Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@FBM,

Your Faith in Future Answers is duly noted.
Call me then.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

No faith. Evidence. Wake me up when you have some for your god hypothesis, dreamer. Wink

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

No faith. Evidence. Wake me up when you have some for your god hypothesis, dreamer

Really? All the evidence that is provided is circular! That is, it is only evidence if you already believe in that bullshit! if you are not biased towards the religion of macro evolution it is no evidence at all!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Now you're catching on! The being who made it IS more interesting,

Are you really too blind to see it's the same question? Regardless of how long the chain of intelligent designers somewhere it all had to start without design. You've disappeared up your own cognitive asshole.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

Are you really too blind to see it's the same question? Regardless of how long the chain of intelligent designers somewhere it all had to start without design. You've disappeared up your own cognitive asshole.

Not as far up my asshole as those who say they have all the answers. I have pointed out potential answers to the question of 'where did God come from' that are just as plausible as the ones atheists have for the origin of life. I'm just not stupid enough to say that I'll have the definitive answer 'in the future'. THAT truly requires one to dissapear completely up the A-hole.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The fossil record displays the many twists and turns life has taken on this planet. Does this mean that your creator is constantly in attendance to "tweak and re-create" organisms along the way?. (Sort of like your watchmaker).

According to what fossils tell us, Whenever an environmental cataclysm or a mass extinction event occured, the results were a "bloom" of entirely new critters that were adapted to the new environment. So all this is the work of an intelligence?

Vestigial organs and morphological features can be seen in todays animals and we can trace when the changes began to occur.
For example,
1There are a series of ex-anadromus fish that have been "captured" behind water power dams that colonials built in the late 1600's of the Connecticut River. A few of these dams had "captured" anadromous fish (alewives) at this time. These fish that were held behind the dams have evolved to fit the new fresh water environment and have developed several body features that allow the fish to feed on algae on the rocks (like a few bass species). Theyve actually begun to show hardened "beak like" features on their mouth parts, and theyve developed larger body fins to "feel" their way through the weedy waters.

2. Cave fish in several cave systems are unique "daughter species" to the species that occur in the lakes and rivers nearest to the caves in which they occur. These fish have evolved eyespots that, when looked at genetically, clearly link to an increased ability for taste and smell sensing by the fishes. These species are unique to only that cave system, so that the cave fish of Lecheguila, are totally diofferent from the fishes in Mammoth Cave or the cave fish in the Karst of Yugoslavia.
God has to be a busy dude catching up with making teaks on species that result from bith natural and man-made environmental changes.
Which brings up another question--who was responsible for all those geological environmental changes that required species to evolve?

I have a theory about all this which has a lot of evidence that states that all this evolvin is pretty-much (maybe 90%) adaptive to environmental changes and that we aint seen a big mound of evidence fer creators, unicorns, or leprechauns (unless , like Frank, you consider the product of one unfalsifiable event times another unfalsifiable event is falsifiable and therefore is real science)

If we review the title of Wandels entire thread, I would take it that you agree that ID is NOT science and IS religion

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The fossil record displays the many twists and turns life has taken on this planet. Does this mean that your creator is constantly in attendance to "tweak and re-create" organisms along the way?. (Sort of like your watchmaker).

Just how blind can you cause yourself to be, Farmerman.

If there is a god...why could the god not just set things in motion...and have the result be whatever happens?

Evolution, for instance.

The "creator" does not have to tweak any more than it has to be considered an object of veneration or love.

IF THE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A GOD...THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

That seems to bother you and a few others here much, much more than your silly atheism seems to bother the theists here.

What a terrible thing that is to have to bring to your attention.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, youre continually making a fool of yourself. You dont engage in debate, you shout bumper stickers.
Excuse me if I dont favor you with a reply because actually, theres nothing to which I can reply.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Frank, youre continually making a fool of yourself. You dont engage in debate, you shout bumper stickers.
Excuse me if I dont favor you with a reply because actually, theres nothing to which I can reply.

Thank you for your reply, Farmerman.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

@Leadfoot,
The fossil record displays the many twists and turns life has taken on this planet. Does this mean that your creator is constantly in attendance to "tweak and re-create" organisms along the way?. (Sort of like your watchmaker).

This of course gets into the micro vs macro evolution discussion. Assuming there was a God involved in starting life on the planet then of course he would have seen the necessity of making life adaptable to the predictable and inevitable environmental changes that would occur during the 4 billion year history of life here. For these adaptive changes, no direct involvement by a God would be required if he did his work right.

When it comes to macro evolution (all new body plans, etc) I think that calls for intervention. Neither of us can prove it either way but the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing if you think there is the slightest chance that intelligence was involved. I've already mentioned the Cambrian explosion with estimates running between 10 - 30 million years which seems far too short to come up with the proliferation of radically different body plans, vertebrates, etc, if only environmental pressures are responsible. But I could be wrong about that. Maybe the designer is better than I can envision. Maybe his opening break shot sank all the striped balls without any more shots required.

'Pure' evolution advocates put forth the mutation argument (cosmic ray/radiation caused DNA changes) along with environment to explain the accelerated rate of change but that seems more like the stuff of Godzilla movies when I try to justify it that way. I can't wrap my head around some species staying so stable for 300 - 400 million years even through multiple extinction events (cockroaches for example) and then Homo Sapiens springs up 'overnight' by comparison. There ought to be more "sentient" species if it's all chance evolution and natural selection. I put 'sentient' in quotes because I don't think we have a clue as to what that (or even 'intelligence') means. See thread on 'Is AI Even Possible' thread if interested.

I don't expect these arguments to change anyones mind, especially if you start with the assumption that an intelligent designer is not in the realm of possibility.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I guess if you just ignore evidence then your argument would make sense.

Micro vs Macro is a made up argument to dismiss evolution. It is meaningless since Macro is simply Micro over a long period of time with billions and billions of creatures each year.

Quote:

I've already mentioned the Cambrian explosion with estimates running between 10 - 30 million years

Yes, you did mention it and then you completely ignored the evidence that showed your argument was based on ignorance of the actual time frame.

Quote:

I can't wrap my head around some species staying so stable for 300 - 400 million years even through multiple extinction events

Your inability to wrap your head around that concept explains quite well why you can't argue against the actual theory of evolution but can only argue against some "theory" you imagine exists.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.[1][2] Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.

This is what Wikipedia says about the Cambrian explosion . Put up your evidence or you're not worth the keystrokes to reply.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

This of course gets into the micro vs macro evolution discussion. Assuming there was a God involved in starting life on the planet then of course he would have seen the necessity of making life adaptable to the predictable and inevitable environmental changes that would occur during the 4 billion year history of life here. For these adaptive changes, no direct involvement by a God would be required if he did his work right.

See, youre into this computer programming crap. We see that genomes of daughter species are DIFFERENT in ways that only the environment has established. SO, in reality, you are saying that the entire parade of earths history and all life is a pre-recorded record. That too is non falifible so it aint science.

PS, "micro v macro" evolution is only a real discussion among the creationist?IDers who want to avert their eyes from all adaptive changes that "grow" on species(o else lead that species to extinction).

I believe that the evidence for "intervention" is not well analyzed for completeness and QA. You have to give me a discussion on the changes through a turbulent geological history (Unless, of course God is a control freak who merely wants to APPEAR INCOMPETENT.

The Cambrian explosion only accounts for roughly 1/3 of the Phyla that appeared through the Cambrian to the Cenozoic. AND the actual length of the Cambrian explosion can be found in a discussion I started many years ago here. (I called it a CAmbrian ignition). The major occurence in the "Explosion" was that Carbonate tests became possible (because, at the Cryogenian terminus excess Oxygen was only then being pumped into the aquatic environment as a zootic residua) WHat was a toxic gas had life forms expand and evolve (THESE LIFE FORMS, like DIckinsonia etc, already existed but with very teeny mantles)

Quote:

Pure' evolution advocates put forth the mutation argument (cosmic ray/radiation caused DNA changes)

You are wrong once again. Mutation is a mere constant mechanism that occurs at a fast rate (TIMES THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS AT ANY TIME). SO mutation occurs like crazy. Evolution occurs primarily as a result of an organisms ability to adapt (whether its nat selection, extinction of competition, or adaptive radiation ). Evolution is not a random occurrence its a process that is not stochastic. A God has to be on his game to keep tweaking species AND the environment. Your posts certainly dont do anything to advance your belief.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

A God has to be on his game to keep tweaking species AND the environment. Your posts certainly dont do anything to advance your belief.

I'm always amazed at the limits people put on their imagined Gods. Like a GOD would have trouble handling species AND environment if he wanted to?

I'm not here to evangelize, this is basically a sociology study. Thank you for the help.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I'm just not stupid enough to say that I'll have the definitive answer 'in the future'. THAT truly requires one to dissapear completely up the A-hole.

A definitive answer in the future is more possible than the existence of an intelligent designer now. And extrapolating on past performance we do tend to figure out things that people said we'd never figure out. I know where my money is going.

'sociological study'? Interesting version of 'beeping while truck reversing'.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

we keep pushing back the "reality" of an IDer . Anyway, Darwin himself relied on things like
"In the future I suspect that research will show..."

Sometimes just following the results of research can answer a lot. However, ID has not moved a jot past "Life's too complex to have arisen by chance"

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record.[1][2] Lasting for about the next 20–25 million years, it resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.

This is what Wikipedia says about the Cambrian explosion . Put up your evidence or you're not worth the keystrokes to reply.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/roflmao.gif

Now you're asking for evidence??? When did you ever present a single scrap of it for your god hypothesis? We've been asking and waiting for a while now...

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

we keep pushing back the "reality" of an IDer . Anyway, Darwin himself relied on things like
"In the future I suspect that research will show..."

Sometimes just following the results of research can answer a lot. However, ID has not moved a jot past "Life's too complex to have arisen by chance"

Not all people who suggest intelligent design is not an impossibility...go to that catch-phrase you are trying to sell.

There may be a god...and the god may have designed exactly what we see happening. Evolution itself may be a designers way of putting into motion what it wants put into motion.

YOU are an atheist with a hidden agenda in your discussions of evolution and "intelligent design theory." And that hidden agenda is that you do not want to acknowledge that all of what we see...may be part of the intelligent design of a god (or a species far advanced from ours.)

You are the lesser for it.

If you want to improve your position...you can do it by incorporating more of what I have been suggesting...and what Leadfoot has been saying.

Or...stonewall and stick with the people you are with. Demand that you be the lesser...and it is yours.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
A God has to be on his game to keep tweaking species AND the environment. Your posts certainly dont do anything to advance your belief.
I'm always amazed at the limits people put on their imagined Gods. Like a GOD would have trouble handling species AND environment if he wanted to?

I'm not here to evangelize, this is basically a sociology study. Thank you for the help.

I guess Lardhead here has forgotten entirely what the topic of discussion of this thread is. With remarks such as this, and the one above about what "atheists" think, Lardhead makes it quite clear that "intelligent design theory" is religion, rather than anything one could call, with a straight face, science.

I love it when the holy rollers start telling us what atheists think or believe.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
A God has to be on his game to keep tweaking species AND the environment. Your posts certainly dont do anything to advance your belief.
I'm always amazed at the limits people put on their imagined Gods. Like a GOD would have trouble handling species AND environment if he wanted to?

I'm not here to evangelize, this is basically a sociology study. Thank you for the help.

I guess Lardhead here has forgotten entirely what the topic of discussion of this thread is. With remarks such as this, and the one above about what "atheists" think, Lardhead makes it quite clear that "intelligent design theory" is religion, rather than anything one could call, with a straight face, science.

I love it when the holy rollers start telling us what atheists think or believe.

Despite what you just wrote, I think you do not love it when anyone mentions the deficiencies of atheistic thinking on the topics being discussed here, Sentanta.

Farmerman certainly does not love it.

I think, instead, you both resent it.

There is a possibility that intelligent design is in play...because, at very least, there is the possibility that gods exist.

That thought seems to really bother atheists.

It shouldn't.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know