Defence of Intelligent Design

We all know that Walt wants to support creation, a religious view of science. So if Walt were to debate, he couldn't hold creation as an alternative to evolution, yet he wants to argue just that. It seems Walt is in violation of his own rules from the outset. All Meert was doing is pointing to the basis of his theories, the Genesis account, and giving Walt the opportunity to talk about the basis of his theories. It seems Walt is afraid to do this and has ducked the debate with Meert.If you want a continuation of this discussion, I would suggest opening a new thread. But just remember, reiterating that Meert wanted to bring religion into the debate is missing the overwhelming religious push that Walt wanted to bring to the table.

What many people on here have tried to convey is that Intelligent Design is not science, it is an opinion with very little evidence to back it up. You do know the difference between an opinion and science, correct? For example, ID comes down to a few points of opinion:1. Claim: Organisms are too complex to have evolved, they must have been designed.This is an opinion, being that there is no evidence given other than incredulity. Also, design is said to be self evident. I could just as easily say that the speed of light is incorrect, nothing can travel THAT fast. I could then expound on how the methods used to measure light HAVE to be wrong because I can't conceive of anything going that fast. I could then say that the theories on which the speed of light are based are JUST theories and shouldn't be trusted since they haven't been proven 100%. Is my scenario scientific? Or is it opinion devoid of evidence?2. CLAIM: Some biological systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC), therefore evolution could not have created these systems.Again, opinion. What evidence is there that evolution can not produce IC systems? Behe certainly does not offer any. He instead relies on the predisposition of his audience to swallow his OPINION as truth. In fact, there are IC systems that do show step by step progression in the fossil record. One such system is the middle ear. If you want, I can run through the evolution of this IC system, or you can peruse through it here.3. CLAIM: The designer does not have to be a supernatural being.This is clearly faulty logic. The first designer had to occur naturally, otherwise there must be an appeal to supernatural intervention. If the first designer came about by natural means, why deny that life here on earth could have come about by natural means. Could complexity be a hallmark of all life, regardless of origins? They still haven't answered this statement, and they still have to rely upon supernatural intervention at somepoint in the process.I don't know if you support or do not support the ID premise, but these are the problems I see from a scientific point of view.

quote:

---

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...

---

What do you mean by fully formed? Do you mean a fish with no tail, only half formed? What would a transitional fossil look like using your criteria of "fully formed"? Of course every fossil is fully formed, otherwise it couldn't feed itself. It's kind of hard to chase down prey if you are not fully formed.I've thought about the misrepresentations that you seem to stick to, fully formed fossils among them. I came to the conclusion that you have not even looked at the logic that you put forth. Let me ask you this. BTW, this is a hypothetical situation where evolution is understood to be affecting morphology through time, you need not agree with evolution only understand the hypothetical situation. We go into the future (lets say 20 million years) and find that there is a dolphin like creature that somewhat resembles lion seals. The dolphin-like aquatic mammal has a blowhole at the top of its head, but its pectoral fins display small claws that resemble those found in seals. We then go back through time to the present, observing along the way the evolution of the lion seals to dolphin-like mammals. Now, back in the present, would you characterize lion seals as fully formed? Or would you say they are not fully formed since they don't have a blow hole on the top of their head.On top of all this, we still haven't dug up every fossil out there, probably much less than 1% of the total fossils in the earth. Secondly, not every species is recorded in the fossil record. For instance, has anyone every found a fossil of a carrier pigeon? If not, then this species will never be a part of the fossil record, much less the few transitionals that link the carrier pigeon to a common ancestor with other pigeons. Thirdly, fossilization rarely preserves soft tissue, usually only hard tissue such as bones and cartilage. Therefore, changes in soft tissue morphology are often lost in transitionals, changes that could easily trigger rapid changes in hard tissues that could be observed in real time but is lost due to the rarity of fossilization.With these points in mind, how can the fossil record with nebulously defined "fully formed" fossils realy be an indication of design? Add this to superposition theory and dating techniques (which you have yet to refute) which create a readable timeline along evolutionary lines. What design lacks is evidence. Until then it is an unsupported opinion and little else.

quote:

---

JonF, I heard the Neanderthals hands were not curved, that their backs were not hunched over, given the bible infers there were giants in them days, that they were competent in smelting iron, bronze to the making of impliments kjv genesis 4:22, etc...when you look at the pleistocene fossils, they talk of giant beavers, anteaters, mammoths, etc... Atlantisquest.com which are not evident today, and given you all believe pleistocene fossils were quite recently, why wouldn't our biblical ancestors be quite large too, etc...

---

As soon as we find fossils of a giant human species, like the giant land sloth fossils, then your hypothesis will have more weight. So far, no large apes whatsoever, much less hominids. Given that the Hebrews could have been small in stature on average, a culture that averaged 6 feet tall could have been impressive.

quote:

---

P.S. The sediments that erupted out of the earth would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, these contaminants would of leached into the basalts, igneous rocks, by dual porosity, no wonder the different dating methods appear to agree one to the other, but really its meaningless, due to said processes, etc...

---

We have already shot holes through your leaching hypothesis. Argon does not leach out and then back into rocks, otherwise lunar rocks would date very young, and they don't. Also, if there was leaching, meteors would date young as well since they would lose all of their argon to the vacuum of space. Instead they date to more than 4 billion years old. Then, you have to rely on selective leaching of isotopes of the same element between different layers of rock, something that water solubility is not affected by. Sorry, your leaching model doesn't work.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-23-2004]

quote:

---

Loudmouth, Dual porosity requires water(Water Table,etc...), your not factoring in the weak electrical current generated by earth ground (the electron sink), I thought I heard that its possible to connect a copper radiator in stream lower than the house, why people have used a water flowing and connect an insulated copper wire to the insulated metal roof, to generate an electric current, etc...

---

I am starting a new thread for you, Whatever, on dual porosity etc... You seem to be asserting your position on faulty dating in every thread, regardless of topic, so I thought it might be handy to concentrate it within one thread. etc....I may be gone this weekend, but may check in sometime. etc...PS (etc...) You might want to bone up on the reactivity of argon, and the solubility of isotopes in water, etc... Not just solubility between elements, but also between isotopes of the same element. etc... Oh, and etc...

If Noah's family are the only survivors from the global flood, then aren't we all Jewish? Don't we all have the genes passed down from Noah? In fact, if Adam and Eve were the original humans, aren't we all descendents of those two, hence all of us are Jewish?How many generations from the flood did it take for gentiles genes to become corrupted?