Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Science may be based on observations, but that doesn't mean evolutionary theories are not based on faith. There is a great deal of faith involved if you ask me to believe in evolution. You have to believe that life can stem from inanimate life first of all, spontaneous generation, and then you have to believe that out of that, all of the complexity and information needed to create the designs we call life could do so via things we have never observed basically. We have never observed mutations being selected for and producing macro-evolution. You have to have faith that what we have observed can add up to macro-evolution. It's very much a faith-stance, not built upon direct observation.Let me turn this around. Many people claimed to have seen the Risen Lord Jesus Christ. So Christianity was built upon an observed phenomenon, but since we cannot demand Jesus come back and appear at will, it is a faith perspective to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Usually, this entails some sort of encounter with God that helps cement that faith in the believer. So that faith is borne out of experience as well as a historical event.But it's still faith-based.Evolution (macroevolution) is not observed. One has faith that the few areas observed such as natural selection can add up to universal common descent, but it takes faith just as it takes faith for the believer to add up the historical accounts of the Risen Jesus with their personal encounters with God, and then believe Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Um, it may have escaped your notice but this is the Intelligent Design forum. "Direct" observation is not necessary. Inference from direct observations does not require faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Well, we didn't ask you. Your qualifications to assess the presence of faith in science are nonexistent. "Basically"? You're saying that we've "basically" never observed those things?So which is it? Have we definately never observed them, or have we almost never observed them, meaning that we have observed them? It's not surprising that you're still ignorant of the observations, since, everytime they're brought before you, you shut your eyes and mutter loudly about Heckel's drawings, webbed feet, and how dishonest evos are.But macroevolution has been observed. I myself have posted the proof a number of times on the forum. If a single-celled organisms evolving multicellularity isn't macroevolution, then evolution can explain everything we say it explains without "macroevolution" ever actually occuring.

or you are too busy rationalizing your responses to yourself that you do not see it?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Looking at the state of the planet, i wouldn't attribute creation to a benevolent entity. At the very least it would be quite neutral. If you take into account the sheer numbers of disasters, natural or not, and mass extinctions, you could say it has some beef with this planet.with objectivity tho', if one were to consider a creator; chances are, the entity did the job and then left reality to its own devices. and, i think i would prefer that, than something exerting control over everything.*i would've nominated Satan, but there's no ways it couldv'e been him...could it?*

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

When you`re in The God Zone, you never know, Cookie.:-p

Hi IanoAnother Paddy, & in Bray too! are you a blow in like me?
As for "Intelligent Design" Well there IS No Theory to explain it because it is just Creationism with knobs on...http://www.shiteology.blogspot.com/That's a link to my online assault on ID Nonsense NO- Science...
Regards
Steiner62

Hi nwrSorry for the very tardy reply....busy with kids/job/wife/life....Thx for thgose expert answers...Maybe you MIGHT find some of my blog worth a peek (a general diatribe against ID among other things - Intelligunt Desine aka the Apotheosis of Shiteology*Take Care
Steiner62

You're a lost sad sap.

---

these walls are paper thin
and everyone hears every little sound.

Charlie, do you think you could engage the content of the message you are replying to instead of making subjective comments about your opponant?

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I'll take your complete inability to engage in the conversation as proof positive that you know you are wrong.So, keep pretending to sit on your high horse and look down your nose at everyone while you cry yourself to sleep.

Nuggin, ID is not a religious theory, simply that Toe's missing links is the scientific evidence that validates ID. The scientists that have or are turning to ID realize the missing transitional fossils only supports the ID premise.If missing transitionals were not missing, then Toe would be validated. ID being not a religious theory but based on sound scientific evidence has no reason to go to the age of the fossil because the missing links would still be missing.The fossil record simply does not lie. To an ID scientist the only missing link not missing is Intelligent Design. ID does not care if the earth is old (or not) or the fossils young (or not). These are scientists who simply care about what is and not what (is not).There is no reason for scientists to go and argue on behalf of the evolutionists because even if the fossils are young (or not) the missing links are still missing. ID has no reason to argue on behalf of the creationists earth old (or not)because they have a theory based on the missing scientific evidences that "only" supports ID.To an ID'er the missing links have been proven missing due to the diligent efforts of reputable scientists not reputable theologians. Its by scientists like the Paleontologists, Geologists through whose combined efforts have given us the massive fossil record is that which validates ID.A massive fossil record would require a massive transitional evidence to invalidate the ID movement.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-04-2005 10:37 PM

Welcome, Golfer.Perhaps you`d like to pony up a reason why the Designer had so many creations go down the tube? Practice? Incompetence? Part of the Grand Plan?

to say nothing about expanding on the pratts in his own words ...

Thank-you, Scientists realize the creations that go down the tube (extinctions) are the opposite of missing links. Scientists express irreducible genetic complexities simply doesn't bridge claudistics.With creations going down the tube (extinctions) and no evidence of new species spontaneously being generated in the natural.Scientists are in agreement with Natural selection (including mutations) are happening in the natural supporting (Grand Plan), (Competence).Scientific claudistics without the necessary linking evidence in the fossil record "only" shows a (fully formed) emergence (origin). It will take massive transitional evidence that simply is not evident in the fossil record.The scientific evidence for ID is simply in agreement with the Paleontologist massive fossil evidences. There is no reason for the scientist to go to the age of the fossil. Transitionals would of supported Toe, instead the lack thereof "only" supports ID.Scientists have been hoaxed with frauds of a few fossils, it will take massive transitional fossils to derail ID. Scientists care about what is (not what is not) Its this scientific evidence thats turning Evolutionists into ID'ers.