Intelligent Design failures

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 8, 2005

Geoman076 said:
I believe that God is perfect, and that just because we don't know the reason for something being designed a certain way, doesn't prove that there isn't a reason.

Faith springs eternal! How nice that you still believe in the face of such demonstrated incompetence.

Geoman076 · Mar 8, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
Faith springs eternal! How nice that you still believe in the face of such demonstrated incompetence.

In order for something to be incompetent, it has to be intelligent. Nature can't be incompetent. You are proving intelligent design for me!

painted wolf · Mar 8, 2005

so god made my feet hurt for 'reasons byond my comprehension'?

The same with genetic disorders, the coccyx, hind legs on whales and so on?

if god makes mistakes then it isn't 'perfect' now is it?
And no, I don't nessisarly have to agree that an intelligence designed my feet to complain that they don't work quite right.

wa:do

Geoman076 · Mar 8, 2005

painted wolf said:
so god made my feet hurt for 'reasons byond my comprehension'?

The same with genetic disorders, the coccyx, hind legs on whales and so on?

if god makes mistakes then it isn't 'perfect' now is it?
And no, I don't nessisarly have to agree that an intelligence designed my feet to complain that they don't work quite right.

wa:do

1 - yes
2 - yes
3 - As long os I've answered yes to the first two questions, I'm being consistant in thinking that God is perfect. God is the only one with the big picture, and is beyond our comprehension.

painted wolf · Mar 8, 2005

and that is the biggest problem with ID as a science.

there is no science involved.

wa:do

Hazel · Mar 13, 2005

Agghhh... I did post a previous reply, but for some reason it made me log in again... can't you tell I'm new to this forum.
God is perfect, genetic faults etc. came with Adam's sin. But we also don't have to take everything on faith as you say. You list a few paltry examples but fail to recognize the larger evidences like the geologic record, the order in the universe, the complexities of life etc.
As for whales: there is a small bone buried in the flesh that evolutionists attribute to evidence fore evolution from a land animal to a whale. These bones are different in males and females because they do serve a purpose. They are used as to support and strengthen the reproductive organs.
The origin of the myth of the vestigial leg came from a story of a sperm whale found with a 5 inch bump with a 5 inch bone inside that was said to be the remains of a leg. For an animal that could be nearly 62 feet it hardly qualifies as a leg.
There is also a huge lack of transitional stage evidence for the evolution of a whale. One late whale expert E. J. Slijper said this, "We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [ie:carnivores and ungulates] and the whales."
For birds you have only to look at the complexity of their wings to realize that there has to be a creator. Science has proved that the wings of flightless birds are needed for balance and this is no proof for poor design.

Hazel · Mar 13, 2005

I just went back and read page 4 which I had not before and hope I have not ignored any rules by bringing up evolution. I was simply disproving the whale bone evolutionary myth.

LISA63 · Mar 13, 2005

painted wolf said:
and that is the biggest problem with ID as a science.

there is no science involved.

wa:do

Really?
what about all the science that I have posted and others have posted? do you say there is none because you won't look? I believe there is tons of current biological studies that do back I.D. such as the protein folding problem. what science do you have for evolution that doesn't involve assumptions that aren't controvercial?

Pah · Mar 13, 2005

LISA63 said:
Really?
what about all the science that I have posted and others have posted? do you say there is none because you won't look? I believe there is tons of current biological studies that do back I.D. such as the protein folding problem. what science do you have for evolution that doesn't involve assumptions that aren't controvercial?

You have posted evidence to a non-existent premise. as such it is worthless as is any conclusion you might make from it.

painted wolf · Mar 14, 2005

So because an question does not yet have an obvious answer it must be god?

I refuse to take a 'god of the gaps' argument as a serious scientific premice.

We once thought that storms were evidence of 'god', after all we couldn't explain it, we still can't entirely explain some aspects of weather on Earth... is it 'ID' that creates tornados? Is there a designer out there crafting storms? Sitting on a cloud chucking down lightning?

What scientific evidence is there for the existance of a disigner? Not what problems are there with theory X... having a problem with theory X does not make theory Y correct.
So what evidence (scientific mind you) of a creator?

without said evidence there is no 'science' behind ID... it is just religion in a poor disguise.

wa:do

Hazel · Mar 22, 2005

Without said evidence there is no evidence for evolutionary theory... in fact you cannot call either id or evolution theories because they cannot be tested having supposedly happened in the past they actually are properly classified as models. Evolution has turned into a religion for many people because they hold on to it despite the vast evidences that prove it false. One of the leading supportors of neo-darwinism today says this:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of it's constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." -Professor Richard Lewontin
To say the religious community is biased towards id and evolutionists are rational unbiased people would be a very great fallacy. The bias that humanist thinkers have is that there can be no God in the universe so there has to be another way that this universe came about.

Halcyon · Mar 22, 2005

Without said evidence there is no evidence for evolutionary theory...

I suggest you do some research before making such a bold statement.

in fact you cannot call either id or evolution theories because they cannot be tested having supposedly happened in the past they actually are properly classified as models.

I agree, in a way, they are theories as they offer an unverifyable explaination, but they cannot be proved 100%.

Evolution has turned into a religion for many people because they hold on to it despite the vast evidences that prove it false

I don't believe such evidence actually exists. Please quote it or link to it if it actually does exist.

The bias that humanist thinkers have is that there can be no God in the universe so there has to be another way that this universe came about.

True. But is there anything wrong with that?

painted wolf · Mar 22, 2005

Isn't it intresting that ID proponants always seem to think that only Athiests and Secular Humanists believe in Evolution? :biglaugh:

Another failure of ID.

wa:do

Fatmop · Mar 23, 2005

That's because we're evil.

Hazel · Apr 6, 2005

Also, I find it interesting that my post on the absurdity of vestigial legs in whales was not responded to in any way.

Halcyon- One of the quotes was in the post, here is another from a leading biologist and science writer of his day "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." -Professor D.M.S. Watson "Adaptation" Nature
The reason such a bias is wrong is that you dismiss id because you say it is based on the bias that there is a God when evolution is based on a bias also, which seems to me very hypocritical. Both models have a bias they are founded on, id no more than evolution. Beyond that, evolution has no existing proof.
Painted wolf- I did not say that only atheists or secular humanists believed in evolution, however they are the majority.

Finally the purpose of this post, refuting the idea of the vestigial "tailbone". The "tailbone" was named such by an evolutionist and has nothing to do with the idea that humans once had tails like primates. Without the "tailbone" there would be no connection for the gluteous maximus muscle, in fact without that bone we would be unable to walk, sit, or even have bowel movements. It is preposterous to say that such a vital part of the skeletal system is vestigial, or evidence of evolution.

Ceridwen018 · Apr 6, 2005

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." -Professor D.M.S. Watson "Adaptation" Nature

Which issue was this in?

The reason such a bias is wrong is that you dismiss id because you say it is based on the bias that there is a God when evolution is based on a bias also, which seems to me very hypocritical. Both models have a bias they are founded on, id no more than evolution. Beyond that, evolution has no existing proof.

What bias is evolution based on? The bias that nature exists? Hhmmm...

Finally the purpose of this post, refuting the idea of the vestigial "tailbone". The "tailbone" was named such by an evolutionist and has nothing to do with the idea that humans once had tails like primates. Without the "tailbone" there would be no connection for the gluteous maximus muscle, in fact without that bone we would be unable to walk, sit, or even have bowel movements. It is preposterous to say that such a vital part of the skeletal system is vestigial, or evidence of evolution.

Some humans are atill born with tails that are then removed--did you know this? It isn't incredibly common, but its there.

Besides all of that, what about the other vestigial organs and structures in humans? What about all of the other vestigial organs and structures in other animals? They're all going to have to be disproven for your points to be true, and having personally worked with some of them, I know that thats not possible.

Pah · Apr 6, 2005

Hazel said:
Also, I find it interesting that my post on the absurdity of vestigial legs in whales was not responded to in any way.

Halcyon- One of the quotes was in the post, here is another from a leading biologist and science writer of his day "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." -Professor D.M.S. Watson "Adaptation" Nature
...

First of all, the quoted article was published over seven decades ago. That such old quotes must so continually brought up speaks volumes to the quality of creationist arguments. If a decades old source was cited to attack views on physics or chemistry it would be considered laughable. Why should biology be considered any different? And a lot has happened since 1929. That is before the modern conception of Darwinism was formulated and before a great deal of evidence for evolution and how it works was found. Also many creationist web sites are saying that Watson was important evolutionist. This is simply a false statement. Watson is not listed in any of the books on the history of evolutionary biology that I have checked. He is not in any references on important scientists that I have checked either. Watson was a minor figure at best in his own time and has pretty much been forgotten today. I dare say that one could prove anything by quoting authorities regardless how long they have been dead, regardless to how out-of-date their views were, and regardless how important they were.

But even if the Watson quote was not hopelessly out-of-date and even if Watson was an influential figure in evolutionary biology the quote would still be invalid because it is out-of-context. One must ask why Watson thought that special creation is clearly incredible. The answer is that the evidence has ruled it out. In context Watson writing long before the vast majority of research on natural selection was done, gave the opinion that Darwinism might someday become the dominant view of how evolution happens because the competing views will be disproven by the evidence. He also believed that this is how evolution was established.

Lets look at some relevant passages of what Watson wrote in the August 10, 1929 issue of Nature. What I am quoting can be found in various sections of the article that appears on pages 231 to 234. What Morris quoted will be in green though note that different creationists have quoted different parts of the article:

The only great generalization which has so far come from zoological studies is that of evolution.

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of palæontology, and geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.

Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable. The quote above is from http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html

The use by Hazel is indicative of Creation and ID proponents in taking things out of context when they think it suppoorts their cause. It was dispicable when I first saw the practise and is dispicable now.

Hazel said:
Painted wolf- I did not say that only atheists or secular humanists believed in evolution, however they are the majority.

Please provide a reference

Hazel said:
Finally the purpose of this post, refuting the idea of the vestigial "tailbone". The "tailbone" was named such by an evolutionist and has nothing to do with the idea that humans once had tails like primates. Without the "tailbone" there would be no connection for the gluteous maximus muscle, in fact without that bone we would be unable to walk, sit, or even have bowel movements. It is preposterous to say that such a vital part of the skeletal system is vestigial, or evidence of evolution.

Source: Concepts of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Kent M. Van De Graaff and Stuart Ira Fox, page 350. The Gluteus Maximus attaches to (at the origin) the lilac crst, sacrum, cocoyx, and aponeurosis of back and to (at the insertion point) the gluteal tuberosity and illotibial tract. It's function is to extend and rotate the thigh laterally. Please tell us how the essentiality of the cocoyx comes in. By the way, I see no function for bowel movements in the source.

painted wolf · Apr 7, 2005

ok Halcyon your saying that roughly 1% of the American population (athiests) makes up more than 50% of the 'Scientists'?

A bit much don't you think?

Environmental scientists and geoscientists held about 101,000 jobs in 2002
Biological scientists held about 75,000 jobs in 2002.
Chemists and materials scientists held about 91,000 jobs in 2002.
Mathematicians held about 2,900 jobs in 2002
Science technicians held about 208,000 jobs in 2002
well you get the idea. Numbers from the US department of Labor.

Your telling me that a mere 1% of the population fills "the majority" of all these jobs?

sounds fishy to me.

wa:do

Intelligent Design failures

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

Geoman076

Member

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle

Geoman076

Member

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle

Hazel

Member

Hazel

Member

LISA63

Member

Pah

Uber all member

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle

Hazel

Member

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle

Fatmop

Active Member

Hazel

Member

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member

Pah

Uber all member

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle