Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

Crappy designers get fired.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Unless they are self-employed, which, by most accounts, the demi-urge which created this world is.

But do they get new Clients?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I just want you to know that I think you are a funny guy. You get your jabs in while wrapping it in humorous phrases.I think better late than never is a cliche that applies here.I have (in the past) adequately complimented your argument/post that began this particular exchange. Listen closely, I objectively see and understand your arguments. (even though I disagree) You argue that if IDists want to submit designs that they believe indicate intelligence, THEN in response you point out designs that are suboptimal that begs the question "why not these ?"IF this is your argument then it assumes that some designs might be intelligently designed, but because a lot of others are clearly suboptimal, then these inferior designs cannot be overlooked. Too much suboptimal and the claimed intelligently designed designs are lost in the crowd. Besides, you don't see any design at all - this is just a response to anyone who initiates a claim of ID.D.T. quote:
______________________________________________________________________
So you admit that they are crappy, and that the allegedly intelligent designer did do things poorly.
______________________________________________________________________Not IF the Designer intentionally made them this way. I believe micro-evolution within (animal) species is a fact. I believe the entire micro-evolution of a species clearly evidences an IDer - suboptimal and all.D.T. excerpt:
______________________________________________________________________
No? Not ‘perfect? and not even optimal? You are claiming an intelligent designer might use designs that are blatantly poor.Under what definition of intelligent can you include ‘being stupid?Just what, then, does your ‘hypothesis?predict? Absolutely bloody anything. You are saying that, yes, the designer did do a whole bunch of stupid things, but he’s clever really.
______________________________________________________________________God deliberately set in motion the evolution of the animal kingdom. He does not micro manage/hands on supervise it. BECAUSE too much demonstration of ID negates the supreme avenue to embrace Him in - the written word. The source that IDists obtain their claims from is the Bible and that source declares that God can be deduced from what is seen/made. Notice I said "deduced" - that is the claim - nothing else. This claim is made in the context (Romans 1) of ANY person of any educational level (illiterate savage or university professor and every degree in between) CAN deduce that He created with their naked eye, that He created in such a way that this deduction can be made by every human being.IDists come along, and in RESPONSE to long time claims of evolution; that animals today are the product of ultra slow/millions of years evolution/step by tiny step, and identify IC systems and say "what gives ? How does an IC system evolve in the evolutionary processes that we have been taught ?" Behe's IC systems certainly should put the theory back in the ToE.Now, in response to Behe's IC systems we get flimsy replies of "it could of evolved".Rhetorically speaking, How ?But that is not the point DT.The point is IC systems defy traditional evolutionary processes of ultra slow step by tiny step. IC systems, objectively described, evidence ID in this context, which is in the chronological sequence of the evo-creo debate. That sequence has Darwinism declaring the non existence of the God of Genesis via the discoveries of RM/NS because Genesis has living things 6-7 thousand years old, then as science progresses IDists discover evidence which disproves slow evolutionary processes, and the debate now goes back in forth about ID. If you want to insult my intelligence and stick to the standard "science makes no statements concerning the Divine" then please go here and consider this:http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KINGThe opening page; especially at the end I involve you.Excerpt of mine from another topic:
______________________________________________________________________
Now Cal State physicist Mark Perakh has written a book called "Unintelligent Design" (2004). This book is specifically written to counter the claims of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson.Perakh Quote :"Of course, the proponets of ID theory may insist that the alleged intelligent Creator is not constrained in His choice of design and can, if He wishes so, create systems which appear random despite having been designed. This argument would essentially make the entire dispute meaningless by erasing any discernable difference between objects or events that are designed and those that are not." END QUOTEI interpret this statement to say "randomness" also means a Creator/Designer was not involved.Once again, how does the scientific evidence of random (mutation) suggest no Creator ? END EXCERPT
______________________________________________________________________This excerpt and your comment in the link at the end of the post are both related and compatible. They rule out the God of Genesis (contrary to the claims of RE/MN) and they equate randomness to evidence against the Divine (also contrary to the Divine neutral claims of RE/MN).Another excerpt of mine:
______________________________________________________________________
Physicist Mark Perakh, in his 2004 book "Unintelligent Design" wants to refute Behe by redefining IC systems to already belong to Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) which of course is a product of randomness/chance.This refutation (providing that I have accurately represented his position) is in fact not a refutation, but an admission that the systems are IC (which Perakh assumes as he is not a micro biologist) and that the IC systems are to be arbitrarily assigned to randomness.
This "refutation" completely ignores and fails to address Behe's claim against the long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. I was extremely disappointed to see Behe's claims sidestepped.
______________________________________________________________________This excerpt evidences a "flimsy" explanation of IC sytems. Perakh (an evo - one of you guys) arbitrarily declares IC systems to have randomly evolved, which still begs the question HOW ? How did these IC systems evolve step by tiny step ?How did blood clotting systems evolve ? This is rhetorical, the answer is that they didn't, "could of" is laughable, it is better to simply say "score one for ID".That "one" though is all the supreme source claims, meaning the fingerprints and tracks of God are intermittent, here and there, that is, the obviously overdone ones that clearly evidence an IDer. Behe's IC systems are a big fat fingerprint of God because of how overdone and obvious they are. These systems stick out and punch gaping holes in the theory that emotively and reportively (ToE) claims that the God of Genesis was not the Creator.BTW, if you are interested in reading how chance, fluke, and accident are really vehicles of Divine control then go here:http://EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KING -->EvC Forum: PHILOSOPHY IS KINGI do not understand the link about Evolution of Flagella.D.T. quote:
______________________________________________________________________
1. Please define intelligent design.2. Please explain why an intelligent designer might form idiotic contraptions. What definition of ‘intelligent design?predicts stupid design?
______________________________________________________________________Answers:1) Evidence which defies the ultra slow evolutionary processes (like IC sysytems) and/or any evidence which convincingly falsifies long established "facts" of evolution.2) Already answered above, but to add to it; the so called "stupid designs" are the result of a much larger intelligently designed system that created/produced them.The inordinate focus upon the "suboptimal" is the comforting of oneself/reaction to the "startling alternative" of ID evidence.BTW, what is a navel gazing twerp ?I suspect that this post owes you replies to things still pending, please let me know.DT, I like debating wth you even though a dose of humility would suit you better.Best regards,WTEdit: Can anyone tell me how and or why those funny little symbols get in the messages - the ones that replace/obscure letters ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-20-2004 09:53 PM

This is clearly on the topic of ID. Which is clearly not the topic of this thread.Would anyone responding to this take it to one of the ID threads instead. Thank you.It may be that this thread has run it's course now anyway and can be shut down.Does anyone want to keep it open?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-20-2004 09:58 PM

Kill it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How so ?The post I responded to contained in the first sentence a link to the relevant post which started the exchange.If it wasn't off topic then......then why is it now ?I think D.T. should be allowed to respond.There is no harm.Please wait a little while longer ?Willowtree

I think Willowtree is trying to copy old arguments into different threads so nobody will know how badly he lost the first time. He knows perfectly well that there is no real argument that IC represents a significant problem for evolution.

Take it to an ID thread. This way others will be able to find it.

How do I do that ?How will D.T. know ?Whatever you say I will cooperate.Its just that this topic is like there for a long time, then I answer an outstanding post, then D.T. answers back, then I answer.....It seems two members are doing what they are supposed to be doing (debating). Can you move this present exchange (between D.T. and I) to another appropriate arena ?It also seems two other members are not debating but seeking to kill this present debate without reason and to crown themselves winners without addressing any of the issues/points.If I have been "defeated" then show everyone how and where OR withdraw the assertion AKA loser talk.It also seems this is an unwarranted Admin intrusion. The exchange is not off topic UNLESS you want to retroactively rule that it was way back when, then in this case I agree, but I still see no harm in letting this go on for a little while longer.

Evidence these "old defeated" arguments or admit you can't. I am waiting......

The topic is Evidence for Evolution. How is a discussion of ID a fit to that topic?Others will bring up the ID issues again and again. It is desirable to make it easy for them to find what has been said before. It won't be so easy if there are buried here.see: Intelligent Design CreationismIf you post to an ID thread and leave a link to it here the DT will have no trouble finding it. (even without a link s/he shouldn't have a problem as it will be high on the updated thread list).Topic drift often happens a little at a time. We all do it. That's why we have moderators watching and trying to remember to help guide things a bit.No one here is attempting to kill any debate. I am not either. I am simply suggesting that it carry on in a more appropriate place. Where did I suggest killing the debate?No harm in a little while longer? The topic of ID is not a "little while" type topic. There isn't going to be a quick exchange and then back to the evidence for evolution.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-21-2004 02:02 PM

Agreed.Waiting for instructions or I will look for what you said.

D.T.:If this topic is closed then post your reply in the ID Forum. This will enable all who are interested to participate.I guess just post in any appropriate topic, like Mr. Hambre's.Willowtree.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 05-21-2004 03:07 PM

You know full well that Behe admitted that IC systems could evolve. I even located the quote for you. So all you have is Behe's opinion - an opinion that even Behe has yet to offer any real support for.And of course there's your recent attempt to revive your claims over the deaths of the apostles in another thread. And of course when I point out some of the real facts I get no answer to my post.