A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
What I have found in most ID debates is that someone always insists we need to know who designed the designer? As if that makes a difference as to whether or not the apparent design is illusory or not. If that argument held any water it would mean that Stomehenge wasn't designed because we don't know who (or what) designed it.

​

ID gains momentum every time we take a closer look at life. The closer we look, the more complex it appears to be, and the less likely Darwinian step-by-step processes could be responsible for such complexity. The human genome project is not immune to ID rumblings:

​

Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine

​

I, for one, am a proponent of ID as a scientific alternative to materialistic naturalism on the topic of biological evolution. Behe's Darwin's Black Box, along with the likes of Dembski, Johnson, Ratzsch, Wells, Gitt* et al., put forth a very convincing argument for the scientific validity of ID. And as far as I can tell the only argument against ID is philosophical in nature.

​

I understand the 'system architecture' PoV, which is IMO, genomes can be viewed as a computer OS. The alleged junk DNA is nothing of the kind and although those segments of DNA may not code for a protein, they do have a function in the overall program of an organism. Afterall if every piece of DNA coded for a protein, what would be left to tell those proteins what to do and where to do it?

​

*Werner Gitt is a Creationist. However his theroms on information enforce the basic premise of ID- which is 'there is more to life than mother nature plus father time can explain'.

​

---

that link you provided really does make you wonder and confirms god's existence even more in my eyes. there is no chance that all life would be as similar as it without a designer and no randomality can produce so many similar answers while not producing a wild one, which there would be millions of if evolution actually does occur. thanks JP.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different. unless someone has a very very very good explanation, not some link to some long boring experiment i cant understand yet :-)------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Not quite Hom. sap. hasn`t been around long enough to diversify (at least not into new species)...

​

---

but long enough to become human?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Unfortunately, those long boring experiments are exactly what provide evidence for evolution. If you can't understand them yet, perhaps you should hold judgement on your Dwarves & Elves.

​

We do have different races, & pygmies & caucasians look at least as different as dwarves & elves, I think you'll find.

​

There is morpholological, immunological sera reaction, gene sequence, protein amino acid sequence, Pseudogene loci commonality, retroviral insertion loci commonality, non-coding interspersed elements commonality, providing evidence of common descent of primates. Such evidences, used singly, all produce remarkably similar phylogenies (evolutionary trees), when compared to each other.

​

Why would that be? Can you give an answer that explains all of these evidences away, in a manner that doesn't imply common descent?

​

It's going to take a lot more than the baseless assertion that it would be "different without ID", to make science look up from it's collectice bunsen burners & test tubes.

​

Mark

​

ps FYI, the plural of Dwarf, is Dwarfs, not Dwarves (according to Tolkien), for some wierd reason!

​

---

well there were some experiments that i was linked to that were several pages long and difficult to understand. werent pygmies a result of breeding rather than evolution? i dont know much about them.well its tolkien's world so tolkien can do whatever he wants :-). i havent read tolkien's books but i do play dungeons and dragons and it uses dwarves and so do a few other games, like utopia (games.swirve.com/utopia). so take your pick.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

why humans arent drastically different than eachother. like the differences between humanoids in tolkien's books.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

if the pygmies had evolved/breeded for this then wouldnt every territory have a vastly different appearance, since a few populations didnt make major migrations, such as europeans. wouldnt indians have to have evolved for their new environment. i meant human pygmies too maybe it just came out wrong. how can evolution predict where human life will spring up? wouldnt there be several variations from the start. I mean if they'res a definite that humans came from around europe wouldnt they're be a chance that something similar to human would spring up?------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

i meant native americans. i guess you might never be able to change my mind because there too many assumptions and guesses that have to made for the ToE to be proven.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

correctamundo------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:

oh my....reading that or being blind...hum....dont know which is better.
There's nothing BUT assumptions and guesses in creationism....its not substanciated by ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER....not even the begining of a shred of it...

​

---

if i were an evolutionist id probably choose blind too but the difference between the two is that creationism is pure faith and does not need evidence. Evolution would require an exact dateline of all mutations from now to whenever evolutionists think the earth was created, because if one part was missing then us creationists would be able to use divine intervention as an explanation. Religion cant be a science and science cant be a religion, thats where we both make horrible mistakes.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

your signature does sound very stupid and it is stupid i dont think anyone but you would disagree.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Fact of the matter is i'm not an evolutionist...but it seems like the most resonable explanation so far so i tend to lean toward it. Plus,i've reviewed to much historical evidence that cast several doubts on th biblical accounts to simply accept creationist version without rock solid evidence...which is not forth comming so far

​

---

you will never get rock solid evidence on anything epescially anything relating to Jesus or the bible.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
I see no reason why not....if they do exist,then proving their existance should be possible somehow,someway,someday.

​

---

your right but when the apocalypse comes itll be too late to save you.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

shows how willing people are to give in to what others say and not actually do something on their own or come up with their own opinion. we all live as slaves in a sense and its pretty (vulgar word here) pathetic.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Excuse me...when what apocalypse comes exactly? I can name you at least 5 that should have occured within the last 100 years so perhaps could you clarify as to what appocalypse we're supposed to get.

​

---

read the bible plz. the book of revelations explains this.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

i would and i dont see how his opinions are any different from assumptions made by scientists.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi