What proof does Inteligent Design offer?

[roli]

"Missing Link" Still Missing

Imaginations certainly took flight over Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis, a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater’s tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, ‘discovered’ at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show last year, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17; millions more read about the find in November’s National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of ‘a true missing link’ connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.

"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first ‘missing link’ to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England’s Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man’s apelike ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax." U.S. News & World Report, February 14, 2000

"Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links,’ transitional life forms, would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species. Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated." Grant R. Jeffery, The Signature of God

"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict." David Berlinsky

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record." Time magazine, Nov. 7, 1977

"The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing." G. K. Chesterton

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Roli -

I'd love to try to disprove some of the evidence you have put forth in support of Intelligent Design, but I can't seem to find any. Hmmmmmmmmm - now why is that?

TVOR

 

[Pah]

Roli,

For the last, I will ask nicely that you answer the question of the original post with the constraints I put on the discussion. You are flooding the thread with off topic remarks - take them to another thread.

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

Untill the scientific community will allow intelligent design as a possiblity for our beginning then there cannot be any PEER REVIEW so this entire thread asks for something that can't possibly be given.

The only thing that is proveable is that if we could have begun by accident then it is 100% possible that an intelligent agent whomever that may be could do it by design so in effect we don't need proof that I.D. could happen only proof that it did.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Untill the scientific community will allow intelligent design as a possiblity for our beginning then there cannot be any PEER REVIEW so this entire thread asks for something that can't possibly be given.

The scientific community does not "allow" anything. If you have a hypothesis (or evidence), state it so that we can test it. If it can't be tested, then it is simply a statement of belief and it is not possible to peer review revealed beliefs (i.e. God, Santa Claus, Intelligent Design, Easter Bunny). The failing is not one of the "scientific community", rather the failing is on the part of someone making a claim that cannot be confirmed and asking science to accept it on faith. Science doesn't work that way - that is why it is called "science" and not "religion".

The only thing that is proveable is that if we could have begun by accident then it is 100% possible that an intelligent agent whomever that may be could do it by design so in effect we don't need proof that I.D. could happen only proof that it did.

You would be well served to enroll in a course on logic at a local university. Your statement commits one of the most basic fallacies in any argument - you are begging the question. You are saying that because the natural world is the way it is, it must have been designed that way. How do we know this? Because it is this way. This is a circular argument. You do not see it as such for two reasons:
1) You do not understand how logic, rational thought, and reasoning work.
2) You want so desperately to believe it to be true, that you willingly disregard the fallacy of your position.

This is exactly why Pah started the thread - to give you (or anyone else) an opportunity to demonstrate the EVIDENCE that leads you to believe in Intelligent Design. This implies that he would welcome a rational argument with testable and provable (or disprovable) premises and conclusions, as opposed to unsubstantiated, unprovable claims based on revealed faith...

TVOR

 

[Pah]

Untill the scientific community will allow intelligent design as a possiblity for our beginning then there cannot be any PEER REVIEW so this entire thread asks for something that can't possibly be given.

The only thing that is proveable is that if we could have begun by accident then it is 100% possible that an intelligent agent whomever that may be could do it by design so in effect we don't need proof that I.D. could happen only proof that it did.

Then perhaps you like to submit scientific proof of the Intelligent Designer of your choice.

I'm bending the contraints - It doesn't have to be from the Bible and it doesn't have to be peer reviewed

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

I'm bending the contraints - It doesn't have to be from the Bible and it doesn't have to be peer reviewed

As you well know GOD will not be proven by man otherwise there would be no need for faith and those who might only choose good out of fear would then make the grade however it is written that the whole creation speaks of GOD so if there is proof of any sort then it will be found in the fact that life cannot be created by other than GOD and neither can many created things be proven to evolve, so my battle ground exists within the realm of that which is physical and apparrent.
The fact that science came about as a way to disprove religion puts the onus of empirical proof on science to disprove us foolish believers in GOD so this attempt to put the onus on I.d. is really just an attempt to divert the attention from science backed evolution which is failing the more we learn about created life. to believe that a cell with the intricacy of a city would evolve is ludicris in the extreme especially in an environment that serves as a deteriorator, it should also be noted that even our intelligently designed items need constant care or else they deteriorate to basic chemicals, but somehow evolutionist believe that somehow random events could make something that somehow made the right choice in each random mutation (this would be million and millions) to evolve to us. yea right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As you well know GOD will not be proven by man otherwise there would be no need for faith and those who might only choose good out of fear would then make the grade however it is written that the whole creation speaks of GOD so if there is proof of any sort then it will be found in the fact that life cannot be created by other than GOD and neither can many created things be proven to evolve, so my battle ground exists within the realm of that which is physical and apparrent.
The fact that science came about as a way to disprove religion puts the onus of empirical proof on science to disprove us foolish believers in GOD so this attempt to put the onus on I.d. is really just an attempt to divert the attention from science backed evolution which is failing the more we learn about created life. to believe that a cell with the intricacy of a city would evolve is ludicris in the extreme especially in an environment that serves as a deteriorator, it should also be noted that even our intelligently designed items need constant care or else they deteriorate to basic chemicals, but somehow evolutionist believe that somehow random events could make something that somehow made the right choice in each random mutation (this would be million and millions) to evolve to us. yea right.

HOLY COW!! What a nonsensical rambling this post is! Other than the logical fallacies, the sheer snub of rational thought, and the unsupported, unfounded, indefensible conclusion, I can't find anything to rebut. I must say that your use of the run-on sentence as a debating tool is craftily employed for maximum effect. Your use of random capitalization also had it's desired effect of making this rant almost incomprehensible. Truly a nice touch.

This post is proof that blind faith will trump a defective ability to reason every time. I can only surmise that your "Intelligent Designer", after seeing your post, will decide that his experiment into designing the human mind was an abject failure. I'm absolutely sure of one thing - he isn't doing any bragging about it to the other Intelligent Designers with whom he has his morning coffee.

TVOR

 

[linwood]

As you well know GOD will not be proven by man otherwise there would be no need for faith and those who might only choose good out of fear would then make the grade however it is written that the whole creation speaks of GOD so if there is proof of any sort then it will be found in the fact that life cannot be created by other than GOD and neither can many created things be proven to evolve, so my battle ground exists within the realm of that which is physical and apparrent.

"It is written" by who?
What are their credentials?
What is their bias?
Who else wrote it other than them?
What support does their writing have?

Life is created without the help of God every single second.
We witness these events and understand the biology behind them.
God has nothing to do with them.

The fact that science came about as a way to disprove religion puts the onus of empirical proof on science to disprove us foolish believers in GOD so this attempt to put the onus on I.d. is really just an attempt to divert the attention from science backed evolution which is failing the more we learn about created life.

Science did not come about to disprove religion, science has nothing to do with religion.
Science does nothing more than observe and attempt to understand nature.

Religion spent thousands of years at war against science.
It killed, suppressed, outlawed, and terrorized the followers of science to keep them silent so they didn`t show their intolerant religious edicts for the lies they were.
Religion answered to no one.

Your argument is ..pathetic.
You yourself know evolution persists, it happens, you cannot deny it because you believe it yourself.
Please show in what way evolution has recently been undermined.

You can`t..you have no basis for your statement.


Did you go to school with Chuck?

KBC, you misunderstand something.
You attempt to provide evidence for ID by providing evidence to disprove evolution.
If ID had any basis of truth you wouldn`t care about disproving evolution because it`s fall would be an automatic side effect of the proof of ID..and a god...maybe.

Even if you could disprove evolution it still wouldn`t prove ID so your agenda is transparent.

I haven`t posted to this thread much becuase you failed to answer one question about ID.

Who created the creator?

Answer it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Did you go to school with Chuck?

WOOF! This one is going to my "Great Replies" thread.
TVOR

 

[Pah]

Gentlemen,
kbc_1963's post is off-topic. He was specifically asked

Then perhaps you like to submit scientific proof of the Intelligent Designer of your choice.

I'm bending the contraints - It doesn't have to be from the Bible and it doesn't have to be peer reviewed

and he did not.

I'm afraid we're never going to get an answer and perhaps it's time that the advoctes of Intelligent Design admit it.

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

I must say that your use of the run-on sentence as a debating tool is craftily employed for maximum effect. Your use of random capitalization also had it's desired effect of making this rant almost incomprehensible. Truly a nice touch.

as expected it is easier to attack human failing than the intent delivered but maybe someday I will become perfect just as you are.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... but maybe someday I will become perfect just as you are.

I doubt it - but keep plugging.

You leave us no choice but to address you, since you refuse (as Pah has pointed out several times) to address the original request for proof supporting your position.

Perhaps if you actually provided an argument of substance, rather than spewing your faith based opinion as a God given fact that cannot be disputed, we could move on to an intellectually challenging debate. Then again, why start now?

TVOR

 

[kbc_1963]

Please show in what way evolution has recently been undermined.

I have disproved evolution in my thread "abiogenesis is it possible", there are tons of evidence to discredit evolution so untill you can show empirical evidence for evolution then you are exactly like me only you believe and have faith in a god with a different name "NATURE/ RANDOM CHANCE"

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Wrong again!! You're on a roll here - don't stop now.

First, you did not disprove Evolution.
Secondly, that has nothing whatsoever, in any way, to do with this thread. Of course, you have been told that repeatedly, so I don't expect you to "get it" through your skull this time either.
Thirdly, I am nothing like you (in terms of mental capacity). My only resemblance to you is in our phyiscal being. I would submit that someone that cannot grasp even the most basic arguments (especially after having them repeated as often as they have here) is closer to Australopithecus than Homo Sapiens (sapient being the key word here).

Is there even the remotest chance that you will answer Pah's question? Do you even understand it? The question is not worded in a difficult manner. It is straightforward, with no intent to deceive, and no ambiguity. I'm beginning to have doubts about your ability to read and comprehend the written word.

TVOR

 

[linwood]

I have disproved evolution in my thread "abiogenesis is it possible", there are tons of evidence to discredit evolution so untill you can show empirical evidence for evolution then you are exactly like me only you believe and have faith in a god with a different name "NATURE/ RANDOM CHANCE"

I`ve read your thread and pointed out how it`s support is weak for one thing your initial failure to account for random ET interference.
Pah showed you many other problems with your theory.

If you do indeed have any bit of evidence that discredits the stance of evolutionary theory simply post it in reply.
The fact that you cannot do this makes you look a bit silly.
Just post one of the many points you refer to disproving evolution and we`ll go from there.
Post it..put your money where your mouth is.

When someone asks me to support my assertions I support them or concede that I cannot.
I do not say go here, do this, I did that...simply post the evidence.

I am not exactly like you..I am nothing like you..nor could I ever be.
My beliefs are supported by evidence which I will gladly post if asked for.

Why can`t you?

 

[Sunstone]

I'm afraid we're never going to get an answer and perhaps it's time that the advoctes of Intelligent Design admit it.

Good luck, Pah, on getting the advocates of Intelligent Design to admit it. I think they believe that if they can discredit evolution, they have proved ID.

 

[Pah]

I have disproved evolution in my thread "abiogenesis is it possible", there are tons of evidence to discredit evolution so untill you can show empirical evidence for evolution then you are exactly like me only you believe and have faith in a god with a different name "NATURE/ RANDOM CHANCE"

That is NOT the topic of this thread

-pah-

 

[Pah]

Evolutionists and Creationists alike,

The thread was momentarily closed to gather our thoughts. Comments, both pro and con, should be addressed only to the scientific evidence that Inteligent Design provides or doesn't provide.

Please re-read the originating post.

Thank you!

-pah-

 

[kbc_1963]

I am not exactly like you..I am nothing like you..nor could I ever be.
My beliefs are supported by evidence which I will gladly post if asked for.

prove that chemical beginnings of life are possible.