Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- ********0
Has anyone ever made a book (maybe an annual thing) of the top NT threads of the year?
- discipler0
haha, thanks kyl3. *eats donut.
designnaked, I'd be interested in hearing your take on how sequential digital code found it's way into the cell. Or how Darwinian gradualism accounts for cellular machinery which requires all of it's components "snapped" in place all at once. Or why this machinery shows purposefully arranged components if it's the result of a mindless natural mechanism. Or how any slight change in the positioning of our planet and the physical laws which govern it, would prevent organic life, is an "insane" observation.
See, I think that people don't know that issues... it's not that they don't agree with ID.
- kyl30
anyone else? It's peet's coffee, ummmm
- ********0
well, "designnaked" you've demonstrated in your post that you know absolutely nothing about ID. If you disagree, tell me what you think Intelligent Design is.
My conclusion is that you would have to have your head in the sand to not see the clear scientific evidence which supports ID.
discipler
(Nov 9 05, 09:11)---------------------------
discipler....first, its spelled DESIGNAKED......only 1 "n"....cause I'm all super creative and clever (and borderline retarded).....haha, definitely making fun of myself there.
Anyway, onto ID.....I don't want to really get into a long debate with you where we would most likely be rehashing a lot of what has already been said. What I am interested in finding out from you, since you seem to be so educated on ID, is maybe list out (nice and clean and simple) your like top 5 or top 10 scientific reasons why ID is valid. I'm seriously interested in this. I appreciate it. Thanks.
- ********0
did someone say doughnuts?
*walks in naked. grabs two doughnuts, one for each hand. puts third around wang to eat later. walks out.
thanks suckerrrrrrrrs.
- kyl30
in the evolution of the donut I think crispy creme is a giant step back, gimme a locally produced glazed old fashion anytime
- Mimio0
Designaked he has:
-Irreducibly complex cellular mechanisms
- Genetic information transferenceFYI
Both points are highly contentious and there is NO conclusive information as to their occurance or governing mechanisms, natural or not.
- ********0
discipler....are you full on 100% religious and believe every little tiny detail? Is there anything you question that maybe, could be a bit off (on any level)?
- mrdobolina0
If you believe in the garden of eden, wouldnt one of adam and eve's sons have had to have sex with eve in order to propagate the species?
Is incest mentioned in the bible?
- discipler0
designnaked, it's been said before in this thread, but here are some points which cause me to support ID and be highly skeptical of Darwinian Evolution:
1. DNA. This is sequential digital code at the core of the cell. It is information and every example of information we know of, has an intelligent entity as it's source.
2. Molecular Machines and Irreducible & Specified Complexity. The cell is a vast liliputian world of mind boggling complexity. With machinery more complex than anything human engineers have developed. In fact, cellular biology is employing principles of advanced mechanical engineering just to try and understand some of these machines. These machines include: The Cell. The Bacteria Flagellum. The Blood Clotting Cascade. These machines are irreducible, meaning that if you remove any one component, the entire machine breaks. Darwinian gradualism cannot build these machines because of this. They require all of their parts at once, or not at all. Additionally, the parts are "specified", or purposefully arranged and placed. Something a mindless natural mechanism is incapable of building. In fact, Natural Selection would prevent it.
3. Lack of evidence for macroevolutionary changes in species. Irreducible Complexity demonstrates that Darwin's mechanism cannot produce novel information at the molecular level, and thus cannot produce novel tissue and body plans. And this is consistent with science, because it has never observed this. We only see change/adaptation within an existing species, we do not observe species becoming new species.
4. Relating to the previous point, the fossil record. The record shows that during the Cambrian period, we have the sudden appearance of millions of body plans, which according to evolutionary time tables, would be impossible to have evolved from other species. And that's giving Darwin's mechanism of NS + RM, the benefit of the doubt regarding evolving species to species.
5. Fine Tuning of Physical constants, etc.... Gravity, oxygen, positioning relative to the sun and moon - these are all precisely where they need to be within an minute tolerance, in order to support organic life. Any variation on even the smallest scale, and life would not be possible.
6. The Big Bang + General Relativity. The fact that all matter and energy came into being at a specific time in the past, points strongly to a first cause.
7. Human Conscience. Since it's not possible for a purely physical mechanism to produce that which is metaphysical - emotions, altruism, artistic expression, first-person perspective, etc... it is logical to infer a designer.
These are just a few quick points and I'm typing way too fast. There are others, but this would give you an idea of the type of data which supports ID. Hope it helps.
- discipler0
designaked, I'm not very religious. I just have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I accept microevolution within existing species, but I reject the species to species, "goo-to-you" narritive of neoDarwinism.
- jevad0
who is discipler.
unmask the unknown!
- emokid0
i admit, i am discipler. i do it to annoy the fuck out of dobs and any other rational human being.
- discipler0
Yes, I'm completely irrational. ;)
I type utter nonsensel.;aopls]euijbka'cbjasdg...
- pavlovs_dog0
you are boring and stuipid
- discipler0
you are delightful and vivacious
pavlovs_dog
(Nov 9 05, 10:24)
- pavlovs_dog0
LAST WORD!
DAMN YOU!
DAMN YOU ALL!
- ArtDirector0
in the grand scheme of things, we're all just anus licking mangos
- pavlovs_dog0
flies to a pile of shit
- ArtDirector0
sphincter explosions