Search results

Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. And ID is not anti-evolution if one defines evolution simply as “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry. However, the National Association of Biology Teachers...

John Dough wrote: How do you measure design? One way would be to first measure “chance” then take the reciprocal to get the design metric. If you understand that then you understand why the chance hypothesis of evolution is (at the least) not superior to the design hypothesis.

TraderNik wrote: First of all, I never claimed ID was a theory. Second, where is the evidence of a non-teleological origin of life? Where is the evidence that only non-teleological mechanisms were behind all major evolutionary transitions?

TraderNik wrote: Stephen Meyer says:

TraderNik wrote: ID is an investigation into how evolution occurs. You can't discuss ID without discussing evolution.

John Dough wrote: Where are the experiments that prove a non-teleological origin of life? Where are the experiments that prove that only non-teleological mechanisms were behind all major evolutionary transitions?

John Dough wrote: ID is an investigation of the following possibilities: Things were designed to evolve. Evolution was designed. Evolution was used by design.

John Dough wrote: Once again, ID does not dispute that evolution happens.

John Dough wrote: ID isn't anti-evolution. Try again.

TraderNik wrote: You are obviously confused. The issue isn't about proving or disproving ID. Someone here claimed that there was no evidence of ID in the natural world. I'm just trying to determine how seriously I should take their claim. Is it coming from someone that knows what evidence...

John Dough wrote: Fine, you can believe anything you want but you are mucking up the thread when you respond to a post and refer to the poster by a different name than the one on the post. In addition to referring to me as Z are you going to sometimes call me Jem or Jampiler? For all I...

John Dough wrote: So, you are going to start referring to me as Z? And this despite the fact that on another thread you said you recognized the difference in style and content between my posts and Z's posts. If you are going to ignore the obvious facts in order to take cheap shots at me...

TraderNik wrote: Would you recognize evidence of ID if you saw it? Why don't you tell us what you would count as evidence of ID? Every time I ask this question all I get are crickets chirping.

What is "The Wedge"? Recently, a few Intelligent Design (ID) critics have created some confusion over the meaning of "The Wedge." Several statements made by ID detractors in books and blogs have suggested "The Wedge" to be a partially concealed strategy by well-funded religious fanatics to...

John Dough wrote: Are you claiming that the conclusions of the article contradict what is stated in the introduction? John Dough wrote: I never said it did. The purpose of the quote was to refute your assertion that evolution is random. And here's another one for you to consider...

John Dough wrote: I read the article and I doubt that you understand my position. In any event, you were claiming that the evolutionary process is random. The article I posted refutes this. I don't see how it can be made any more explicit. The title of the article is: A Biochemical...

John Dough wrote: No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of...

Anyone that thinks Teleologist and ZZZ are same person is an idiot. There is clear distinction between our posts as John has noted.

John Dough wrote: Total rubbish. I refer you to the Journal of Bacteriology, June 2000, p. 2993-3001, Vol. 182, No. 11 Therein you will find this article: A Biochemical Mechanism for Non-random Mutations and Evolution Here is an excerpt from the introduction:

John Dough wrote: Nonsense. Show how refuting YEC rules out design. Science has no test to distinguish between design and non-design. If it did we wouldn't be having this debate.