Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We don't know what is in the genome, so you maybe right and wrong at the same time.
I never said I was absolutely right that would be ludicrous, I simply stated I don't really believe in macro evolution and some other unproven factors of evolution.
I'm always open to suggestion with enough facts.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I never said I was absolutely right that would be ludicrous, I simply stated I don't really believe in macro evolution and some other unproven factors of evolution.I'm always open to suggestion with enough facts.
It will be many years before we know enough about how the genetic code works.
Originally posted by The Omegahey, I've got a thread of 30+ pages and no proof!
STILL no proof of ID?
You know they say "Evolution is only a 'theory'?", you can say "ID isn't based on ANY science, ANY facts or ANYTHING, you just made it up."
Originally posted by Blue nocturnebut macro-evolution is the same process as micro-evolution, which you've said is true.
I never said I was absolutely right that would be ludicrous, I simply stated I don't really believe in macro evolution and some other unproven factors of evolution.I'm always open to suggestion with enough facts.
Originally posted by lord xyzYou know they say "Evolution is only a 'theory'?", you can say "ID isn't based on ANY science, ANY facts or ANYTHING, you just made it up."
I just posted a fact about the divine ratio and common design.
Originally posted by lord xyz
but macro-evolution is the same process as micro-evolution, which you've said is true.
When did I say micro evolution adds new traits to the organism or that multiple variation leads to a completely new organism, I did however say along with genetic drift and natural selection new homozygous species can arise.
And once again I'm not a creationist.
Originally posted by Blue nocturnewell you didn't say it because you don't know what it is because you're stupid. I didn't say you said it, I told you what it is. There's a difference. Listen to what I say, it helps. 😉
I just posted a fact about the divine ratio and common design.When did I say micro evolution adds new traits to the organism or that multiple variation leads to a completely new organism, I did however say along with genetic drift and natural selection new homozygous species can arise.
And once again I'm not a creationist.
Not a creationists? ID IS creation.
Originally posted by lord xyz
well you didn't say it because you don't know what it is because you're stupid. I didn't say you said it, I told you what it is. There's a difference. Listen to what I say, it helps. 😉
Golden ratio is a fact look it up.
Originally posted by lord xyzNot a creationists? ID IS creation.
ID has been hijacked by creationist to support their claims.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneWTF? ID was made-up by creationists to seem less religios and more scientific, or atleast to their 'deluted ears'.
Golden ratio is a fact look it up.ID has been hijacked by creationist to support their claims.
And WTF is "golden ratio"? What is it, and what has it got to do with anything? WTF
Originally posted by lord xyzAnd WTF is "golden ratio"? What is it, and what has it got to do with anything? WTF
I just posted it's relevance.
Originally posted by lord xyz
WTF? ID was made-up by creationists to seem less religios and more scientific, or atleast to their 'deluted ears'.[/url]
Originally posted by Blue nocturneso the similarities are in design. And the biological evidence supporting this evolutionary 'fact' is also wrong?
It HAS to do with common design, Read what I posted.
Your DNA is very close to that of your parents. The dominant genes between them are in you, the mutations are in you. Your cousin has very similar genes because you came from the same anscestor, but due to 'genetic variation' and 'environmental variation/mutations' you and your cousin are different.
ID is not creationism
Intelligent Design predates creationismCritics of Intelligent Design often assert that it is simply a disguised version of creationism that began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. In reality, the concept of intelligent design goes back at least as far as ancient Greece and it has been debated in nearly every century since then. Our century is no different. Those who advocate intelligent design are not “disguising” anything. They are offering for consideration an idea that has intrigued the minds of everyone from Plato to Kant, an idea that possibly began when Socrates asked:
“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?”
Now, because the design argument can be found in Plato’s dialogues, we can deduce that the concept not only predates the theory of creationism – which was but one religious response to Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) – it is also not wedded to Judeo-Christian scripture.
Here's an interesting quote that furthers this point:
"Imagine you walk into a room full of scholars representing two very different perspectives on the world. One group argues that living things are the products of some greater wisdom. These scholars point to various biological structures, such as the human eye, and argue that the optimal arrangement of the parts seen in these structures point to some type of designer as their cause. This same group also highlights the harmony and beauty that is seen in the natural world, again suggesting a form of wisdom that lies behind it all. The other group sees things very differently. They appeal to chance and a huge span of time and argue that the harmony and optimal arrangements could very well have arisen by chance. They argue that natural forces, over huge spans of time, served to stabilize these ordered configurations and thus there is no need to invoke any type of designer. This same group then highlights various chaotic features of the world that suggest there is no designer.
You might be thinking that I have been talking about a group of creationists and evolutionary scientists arguing in the auditorium of a local college. You would be wrong. The scholars arguing in that room actually once argued in the halls of Ancient Greece. The teleologists were represented by men such as Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle. The nonteleologists were represented by such men as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos. These thinkers argued back-and-forth with each other over a period of about 200 years. Their works would later influence such European scientists and philosophers as Robert Boyle, William Paley and David Hume."
In other words, the arguments for design did not start with Paley, nor did they start with naive religious believers. No, such arguments began with people like Socrates and Aristotle. As Barrow and Tipler in their book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" point out:
"Aristotelian science was based upon the presupposition of an 'intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design'. Its supporters were therefore very critical of all those pre-Socratic thinkers who regarded the world structure as simply the inevitable residue of chance or necessity."
The point is that this debate between teleology and materialism is at least 2500 years old and has involved some of history's greatest thinkers. The notion that ID arguments originated as a ploy to get creationism into the public schools is a notion divorced from historical context.
Intelligent design the idea is simply the attempt to answer a simple question:
Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?
As one researcher observes:
"The first thing to note about this question is that you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to ask it. You don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to consider it. In fact, you don’t have to be a religious fundamentalist to answer it.
The question is a good one, as it stems from the fact that certain things do exist in our reality only because they were brought into existence by an intelligent cause. If human beings did not exist, for example, Mount Rushmore would not exist. Thus, Mount Rushmore’s existence is dependent on intelligent causation. So one begins to wonder if there are other aspects of our reality that are likewise dependent on intelligent causation. If so, can we detect them? If so, just how reliable is our detection?"
This, in my opinion, is the very foundation of ID. It’s not a socio-political movement or a system of belief. It is a question and expression of curiosity that's been around for 2500 years and it isn't going away.