Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

FYI, randman is not subject to the forum rules. He's the "village idiot", who must be tolerated no matter what he says or does. Thus saith Admin.

---

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

Silly me. And here I was thinking it took brain surgery.Brain-removal surgery.

Since creos sooner or later try to steer evolution discussions around to Abiogenesis, I want to put the torch to the belly and narrow down exactly who the ID-er is. I realise you propose nothing could have been 'created' without some form of intelligence. My question is, just how much evidence do you have to the identity of this mythological being? Do you have trademarks, fingerprints, irreducible (I couldn`t help myself there)proof of identity, leftover DNA,clay tablets,fossilised lab equipment,original blueprints or any evidence apart from an educated guess? Just must have happened that way will NOT pass.

Nighttrain, I'd agree with Ned & Randman that the evidence is more than just the sudden emergence of the fossil evidences. Scientists are simply flipping a 180 based on the totality of the scientific evidences (this includes the fossil record).Professor Antony Flew turned a 180 based on the evidence (scientific complexities issues). Flew has not yet given a name to this Intelligence but based only on the evidence, he has recanted.Professor Flew told the Associated Press if his admirers are upset with his about-face, then thats too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato;s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.http://www.ca/...-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm

But Golfer, now Flew is a village idiot, old man,senile, etc, etc,...Evos kind of flip out when they lose someone from the group.This message has been edited by randman, 12-06-2005 06:30 PM

Golfer's comments do fine.

This was the assertion I asked you to support. You give me: Golfer's comments are no different than yours that I asked you to explain. They're both just assertions that the fossil record supports ID but not the Theory of Evolution.I'll take this idiocy to mean that you cannot explain how the fossil record data is predicted by ID theory, or how the data confirms ID theory.Simply ridiculous.

lack of transitionals
sudden appearance
stasis (opposite of evolution)
etc, etc,...

Is it just me or is this the same point phrased in three different ways?TTFN,WK

I never did understand why creationists like to mention Flew. He was a philosopher, not a scientists. Most evolutionary scientists had never heard of Flew until the creationists mentioned him. And Flew did not turn against evolution, only against atheism.

Here is one of my favorite, more recent quotes on this point: Here is just a little bit of the evidence you will find if you look around on the web.Whale Evolution/Cetacean Evolution (Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales)
Whale Evolution and Atavistic Hind Limbs on Modern Whales
from
Edward T Babinski
ScriveningsSmooth Change in the Fossil Record
Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
from
Don Lindsay Archive
Don Lindsay ArchiveTransitional Fossil Species
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
from
Darwinians and Evolution
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/indexpage.htmObserved Instances of Speciation
Observed Instances of Speciation
from
The Talk.Origins Archive
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversySome More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Homepage given above)Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
from
Action Bioscience.Org
Contact Verification Suspension PageThere actually are fairly extensive fossil records, including a series of transitionals leading from fish to reptile, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal (passing through a double-jawed stage), and of course the transitionals leading from a land mammal to whales.As for the oblique reference to the fact that punctuated equilibria theory often appears to describe the evolution of species more accurately than traditional gradualism -- this appears to be true with species which reproduce by sexual means. As such, I would take it, a more rapid form of gradualism with genetic drift and natural selection would describe the periods of rapid evolution. But given the pronounced trends and the numerous periods of stasis which exist along these trends, the trends themselves often appear fairly continuous to the untrained eye.PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
By Donald R. Prothero, Ph.D.
From Skeptic vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47.
http://www.skeptic.com/01.3.prothero-punc-eq.htmlThe following two articles deal suggest that humans may have undergone
evolution which would likewise be best described by the punctuated
equilibria theory through the analysis of the human genome.(Non-Technical)
'Punctuated' evolution in the human genome
Medical and health information(Technical)
Periodic Explosive Expansion of Human retroelements Associated with
the Evolution of the Hominoid Primate
Tae-Min Kim, Seung-Jin Hong, Mun-Gan Rhyu
J Korean Med Sci 2004; 19: 177-85
http://jkms.kams.or.kr/2004/pdf/04177.pdfThis message has been edited by TimChase, 12-06-2005 08:36 PM

nwr, Flew believes the scientific complexities (evidences) is the work of Intelligence. Origin of the Species is the issue, Professor Antony Flew is now supportive of ID not TOE.Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data.Flew said :"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together." "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence."http://www.bible.ca/...eation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm

Hi GolferAntony Flew isn't on topic for this thread. What any one person believes does not make this belief true or false.Maybe you could read up on what Flew actually did believe and what he does believe now.secweb.org
Antony Flew - Wikipedia

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

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

Asgara, Nuggins in the opening statement begged the question. What is ID theory? Nuggins wanted to know what supporters of ID believed. What mechanics should be taught in public schools if ID was the only theory.Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID. I thought this qualified it to be on topic. Its not about the evidence of theology (religion) but the enormity of the scientific evidences supporting the mechanics of ID that should be taught in the public schools. Theological evidence is not scientific evidence and because of separation issues left to the church.nuff said...

Not too put to fine a point on it but that's clearly complete nonsense.How does somebody (no matter who they are) supporting a theory help to define what that theory says?From the Opening Post:

• What is Intelligent Design's theory?
• What would be tought in schools if ID was the only theory?
• What are the "mechanics" of Intelligent Design?
• How are designs done?
• How are they implimented?
• What constraints are put on Natural selection to assure that only the incorrectly designed species are killed?
• Why are there incorrectly designed species at all?

These are the sort of questions you need to be answering for us.Have at it - we've been waiting a while

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then