Originally posted by Ordo
Blah Blah Blah. You can do the research on the watch analogy. Its been disproved hundreds of times. Likewise the man who created the watch did not sit down and create it. It was perfected through a process of trial and error with hundreds of continuing permutations and variations. There is no "perfect" watch today and the one I'm wearing is just as valid as yours, though assuredly very different.As to thermodynamics, the 1st law can be violated on certain timescales. Energy is conserved OVER TIME. Humans exist just as stable intermediates in a chemical reaction.
AS to the last comment, please be more specific.
Originally posted by Ordo
Blah Blah Blah. You can do the research on the watch analogy. Its been disproved hundreds of times. Likewise the man who created the watch did not sit down and create it. It was perfected through a process of trial and error with hundreds of continuing permutations and variations. There is no "perfect" watch today and the one I'm wearing is just as valid as yours, though assuredly very different.
The point is that the watch required a designer in order to keep time. It did not just come about or into existence on its own. The level of sophistication or complexity is irrelevant. The crux of the matter is the watch did not create itself. All of its parts were put together by an intelligent designer, not random, natural process.
As to thermodynamics, the 1st law can be violated on certain timescales. Energy is conserved OVER TIME. Humans exist just as stable intermediates in a chemical reaction.
I beg to differ. This (natural) law is absolute.
AS to the last comment, please be more specific.
The snowflake exhibits high level order but not high level information (i.e. DNA) and design as a single cell; hence, the cell must have required a Designer.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I am afraid I feel Ordo is right and you are very wrong, Bardock and SC.Evolution as the way we use the term is fundamentally entwined with the concept of natural selection. Intelligent Design at its core rejects natural selection.
Therefore the two are mutually exclusive- they are entirely alternative explanations for a phenomenon (for which, of course, only evolution has any evidence behind).
Surely an intelligent designer could have designed the natural selection process?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but the official ID does rule out evolution.
1. there is no official "ID" so no, not ever version EXPLICITLY rule it out but...
2. Anyone who actually knows the argument knows it ABSOLUTLELY IMPLICITLY rules it out.
Seriously, where does this crap that ID and evolution can coexist. You guys need to read up or go party with JIA.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Surely an intelligent designer could have designed the natural selection process?
But the designer didn't design life, which is then NOT ID.
You're walking the "wind it up and let it run" philosophy which is interely different, incompatable with, and contrary to Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by Ordo
But the designer didn't design life, which is then NOT ID.You're walking the "wind it up and let it run" philosophy which is interely different, incompatable with, and contrary to Intelligent Design.
As I said I was not talking about ID.
However I would wonder is it not possible that our understanding of Natural selection is guided by a designer...?
Oh sorry I got that wrong I meant to type.
Is it not possible our understanding of Natural Selection is wrong and that a Designer does play a roll in the process? Admittedly he would be playing a role that he is trying to conceal but he could be doing it...
Like if someone was throwing dice you would say it is beyond their control to make them land on certain numbers...but what if someone was controlling the way the dice fell?