The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[Passerbye]

With regards to the topic at hand, could you suggest your criteria for distinguishing between Intelligent Design and unintelligent design?

Intelligent Design is the idea that everything was set into motion, or designed (including life) by a being that has life and intelligence; of which I find no explanation that fits it better than the one in the Bible (my "interpretation", can be discussed).

Unintelligent Design is the idea that the world set itself in motion. The world created it self, life sprang forth without any assistance from an outside source or "intelligence".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Intelligent Design is the idea that everything was set into motion, or designed (including life) by a being that has life and intelligence; of which I find no explanation that fits it better than the one in the Bible (my "interpretation", can be discussed).

Sorry, I was unclear. Let me try again ...

Could you suggest your criteria for distinguishing between an instance of Intelligent Design and an instance of unintelligent design? Also, what level of 'Intelligence' would you hold to be necessary?

 

[Passerbye]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Tap dancing doesn't answer it

I'm sorry, I forgot all about it.

Are you equating God with the Intelligence? If so [a yes answer],

Yes.

there are two things you must show
* That there is credible evidence that God exists - and-

I don't think I can get evidence that would be accepted. I can get theories on how the flood would be a better explanation for most of the evidence for evolution. I can get testimonies from people that he exists (some that I personaly know) and that I know are not liers.

* that God has the intelligence to make this whole thing possible.

If I could prove his existance to you this would follow quite easily; however, since I don't think I can this would not work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

II can get theories on how the flood would be a better explanation for most of the evidence for evolution.

"All of the individuals and groups shown here are transitionals between the reptilian Dinosaurs and modern birds. Asterisks indicate fossils for which primitive (*) or modern (***) feathers are now known. As paleontologists find additional new species, and better examples of presently known ones, it may be anticipated that the great majority, if not all, of the Theropods will prove to have been feathered creatures in transition." Evolutionary transitionals.​

The better explanation would be what?

 

[Tawn]

Not to mention that worldwide flooding is not outside of naturalistic views of reality. There is evidence to suggest that the poles have shifted at least twice in earth history. This would cause tsunamis, earthquakes, tidal waves and flooding in most parts of the world.. and would also provide a natural explanation for a flood story in the bible.

Id like to bring up something else... creationists often point out the 'missing links' in evolution and cite that as disproof.. we can hardly expect to have complete chains.. but this missing links thing actually works more against creationism (or at least certain views of creationism). If all life was created in the beginning (as it suggests in the bible) then we should have fossils from all life forms in the earliest periods of history.. yet species are often confined to a certain time period...
the alternative explanation is that God has kept creating new species at later dates.. so question is, when is God going to decide to make a few more species appear? Has he stopped because we are now looking??? We should be able to find evidence of creation happening now or soon.. no????

 

[Passerbye]

Could you suggest your criteria for distinguishing between an instance of Intelligent Design and an instance of unintelligent design?

An instant on intelligent design would be when a being put everything together. An instant of unintelligent design would be if macro-evolution occured, which there is no proof of it that I have seen presented.

Also, what level of 'Intelligence' would you hold to be necessary?

The intelligence I hold necessary would be, at absolute minimum, a compendium of all intelligence in existance; since I do not see that intelligence can spring from nothing. This is not including what ever intelligence would be required to make everything, if in fact it is not in existance in the created

The better explanation would be what?

That only links birds and lizards. What links everything else? Besides that I can give a better explanation for that... a common creator. He creates one thing, sees that he likes the way he made it, and uses the same parts for the next thing. If you made many different kinds of cars would you not use some basic structures from one car on another even if the complete structure of the two cars were different?

 

[Tawn]

He creates one thing, sees that he likes the way he made it, and uses the same parts for the next thing. If you made many different kinds of cars would you not use some basic structures from one car on another even if the complete structure of the two cars were different?

Thats a good answer actually. However, it does not explain adequately why there are completely unrelated creatures being 'created' at the same time.. perhaps God has several projects on the go at once.. but if he did - would he not transfer parts between projects?

 

[Passerbye]

Id like to bring up something else... creationists often point out the 'missing links' in evolution and cite that as disproof.. we can hardly expect to have complete chains.. but this missing links thing actually works more against creationism (or at least certain views of creationism). If all life was created in the beginning (as it suggests in the bible) then we should have fossils from all life forms in the earliest periods of history.. yet species are often confined to a certain time period...
the alternative explanation is that God has kept creating new species at later dates.. so question is, when is God going to decide to make a few more species appear? Has he stopped because we are now looking??? We should be able to find evidence of creation happening now or soon.. no????

God doesn't mention creating anything new. He says he created it all in the begining. As for the isolated creatures:
If they were all of the same type could they all not have been killed the same way at almost the same time? If you are a land animal that spends most of your days underground and cannot swim would your kind not be one of the first to die? If you were a fish that can't take temperature increase at all and the tempurature of the water increased would you not all die out at the same time? The question is what beasts were isolated in one rock layer, and do we have any idea of how they lived? Did they have a lifestile that would get them all killed at almost the same time?

If all life was created in the beginning (as it suggests in the bible) then we should have fossils from all life forms in the earliest periods of history.. yet species are often confined to a certain time period...

Most animals try to stay alive. The ones that are the best survivors would probibly be at the top. I would need to see the order of death in the rock layers. Could anyone point me to a nice (non vauge) chart that has all the found, identified bones and in what layer they were found? That would be the best way to sort this out.

 

[Passerbye]

Thats a good answer actually. However, it does not explain adequately why there are completely unrelated creatures being 'created' at the same time.. perhaps God has several projects on the go at once.. but if he did - would he not transfer parts between projects?

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you elaborate?

 

[Tawn]

God doesn't mention creating anything new. He says he created it all in the begining.
Could anyone point me to a nice (non vauge) chart that has all the found, identified bones and in what layer they were found? That would be the best way to sort this out.

Perhaps simplifying the question would be better. Many Dinosaur remains have been found to be 100's of millions of years old.. yet no human fossil records have been found that are anywhere near that old. Why would that be?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That only links birds and lizards. What links everything else?

One step at a time, please ...

Besides that I can give a better explanation for that... a common creator. He creates one thing, sees that he likes the way he made it, and uses the same parts for the next thing. If you made many different kinds of cars would you not use some basic structures from one car on another even if the complete structure of the two cars were different?

Perhaps. But why would he do that. For that matter, why would I do that?

 

[Passerbye]

Perhaps simplifying the question would be better. Many Dinosaur remains have been found to be 100's of millions of years old.. yet no human fossil records have been found that are anywhere near that old. Why would that be?

Different accumulation of what ever was tested for such as: If when testing for half-life results the accumulation of the item tested for would need to be taken into account. Could it have formed in the creature naturally, such as a different way than just decaying from something else? Or could it have been eating things that accumulated the item tested for in other ways?

 

[Passerbye]

Perhaps. But why would he do that. For that matter, why would I do that?

I don't know why you would do that but creating variety makes things more interesting. Also, maybe the outcome he wanted could only be reached threw creating the way he created. If it doesn't really matter to you how something starts out but the goal that is reached does, would you not just make things just to the effect of reaching the goal.

 

[Tawn]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at. Could you elaborate?

Ok, but this is going to be long - so bear with me.

Let me used heavily simplified analogies..

Lets say we are studying animals in nature. We can find links between certain species like the dinosaur-bird one.. im sure Deut can provide more if needed.
If we look at a particular group.
We have species A.
Species A can be directly linked to species B, C and D.
Species B can be linked to species B1. Species B1 can be linked to species B2 and species B2 can be linked to species B3.
Species C can be linked to species C1. Species C1 can be linked to species C2 and species C2 can be linked to species C3.
Species D can be linked to species D1. Species D1 can be linked to species D2 and species D2 can be linked to species D3.
However, no links can be made across from species B3 to species C3 or species D3.

Such an arrangement would suggest evolution rather than creationism because if, like you say, God saw that something was good and used the same parts again, then we would see constant links across from B3 to C3 and whatnot.

Put it another way.. lets say im designing cars.
I design the prototype model (Car A). Then from the prototype there are 3 early models produced (B, C and D)
Then im asked to update car B and I create car B1. I update car C to create C1 and D to create D1.
Then I create car B2. Now its sensible to say I would use some of the parts from car B1.. but wouldnt it also be sensible to say that I would use some of the parts from C1 and D1?

Yet our current understanding of natural geneologies doesnt suggest this as far as im aware... think of a trees branches.. they shoot out and dont join together again.. (well not in any I have seen ) yet a tracing of geneologies according to a creationist view should look more like a set of branches that are constantly feeding in and out of one another..

Have I explained that ok?

 

[Tawn]

Different accumulation of what ever was tested for such as: If when testing for half-life results the accumulation of the item tested for would need to be taken into account. Could it have formed in the creature naturally, such as a different way than just decaying from something else? Or could it have been eating things that accumulated the item tested for in other ways?

So you are going to reject carbon dating because it doesnt agree with what you want?
Would you accept that if carbon dating can be relied upon to at least give us a correct chronological ordering of fossils then your creationist view (all life created at once) is in serious doubt?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Passerbye, with your permission I'd like to defer my line of questions so that we can concentrate on those raised by Tawn.

 

[Tawn]

Actually passerbye, let me throw you a little encouragement.. the geneological tree, I must admit, forms a strong part of my basis for believing in evolution.

If you could provide evidence that genetic traits can be passed across the geneological tree it would be evidence in favour of ID. Isolated cases might not be enough.. (but would go some way..) since it is theoretically possible for the same traits to evolve in different animals.. and I dont know.. but theres something about bacteria being able to absorb each others DNA.. ???
In any case, if there were sufficient examples of traits being passed across between large creatures on unrelated geneological paths then that would be great news for creationism!!

 

[Pah]

An instant on intelligent design would be when a being put everything together. An instant of unintelligent design would be if macro-evolution occured, which there is no proof of it that I have seen presented.

It's ridiculous to think Macro evolution doesn't work when Micro evolution does. I would chalange you to proved an scientific explantion as to why macro is not an extension of micro.

An instance of unintelligent Inteligent Design is where differingt designs are used when one would be sufficient - every animal with the same eyes, for example - all creatures with the same amount of legs is another that would show intelligence. Whoever does your work is a poor designer.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Whoever does your work is a poor designer.

I offer up the human knee, and mine in particular, as evidence of that. If this sorry excuse for a structurally sound and functional mechanism was truly created, it had to be on a monday morning or a friday afternoon. :banghead3

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's ridiculous to think Macro evolution doesn't work when Micro evolution does. I would chalange you to proved an scientific explantion as to why macro is not an extension of micro.

Perhaps we have found evidence for the God of the Old Earth Creationist, for only an omnipotent Deity could so constrain 'micro' evolution over the course of hundreds and hundreds of milions of years.