Defence of Intelligent Design

Just as an anecdote. A couple weeks ago some friends and I were discussing science vs. the Bible, and I asked if I could illustrate the picking and choosing to them. They said yes, and I got up and headed toward the front door. As I reached the kitchen, I threw myself back on the floor and mimicked a seizure, tongue sticking out, feet kicking the ground and everything. It was great fun.Then I rolled over, looked up, and said, "Who ya gonna call?"They all got it once I explained. They all would have called 911 had it been a real seizure. Why? So that people who have studied science could help me. All the men in the room had read the Bible many times over, and have devoted their lives to the life described in the New Testament. Yet none of them would have followed the NT course of action, which would have been to rebuke the demon that "threw me down." They would have all trusted scientists.Now, none of the men in that room had a problem with evolution, but the fact is that others who "don't want to trust science" would have called 911, too. They wouldn't have called someone who studied the Bible. They'd have called someone who had studied science.

I agree with Crashfrog, Ned. I realize that creationists (and fundamentalist Christians in general) refuse to even acknowledge any grounds for discussion other than their own worldview, but I'm for constantly reminding them that their worldview is not the only one there is, and it's rude for anyone, including them, to ignore the other person's way of thinking as they're discussing.Well, either it's rude or they're too stupid or childish to put themselves in another's shoes, and I think it would be rude of us to just assume they're too stupid to discuss politely or sensibly.

Except of course for the truly lamentable cases who do prefer exorcism to medical science.http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20040120-010/page.asphttp://www.globeandmail.com/...22.uexor0523/BNStory/National

truthlover, I thought the Creationists also believes that life should show evidence of adaption via the micro-evolutionary processes in Genesis, sounds too me that Ken Hamm rightfully believes in the inerrancy of the bible, etc...The Creationist Theory righfully goes back to genesis, but the Intelligent design theory just wants to debate the scientific evidences of design, etc...so it wouldn't be apropriate to post my post in respect to the creationist theory, etc... Check out this Mission statement for one Intelligent Design Network, etc... Intelligent Design Network – Seeking Objectivity in Origins ScienceKen Hamm sound like an interesting Creationists, liked listening to his little quips on answers in Genesis, and found it interesting that he too believes that the creatures adaption via natural selection is all a part of Genesis, but well thats the Creationist theory, they have no problem bringing theology into their theory, my little quip was in respect to the Intelligent Design Theory, etc... Christian Radio - Free Online Christian Ministry Radio Broadcasts\P.S. If you like my quip so much, perhaps you could nominate it for the post of the month, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

Any defense will be on religous grounds?- HmmmI thought I had a canned response ready for you c-e errs yesterday but on reading a little bit more in the AMBIGUOUS FROG and comparing to what Faraday actually said... if Darwin picked up BOTH the word "evolution" and "variation" from Farady or the then resolving issue of Voltanism in his time from a reading to The ROyal soCiety well then ID can indeed be defended scientifically without a lie for any fact. But right now I am investigating statements or assertions of historians and am not ready to comment on current science. For it appears that Newton's GOD and SPIRIT in the general Sholium was first drafted as IB Cohen brought out recently by a series of operations that if rigorously correlatable with cell death the in the gut of larval to adult tadpoles WILL NOT BE only the transmission of electrictity into the brain or sensorium as his suppressed eariler paragraphs had not led most teachers of science to read. Sure the information architeture of macrophage nutrition would be involved but this if true is not mere words that I felt DNA Union was throwing back at me. It will matter that chemsitry EVOLVES electricity MEANS what we take today as individual EvOlVes Species. Dennet had some sharp clade selection questions that could be algorthimically true and me not wrong. It would be great if evos could learn to not speak in this style of assertion "if is lies" etc. I like the snake but thePatriots may lose to the color of the Panther. I dont like the style as I said. Farady argued against a METAL ORDER and if all the evos are going to do is insist on elite nanotech then IT WILL BE CLEAR that instead of using my own family in comparing any tension in CE I CAN IN THE SAME SOCIALITY USE ICR's mission. I havent made this transition in thought yet if this is all that I find evos saying then It will likely occur involunatarily for me for I am too well read to be disuaded for from less of, in...Sorry for being wordy but what I had prepared is not just not good enough for me yet."we f0rmulated"- could you care to give your real name- are you Dick Lewontin- who are you really? if you care to CSS it?? Things could be discussed but communication must go two way street and not always be in the basin saint street rampart. Cohen simply thought that capilarity had nothing to do with electricity. I havent shown that Faraday actually thought this but his words may be able to speak this for themselves. F wrote a lot and I have not read all his work as Maxwell did.

I was under the impression that the reason insects cannot grow really big is because of their respiratory system. Spiracles, tubing etc, leading to diffusion at the ends. There's a practical upper linit to the length of functional tubing possible, and so to the size the critter can be.But that's A Level biology from 1986, so I might be wrong...DT

I'm stretching what I know a bit too but I think that there is also an engineering problem with the exoskelton. If you take the materials and just scale up the dimensions equally it will fail.

---

Common sense isn't

Darwinsterrier:Yes, those are indeed additional limitations to size. I didn't mean to imply that the exoskeleton was the only (or even the primary) factor preventing insects from growing very large. Back when "whatever" originally spoke of giant insects, the first thing that came to my mind was the fact that an exoskeleton would be incapable of supporting the insects own weight. I have simply stuck with that one factor in my remaining posts. But thanks for pointing out my neglect, for your information certainly adds additional support in showing that "whatever" has no clue.

---

Seek your inner monkey

FliesOnly, It all more supporting evidence supporting design, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

How exciting! Whatever here has decided to start a round of my favorite forum competition:The Bare Assertion Game! Okay, okay... now it's my turn..."All Christians are secretly addicted to masturbation!"There, see how fun it is to make bare assertions?!?! Who wants to be next?

Whatever:And once again you make a statement that I suspect you cannot support How, whatever, how? I have asked you repeatedly to support your claims about intelligent design. Here's your chance. I am not going to mention anything new that you can addreess in order to avoid my main question. In your next reply, pick any aspect of ID that you want, and support it with science. Follow the scientific method and please do the following: (we'll forego making an observation and formulating the problem)
1. State the hypothesis
2. Detail the experment that was used to test the hypothesis
3. Tell us the results and how they support creationism.That's all you have to do. Three simple things. And remember, don't write anything unless you back it up with scientific evidence.

---

Seek your inner monkey

NosyNed<< 1) There are somethings we don't know enough about to know how they happened. (origin of life is one, some biological structures are others) Therefore some thing with intelligence must have been involved.2) Some things "obviously" could not have happened using the current explanations. These things are called irreduciably complex. So something with intelligence must have been involved.3) Things look, to an individuals eye, designed therefore they must have been designed.>>There may be some creationists that make "must have been designed" arguments but the ID theorists I'm familiar with don't. Their position is that there are things in nature that cause them to suspect design and therefore it is worthy of investigation. Scientists should hold their views tentatively.

::, It is interesting that evolution doesn't answer the problem in that every creature exibits design, in that the fossil record show the fossils came onto the scene fully formed (evidence supporting design), etc...
P.S. This article mentions that Darwin himself said for his theory to be true it would require vast amounts of transitional fossils, which we all know doesn't exists, talk about a bare assertion theory, perhaps its time for toe to be laid to rest, etc... 404 Not Found Conclusion — Be prepared to dismantle the Illusion!!!
Darwin wrote that in order for his theory to be true, the number of transitional links "must have been inconceivably great".21 A century and a half later, the tons of fossils we have since unearthed have not produced even the slightest inkling of what must exist if evolution occurred on earth. When we examine the most intact and thorough portion of the fossil record, a portion that represents more than 99.99% of the entire fossil record, we do not find a single one of Darwin’s necessary links, not even one that evolutionists can agree on. None. Nada. Zippo. Creationist Dr Duane Gish summed it up very well:FliesOnly,1. State the hypothesis: Darwin said transitional evidence must be inconceivably great.2. Detail the experment that was used to test the hypothesis: The museums lack of transitional evidence in museums, to support Darwins hypothesis.3. Tell us the results and how they support creationism.: while this is a thread to Intelligent design, the lack of transitional fossils, show toe should be replaced, thus supports the alternative theories, Creationism, and Intelligent design, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-23-2004]

Whatever, you are absolutely unbelievable. You have got to be the most arrogant, ignorant, blow-hard I have ever dealt with. Do you even believe the nonsense you write? Look back at post 71 and, for the love of God, would you please respond to it accordingly!Jeez, I don't know how you other people at this forum put up with this. NosyNed, how do you do it? How do you remain so seemingly calm in the face of such utter stupidity and contempt? I'm about to blow a vessel here. Does it come with time? I still relatively new here (but hey, I just noticed that I'm listed as a member now...yahoo!), so will I eventually become immune to this sort of stuff?

---

Seek your inner monkey

Referrign to Fred Williams as an authority won't cut much ice here.He came, he lost, he leftTHe article you refer to is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations.Let's start with Archaeopteryx. The quote offered is not only inaccurate but it does not even deny that archaeopteryx is a genuine transitional !There are plenty of invertebrate transitionals, too - Fred even REFERS to two examples in a side bar ! Or does Fred think that clams and plankton are vertebrates ?