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

Any chance of touching on the topic at some point?--Percy

Let's talk about evolution hypothetically, 'cos obviously it never realy happened. But let's pretend that it did. The idea is that fairly undifferentiated tiny squashy things that do not leave any fossil record, slowly differentiated over tens of millions of years to become several types of tiny squashy things that do not leave any fossil record... and then some of these squashy things start to develop slightly harder bits, and as these harder bits convey advanatges, most of the different types of squashy bits gain harder bits too. And these harder bits are able to leave a fossil record.Hypothetically, if that is what actually happened, what would you expect to see in the fossil record?But of course the biggest question is, why did the Designer make the fossil receord look so preceisly like the above hypothetical scenario??? What was that all about?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

No-one can know that there are no Gods. If that's a requirement for atheism, then I'm a non-theist (and there are no atheists). You mean a God couldn't create a universe in which abiogenesis and evolution would happen, and do so with intent? You're putting severe limits on omnipotence, aren't you? That would not, I agree, be the God of literal Genesis.So, you see evidence for a hands on designer? Are you going to keep all this evidence secret for much longer? What is the point of the Intelligent Designer? Good question. Can we figure out things by examining his designs? How do we explain the apparent arms race in complexity between dangerous parasites and their hosts' defenses? A game, perhaps?Come on, let's have the theory. We're all dying of curiosity to know about your designer, the subject of a whole thread!!

I have yet to see an ID proponent based on 'logic alone'. If you can point me out one whose position is not strongly influenced by their religious beliefs, please point them out, and the essays/articles they wrote on it.

How is evidence 'against evolution' (which , btw, you have not provided, but merely asserted), evidence FOR 'Intelligent Design'? This asserstion is the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy

The Cambrian explosion is evidence for creation.

Michael Denton and David Berlinski Evolution is also a religious belief -matter is all there is; everything can be explained in terms of natural law -that's dogma.

The artifact hypothesis squashed by the discovery of perfectly preserved soft bodied embryo fossils below the Cambrian in China. The suggestion that the precursors to the cambrian were soft bodied and thus not preservable no longer holds as an hypothesis. He didn't

quote:

---

The artifact hypothesis squashed by the discovery of perfectly preserved soft bodied embryo fossils below the Cambrian in China. The suggestion that the precursors to the cambrian were soft bodied and thus not preservable no longer holds as an hypothesis.

---

Where by "squashed" you mean "confirmed". Or haven't you noticed that the discoveries represent creatures only fosilised in special conditions and include the supposedly "missing" precursors ?

What about Precambrian fossils like stromatolites? Was that "pre-creation"?What evidence points to God being the cause of the Cambrian explosion?

So God took a few tens of millions of years to create life? After he already had spent 100 million years experimenting with some multicellular forms? After he'd spent about 3 billion years getting single celled life right?Is that what you mean?

Nonsense.First, the evidence against evolution is strictly creation "science" -- in other words, religion masquerading as science for the purpose of religious apologetics. Within the various evolutionary science there is no alternative theory.Second, that purported evidence against evolution would be just as much support for phlogiston chemistry or phrenology as ID (i.e., none).When are we going to see evidence for ID that does not mention the theory of evolution? When are we going to see a fully developed ID hypothesis, that can be tested.I suspect we will see these things when pigs fly. The purpose of ID is not to promote science, but to oppose evolution. The modern version of ID was created after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court for the sole purpose of getting creationism back into the schools. All it needs is enough scientific flavor to fool the school boards and legislators. Ask yourself, how much is the scientific research budget of the Discovery Institute? Or do they spend their money on lawyers and PR flacks? The answer to this question will tell you how much science there is to ID.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Some months ago I was doing a crossword puzzle and one of the clues was: Teddy in Cuba ” having 9 letters starting with RO. I followed up with the expected OSEVELT. For the life of me I could not advance that corner of the puzzle. It seems that my world view was erroneous. The correct answer was ROTA NOCHE, which is a bad Spanish for night clothes.One can only force their world view onto a reality so far before contradictions start rearing their ugly heads. ToE does not suffer from these ugly contradictions; whereas, creationism abounds in them.As evidence for creationism reality fails.Edited by lyx2no, : Fix a typo and change the sub while I'm here.

---

KindlyEveryone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.One hot lesbian.

Michael Denton appears to no longer support I.D. and has asked his name to be removed from the Discovery institute web site.As for David Berlinski, while skeptical about evolution, he does not openly say anything in support of I.D. either. He, however, is a mathemtician, not a biologist.A quote about him is as follows

quote:

---

Berlinski's radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy”he's more concerned with what we don't know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn't there and seeks out the things that can't be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia”a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He's merely its most methodical practitioner.

---

From Wiki 'Berslinski shares the movement's disbelief in the evidence for evolution, but does not openly avow intelligent design and describes his relationship with the idea as: "warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."

I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. Discovering the special circumstances where the soft-bodied precursors are preserved is a fantastic discovery - how could this in any way possibly shake evolution? Surely we want as many of these discoveries as possible?