Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- Baskerville0
no no, dobs. I said, and watch carefully.... all THINGS WITH A BEGINNING need a first cause. God, by definition, is without beginning so therefore does not require a cause.
_________________________
OMG listen to yourself! If it's so easy for you to believe god is infinite why is it so hard to believe that the universe is infinite. It's the same concept except it's easier to believe the universe is infinite because at least you can see it.
- discipler0
Tick, I don't think anybody sane or without a serious agenda would dispute Christ's existance. The dispute about Christ usually centers around his claims to divinity.
- mrdobolina0
I will ask you one more time, discipler, does ID have anything to do with God?
- discipler0
ummm... baskerville, ever heard of the Big Bang? See, science has already proven that the universe is not eternal (Steady State idea).
- ukit0
Of course there are debates about specific events in history. Such as the evolution of dinoasurs to birds which you mentioned. The world is 5 billion years old, so of course we don't have a complete record of everything. That isn't the same thing as saying there is serious doubt about the fact that evolution is the mechanism by which life has developed. There simply isn't doubt about that.
A bunch of pseudoscientists funded by religious extremists doesn't equal doubt within the scientific community.
- Baskerville0
Everyone lnows that Adrian Frutiger created the Univers.
- discipler0
and I will tell you once again, mrdobs. No, ID is the study (discovery) of specified complexity in biological systems. It does not identify WHO that designer is. It is not science's place to do that.
- ukit0
discipler-
There's plenty of evidence that there's more to life than just the universe. Many scientists now believe that our universe is just one of many. So the Big Bang was not the beginning of all existence. Just of our universe.
- ukit0
Therefore, the fact that our universe has been shown to have a beginning doesn't discount the fact that existence may be eternal, without requiring a creator.
- discipler0
ukit, there is great conjecture amongst scientists as to the age of the earth and there is evidence which points to a much younger earth. But, the point you are missing is that science "evolves" and there are new discoveries. We now have new data that we did not used to have. Data which demonstrates that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection working with unguided mutation cannot produce novel species. It never has and science has never observed species to species change, but now we observe things at the biochemical and molecular level which reinforces this. So yes, there is growing doubt.
- discipler0
ukit, what you are speaking of is the "multiverse" theory which based on everything I've read, no scientist takes seriously. It's simply an exotic notion created to avoid the inference of a designer. Secondly, by posulating that our's is just one of many universes, you simply push the issue of the ultimate origin back a step. Universes are still composed of matter/enery... which requires an author.
- ukit0
Interesting facts coming to light about this seminal work of "intelligent design" literature:
"According to documents released in a 2005 court case in Pennsylvania, the outcome of the case prompted major editorial changes to the book. It was initially focused entirely on creationism but was extensively edited to refer to "intelligent design" instead. The first draft was called Creation Biology (1983); the next was Biology and Creation (1986); the third, Biology and Origin (1987); and later in 1987, the authors settled on the final title, Of Pandas and People. They also deleted more than 250 references to "creationism" and the "creator" and replaced them in the final version with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer."
- discipler0
Hey Discipler :), thought Id find you here..
Actually was very impressed with:
video.google.com/video...
I can honestly say I did not realise entirely how complex a cell was..
-------------------------yeah, it's crazy stuff. Especially when you consider that Darwin could only see the cell under a light microscope and thought it was just a blob of gelatin.
- -sputnik-0
sigh... please use this thread:
newstoday.com/pv-an/vi...
discipler
(Oct 7 05, 08:11)----
yet you post what, 28 times in an 80 post thread thus far?
do you only lurk around, waiting for these threads?
- ukit0
"science has never observed species to species change"
Simply not true.
"Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).
Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.
Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.
Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000). "
-from a paper by Douglas Theobald, PhD
- discipler0
heh, ukit, Of Panda's & People is not what I would call a "seminal work" of ID. These would fall under the seminal work category:
- ukit0
""Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
-Scientific American magazine, 1989
- ukit0
"Observed Instance of Speciation"
- todelete__20
why can't you guys just say 'to each his own' and move on?
makes no sense to me the daily arguing.
- ukit0
Well seminal work not, that is what the current debate is taking place over.