Intelligent Design is not creationism

I predict we will not see human beings evolve into another distinct and separate species...

Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation, nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species...

Evolutionary theory has to predict a new species evolving from a human being...unless there is something else at work beyond evolutionary theory.

Quote from D2.0:

Here's a little challenge for Iders to put the usefulness of ID in perspective:

SHOW a few USEFUL and TESTABLE predictions using ID theory that CANNOT be made by NON-ID sciences such as Physics, biology, evolutionary biology, chemistry, etc.

Then perhaps we will all see the point of ID better.
More...
 
>Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental
>influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation,
>nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are
>required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species...

The zTroll apparently thinks these thing occur overnight (relatively speaking).

It'll happen... just don't hope to hang around and see it.

JB
 
So you believe it will happen.

Prove it.

Seems like just faith to me....

Quote from Turok:

>Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental
>influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation,
>nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are
>required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species...

The zTroll apparently thinks these thing occur overnight (relatively speaking).

It'll happen... just don't hope to hang around and see it.

JB
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"The Discovery Institute , the center for ID."

Quite a difference between saying the center for ID, and a center for ID.

This is the same type of argument that is used continually by the atheists. They want to frame any debate by their perspective of what ID is, not what other people who disagree with them claim that ID is.

Just like the foolish arguments about God. Atheists continually frame God as the God of Judeo Christian thought and the Western view of God, completely ignoring other ideas of God from Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and other Eastern religions, as well as a Deist's view of life.

I disagree with the Creationist Christian view of ID, but I still am a supporter of ID, and there is no logical inconsistency in having a different opinion of what ID really is.

No ownership of the concept of ID belongs to any group.

It is just as easy to say that the Creationists have hijacked the concept of intelligent design, which has been around much longer than Christianity, and somehow have convinced the masses of atheists and Darwinists that ID is now, and can be nothing but Creationism.

Completely daft, but that is generally what goes on in these word game end games when atheists are involved in trying to define to win a meaningless point.

I will frequently use the phrase ignorant chance to describe the opposite of intelligent design as to explain what intelligent design is. It is not ignorant chance. That's simple enough for most with a working brain to comprehend. Not ignorant chance is what ID really is. A suggestion of non ignorant chance is within the realm of science, and can be as easily studied, tested, and refuted as the claims that are perpetuated "in the name of science" that life is the product of ignorant chance.
More...
the point remains, ID = Creationism


not necessarily just "modern" creationism, but also hindu, jain etc type creationism, renamed, rebranded or not... all the same form of craving for a soothing concept of ultimate causality / unity... thats just not there... but the craving is, right zizzz? cause thats what life is primarily about, craving, identifying causal relations leading to satisfactory outcomes in an attempt to expand the realm of such causal relationships etc for as long as they seem to remain causal etc...

to the unenlightened at least...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I predict we will not see human beings evolve into another distinct and separate species...

Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation, nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species...

Evolutionary theory has to predict a new species evolving from a human being...unless there is something else at work beyond evolutionary theory.
More...

Rubbydubdubrubbish.

How is this a useful and testable prediction? Especially since human evolution clearly shows that the homo sapien is the product of species evolution?

Let me give you an example of a useful and testable prediction.

There was this program on the Discovery Channel where a new species of orchid was found which had its nectar contained in a 12 inch long tube. Most Orchids have their nectar contained in short tubes. And most moths who eat that nectar have tongues which correspond to the length of the average orchid.

The prediction was that there must be a moth which has a long tongue. So an evolutionary biologist set up a camera at night to try to test his prediction. Lo and behold, a new species of moth was found which had a long enough tongue fit for obtaining the nectar in this particular species of Orchid.

What did this prove? Two things. That the prediction based upon evolutionary theory was correct and that it was testable. And that the orchid and the moth have evolved over millions of years to be perfect partners.

Can we say that this particular species of Hawk moth and orchid were designed for each other? Sure. You can say anything. But can you prove it? No. It's pure conjecture based on unscientific dogma.

On the flip side, you can't say, "geepers! Look at that Orchid! There must be a moth designed for it." Because design suggests a static state of being by the very nature of the word. And it puts a considerable onus upon the one who asserts that to prove symbiotic design as oppossed to proving punctuated evolution.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461530192_761578331_1_1/Darwin's_Hawk_Moth.html

http://notexactlyrocketscience.word...ators-–-a-case-study-in-punctuated-evolution/
 
SO I ASK AGAIN...

Quote from D2.0:

Here's a little challenge for Iders to put the usefulness of ID in perspective:

SHOW a few USEFUL and TESTABLE predictions using ID theory that CANNOT be made by NON-ID sciences such as Physics, biology, evolutionary biology, chemistry, etc.

Then perhaps we will all see the point of ID better.
More...
 
Quote from D2.0:

No... you deal with the science because the website you got this from added an interpretation *(by God)* of what Hawkings meant by that. Intellectual dishonesty.

See pantheism.

Post the entire section surrounding Hawking's quote. Let's see the context. Can you do that? Post the entire page. If you can't do that then all you're doing is parroting ID propaganda.

That's why it matters where you got this from.
More...

Parroting - do you know the difference between quotes of physicists and propaganda.

Putting in Parenthesis - so what? it was not misleading. (and I am not sure if they did put in the parenthesis- Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego. )

I am not debating who designed the universe only that there is credible scientific argument that the universe is designed.

Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego.
 
Quote from jem:

Parroting - do you know the difference between quotes of physicists and propaganda.

Putting in Parenthesis - so what? it was not misleading. (and I am not sure if they did put in the parenthesis- Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego. )

I am not debating who designed the universe only that there is credible scientific argument that the universe is designed.

Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego.
More...

A likely story. But I'll take you at your word.

Whenever you get your hands on the copy again, we'll swap notes. Without the context of Hawkings quote, one would be lead to believe he's refering to God in the sense of a designer.

And that again is why it matters where you get the quote. I mean, don't you hate it when atheists quote things from the bible out of context to debase the bible or the God of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top