What exactly is ID?

shoulda did the phrase:Recurrent laryngeal nerve - Wikipedia

Sorry, it is called the "recurrent laryngeal nerve". So much to remember, so little time. Yes, I was researchers at Duke University according to a report emailed to me from Dr. Mercola years ago. It stuck in my mind because I had an interest in the evolution / ID debate years ago. This time I just checked the internet to see if I remembered it right.HTTP 429However, do you really think you can convince the dogmatic neo-Darwinists?I can also argue their reference to the eye is a lame argument. Their recurrent laryngeal nerve is a better argument against design. I tested myself for the blind spot months ago. Turn the page that allows you to test for it a little bit clockwise or counterclockwise and the spot reappears. You never would notice it if one of your eyes was closed without testing for it. Our inverted retina is a space saver relative to the verted retina. Many evolutionists won't even consider that verted retinas are more susceptible to being damaged by light. It may have been no accident that the lights were off in the salt water tank in the Florida Aquarium, where I was last summer. It was the only tank with a celaphopod. Stephen Meyer was apparently correct that the human eye is an example of what engineers call constrained optimization.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

So you think that the argument "You believe in a Jewish wizard really therefore all your arguments are just obviously wrong" is going to hold sway and persuade who exactly? What about the vast number of people who haven't really considered the issue much beyond thinking "well it can't all just be random so I believe in something"? By your definition these people are creationists too! What? No. You are the one lumping all believers together as creationists really. I am saying that it is more complex than that. I am saying most believers agree with you and I that ID isn't science and that it should not be taught as science. I am saying that the evidential arguments presented in favour of ID need to be tackled and not just dismissed via ad-hominem attacks. Except that most of those you are accusing of believing in "Jew magic" (including Hindus bewilderingly), advocate the teaching of evolution as science and not teaching ID as science. Which is what the actual creationists driving the ID political movement under discussion are trying to disrupt.How does lumping together those believers that agree with you about the main issue of science education and genuine creationists help tackle the creationist inspired ID movement and it's educational aims?What are you trying to achieve Nuggin? Are you trying to tackle the social issues of the ID movement and it's attempt to infiltrate education? Or are you out to show that all believers in any even vague form of ID are wrong?I am happy to join you in either quest. But the first is socially important and the second, as much fun as it can be, is an irresolvable exercise in intellectual masturbation.Let's get our priorities right.

Two problems here. First, the appendix is not unique to mankind. The same structure is found at the end of the caecum in many, many species (most of which are stricty herbivorous). The human vermiform appendix is a rudimentary version of the caecum.Second, the function that the appendix performs in humans is a secondary, rudimentary function compared to the same structure in other species. In other species it is a vital component for digesting plant material. In humans, it is not. In fact, people are born without an appendix all of the time and they suffer no consequences from it. Even more, the death rate of untreated appendicitis is much higher than the health benefits it affords.What you are arguing for is that a broken tv is not actually broken because you can tie a rope to it and use it for as a boat anchor. Sorry, but if the tv doesn't produce a picture its broken. The human vermiform appendix does not aid in the digestion of plant material. It is broken. It is even worse than broken. It is a serious health risk.

That would require understanding our argument to begin with. Vestigial does not mean without function. Vestigial means serving a rudimentary or secondary function compared to the same feature in a different species. This definition fits the human appendix to a T. Then the squid eye is poorly designed.Let me ask you this. If you were designing a digital camera would you pass the wires for the photoreceptors in front of the the photoreceptors? Is that a smart choice?

You seem to think that people who are not a part of the debate will somehow catch wind of the debate.I would be amazed if even 10% of the web traffic at EVC was unaware of what "EVC" stood for.

How many members of the public that are not directly involved in the ID movement or involved in fighting it's claims and aims are aware that the debate exists? Probably most. Well exactly. There are many more following the debate than actively participating in it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This debate is pretty noisy, isn't it? There seem to be a lot of different agendas working back and forth. In a case like this, where there may be too much information and not enough organization, a good strategy to reduce the noise level and find out what's really going on behind the riot is orthogonal filtering on perceived bias.Let's use the OJ Simpson trial for an example. It's a pretty confusing issue still to this day. Hard to see who is saying what, and for what reason. So let's go ahead and look at the perceived bias. The side that say he is innocent claim that white people are prejudiced against him. Never mind whether you agree with this or not. Let's go ahead and filter orthogonally. First, let's look at the "Guilty" side, and remove all white people. This may seem unfair, but it doesn't matter. Any good arguments being made by whites on this side are going to be repeated by non-whites on the same side.Now, for the rough part. Let's look at the side who say he is "Innocent". And let's remove all non-whites.. Wow, that really clarifies the argument, doesn't it? There are still people talking on both sides. But there are a lot of agreements now. Pretty much everyone concurs that he knew much more than he ever told about what happened. A big part of the question of guilt is now whether he knew before or after the fact. Those who think he didn't do it, tend to think he is protecting whoever did, likely his son. The nonsense about a police frame-up has vanished altogether, both sides tend to agree the police actually screwed up the prosecution, whether intentionally or through incompetence.Wasn't that amazing? Admittedly, this isn't the sort of thing that will stand up in court. It's a method of getting a better approach to truth, not proof. But it's still well worth doing, if you want to know what's really going on. Notice that it's a little counter-intuitive, in that you go ahead and take the minority view of perceived bias. But it works, it works great!So, let's do this with the Intelligent Design controversy. The proponentsists say that there is an atheist bias towards teaching naturalistic methodologies. Let's take them at their word. Let's look at the "e" side and temporarily filter out every single atheist. Wow! Things got a little quieter, a little more reasoned. There seems to be a bit less ideology, it's easier to hear the ongoing debates about actual science, real hypotheses based on real data, testable predictions, experiments that have been or could be done, new data in the form of replicable results. Dawkins is gone, but Darwin is still there.Now for the really fun part. Let's look at the "c" side and remove all non-atheists. Yep, you. No, Chandra, blue gods do count. See you after the break. Don't forget your purse, sir.(Crickets chirp. A pin drops. The voice of the turtle is heard in the land.)Noise reduction complete.Edited by Iblis, : and let Reason prevail

I have been vanquished!And Nuggin has truly out-atheitised me in this thread! So he is vanquished too! Either way it is prob time I left this thread.A good point well made on your part.

Boy are you confused! Paragraph 1 stated what the argument from authority actually is: Paragraph 2 stated what it definitely is not: It was paragraphs 1 and 2 that gave the right and wrong definitions of the argument from authority. Paragraph 3 was a concluding statement emphasizing the point made in paragraph 2. So when you say: That's because they were stating the exact same thing, just in different terms.--Percy

Okay, I'm one of those non-atheists and so I shouldn't be here, but there is one contradiction (IMO) that I'd like you're take on.ID vs. "Survival of the fittest/Instincts/Nature takes it course"What is the "why" behind evolution? Why evolve? Why survive?~3DSOC

Why not?Seriously, the deep meaning you are looking for isn't the business of the class you are trying to insert it into. Science can tell us what, how, even when and where. But it isn't its job to tell us why, not in the sense that you mean. The best "why" science can come up with is, which particular aspect of mutation or natural selection caused this change or that extinction.Complaining about this is like complaining that theology doesn't tell us how to get to the moon, or that social studies doesn't give us a good understanding of square roots. Part of the problem is that the theology you have been exposed to is a very bad, ignorant, illiterate kind. Study some real theology, step away from the people who claim that any God who doesn't fit their limited interpretation doesn't count. They are idol-worshippers, that's all. God is smarter than them, he won't fit inside anybody's head the way they pretend he does. They are really just worshipping their head. Anathema maranatha.

That's not a good way to approach this. But let me welcome you anyway! I hope you stick around for a while. Several points:Evolution is not "survival of the fittest"--it is reproduction of the barely adequate. Or, if you want to be technically correct it is change in the genome from generation to generation. That's all.As for "why evolve?" That is pretty simple--populations evolve to better survive when conditions change. Within each population there is a range of variation, enhanced by occasional mutations. When conditions change that range will move up or down the bell curve to better adapt to those conditions. By doing so they are better able to pass their genes on to the next generation. Over time those changes result in speciation, but that was not the plan from the beginning. Speciation just sort of happens.Beyond that you might try philosophy or theology or one of those other nebulous subjects for the "why" questions.

---

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

Hi 3D. Welcome to EvC. As a matter of fact we need you here at this site and you need us, regardless of ideology. As iron sharpens iron, we sharpen one another here. We creationists can learn from our secularist friends and hopfully teach them as well. Btw, many evolutionists are not athiests. The implication of your question raises a pertinent point which bodes well for the ID hypothesis. As well, as per the topic title question, one of the aspects of ID is that it emphatically emplies purpose relative to the whys and wherefores of observed complexity.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Coyote. Perhaps the more difficult questions would be, why abiogenesis, why the progression from abiogenesis to evolution and why the drive for survival in biogenesis and early alleged eras of evolution. Just as the house has a purpose and ID blueprint for the progression from trees to cut boards to house, so ID raises none of the afore mentioned questions relative to origins.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.