservation and discovery) can only weaken the position of ID by association.The existing arguments for ID are not designed to have any impact on the scientific community. Most IDists understand this and make no attempt to introduce their ideas in scientific venues. ID arguments are in fact designed to win a public relations battle, but convincing a largely scientifically inept public that ID is science and that scientists are dogmatic and biased is not going to make ID science.Doing science is the only way for IDists to make ID science, which is what we're trying to encourage you to do in this thread. Find some evidence for ID.--Percy

Why stop with just that example? Reptiles have a 3-chambered heart while mammals have a 4-chambered heart. Mammals evolved from reptiles, so their hearts had to have changed from 3 to 4 chambers. How could that have possibly happened without killing off the intermediate forms?Laddies, this one is just for Beretta, please.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Hi Beretta,You're again arguing against evolution instead of arguing for ID. I don't want to turn this into a thread about evolution, so I'll just correct the most major item in your message: Evolution does not postulate "entirely new systems" arising suddenly. Sudden creation of either features, systems or whole organisms is an idea from creationism and ID.Evolution postulates gradual change. Each offspring is a not-quite-perfect copy of its parent or parents. The reproductive process is rarely perfect, so change is inevitable, and change combined with natural selection keeps organisms adapted to an ever-changing environment.I think you keep saying things like this because you somehow think that evolutionists must misinterpret the fossil record the same way you do, but they don't. Organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record not because they actually appeared suddenly on earth, but because the fossil record is incredibly spotty.IDists who misinterpret the fossil record as you are will always have a difficult time being taken seriously. It isn't like this is rocket science. If fossilization and preservation were as common as you'd like to believe then we should be awash in ancient bones today, but we're not. You can't even go into the forest and find a single squirrel skeleton. You can dig holes all over the forest and you won't find a single bone, and that's because the fate of almost all organisms after death is predation, scavenging and decay until nothing is left.If you're going to have a viable scientific theory then you have to incorporate the facts of the real world, and the facts say that fossilization is incredibly rare. If you truly believe that isn't the case then a necessary prerequisite before you can make the arguments you've been making in this thread is to make a convincing case that fossilization is common, because without that there's no way to convince anyone that sudden appearance in the fossil record indicates actual sudden appearance on earth.--Percy

Well my very point -only in your faithful evolutionary perspective did it actually happen. Remember we only have minor variations as our evidence in the here and now - add to that potentially unwarranted extrapolations and a fossil record with a dirth
of evidence of intermediates and you only really have wishful thinking creating a four-chambered heart out of a three-chambered one. I need to see the creatures (plenty of them with a portion of the fourth chamber, the three and a half chambered intermediate heart working before i'll believe that.) I'm pretty sure that if you look at the mechanics of the situation, you'll find that to change one circulatory system to another without killing off the intermediates with your random mutations is quite a trick.

This is more argument against the ToE!We're talking about evidence for ID...

Your wish is my command:
http://dml.cmnh.org/2000Jul/msg00156.html
Warm-hearted crocs | NatureOr, for the one-to-two chamber transition:
Evolution of the HeartOh - and where is your evidence for Intelligent Design?Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Beretta can find ways to argue against the ToE all day long. The point of this thread is to get ID proponents like Beretta to identify positive evidence for ID.

Well tell me, how's evolution doing with replicating their positive evidence -you first (and minor variation doesn't count.) Remember negative evidence for transitional forms (like 'we can't find them')is not evidence for evolution either.If we can't fill those gaps with goddidit then you can't fill them with, 'they were there, we just can't find them' (so many billions of intermediates that should be there to truelly record the transition}.
Evidence was thin on the ground in Darwin's day (at least he admittedto his reservations)and so many many fossils later, it really doesn't look any better.

Surely we can tell something about the designer by examining his designs. Who designed me?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Perhaps this is a mutant variant like the 4-winged fruitfly and not designed to be quite so ugly? Perhaps that is just how he's supposed to look...I think he's pretty cute.