A simple case for intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

Different ID theorist would suggest different design mechanisms. In the same way different evolutionist would suggest different mechanisms

But one can conclude design even if you don't know how the designer did it. For example you don't need to know how the pyramids where created to conclude that ID is the best explanation for them


I would also challenge your assertion that gaps are decreasing, care to justify that asertion? Care to explain exactly what you mean?

A pity you cannot provide any examples of ID mechanisms or evidence supporting them.

 

[Bear Wild]

Different ID theorist would suggest different design mechanisms. In the same way different evolutionist would suggest different mechanisms

But one can conclude design even if you don't know how the designer did it. For example you don't need to know how the pyramids where created to conclude that ID is the best explanation for them


I would also challenge your assertion that gaps are decreasing, care to justify that asertion? Care to explain exactly what you mean?

Pyramids are not self replicating organisms. Pyramids do not create new pyramids. The same is true for a watch. My watch has never self replicated itself yet. Life is the opposite of your example. Life does reproduce and pass on characteristics. The genetic material inside life can recombine, change, transfer genetic material, and we now have epigenetic factors to stabilize some sections of critical dna and increase the variability of other sections of dna. Just look at the variations in humans - not designed but generated from vast variability of our genetics. As for the gaps closing - there are new fossils being found as well as new understanding of genetics all of the time.
On a quick search I found this from the University of Cork.
"A team led by researchers from University College Cork analysed the chemical composition of melanosomes extracted from internal tissues, including the heart, liver and lung, of a range of existing and fossilized animals. They found that each organ had a distinct signature in its metal content, suggesting that melanosomes also manage metal metabolism around the body.

These chemical signatures are preserved in fossils, which will enable researchers to reconstruct the internal anatomy of extinct species. In a Libros tadpole fossil, for example, a region rich in titanium and copper reveals the liver’s location."

There is an example. Yes it is just of piece of evidence and not the entire explanation but that is how science works.

 

[Bear Wild]

Different ID theorist would suggest different design mechanisms. In the same way different evolutionist would suggest different mechanisms

But one can conclude design even if you don't know how the designer did it. For example you don't need to know how the pyramids where created to conclude that ID is the best explanation for them


I would also challenge your assertion that gaps are decreasing, care to justify that asertion? Care to explain exactly what you mean?

I see you have evaded the explaining how ID explains anything. Name these different design mechanisms you claim exist. Even better give your explanation of how an intelligent designer made all of the life on earth both in the past and current! I really want to hear your explanation!

 

[leroy]

And he can be very precise in his description of the evidence and why he knows that it was murder. Why can't IDists do the same?

IDists also provide evidence and explanations for why the would infer design.

It is your job to read their arguments and justify why are they wrong

 

[leroy]

It is always amusing to read your posts.

Your examples are always human designs. You demand arguments from others while never providing your own. You remind me of every Law and Order suspect. There is always a story, but never any substance to it.

So the point that I made was that one can infer design even if you don't know the mechanism used by the designer

Do you agree with this point or not?..... And please if you ever quote my comments once again please answer to the point made in that comment, stop making irrelevant redherrings

 

[leroy]

Pyramids are not self replicating organisms. Pyramids do not create new pyramids. The same is true for a watch. My watch has never self replicated itself yet. Life is the opposite of your example. Life does reproduce and pass on characteristics. The genetic material inside life can recombine, change, transfer genetic material, and we now have epigenetic factors to stabilize some sections of critical dna and increase the variability of other sections of dna. Just look at the variations in humans - not designed but generated from vast variability of our genetics. As for the gaps closing - there are new fossils being found as well as new understanding of genetics all of the time.
On a quick search I found this from the University of Cork.
"A team led by researchers from University College Cork analysed the chemical composition of melanosomes extracted from internal tissues, including the heart, liver and lung, of a range of existing and fossilized animals. They found that each organ had a distinct signature in its metal content, suggesting that melanosomes also manage metal metabolism around the body.

These chemical signatures are preserved in fossils, which will enable researchers to reconstruct the internal anatomy of extinct species. In a Libros tadpole fossil, for example, a region rich in titanium and copper reveals the liver’s location."

There is an example. Yes it is just of piece of evidence and not the entire explanation but that is how science works.

Ok ok pyramids can't replicate.....

But the point that I made was that one can infer design even if you don't know the mechanism used by the designer.

Do you grant this point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

IDists also provide evidence and explanations for why the would infer design.

It is your job to read their arguments and justify why are they wrong

No, at least not yet. They cannot even properly define their terminology.

 

[leroy]

I see you have evaded the explaining how ID explains anything. Name these different design mechanisms you claim exist. Even better give your explanation of how an intelligent designer made all of the life on earth both in the past and current! I really want to hear your explanation!

I don't have an explanation, you are asking a good question, and if any other ID theorist is interested in answering I would be happy to read about it.

I would defend theistic evolution, which means that God guided the process. But theistic evolution covers a wide rage of different views, and I don't have a favorite one.

 

[leroy]

No, at least not yet. They cannot even properly define their terminology.

Well the terminology seems clear and easy to understand for me, an argument is not invalid just because you personally can't understand it

 

[leroy]

A pity you cannot provide any examples of ID mechanisms or evidence supporting them.

Granted I can't provide a mechanism... So what,?

Just like it is a "pity" that you cant provide any examples of big bang mechanisms, except that nobody makes a big deal, and nobody would reject the BB just because we don't know the mechanism that caused the BB.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the terminology seems clear and easy to understand for me, an argument is not invalid just because you personally can't understand it

That is because you do not understand terminology or evidence. You are really the one that does not understand. Your mistake appears to be looking for an excuse to believe rather than if an idea merits belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted I can't provide a mechanism... So what,?

Just like it is a "pity" that you cant provide any examples of big bang mechanisms, except that nobody makes a big deal, and nobody would reject the BB just because we don't know the mechanism that caused the BB.

Talk to a physicist. They can explain to you tests that would refute the Big Bang. It has been tested several times by predictions that it made that were not known at that time and they were shown to be correct. It qualifies as a theory. You have yet to show that your concept is even a testable hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So the point that I made was that one can infer design even if you don't know the mechanism used by the designer

Do you agree with this point or not?..... And please if you ever quote my comments once again please answer to the point made in that comment, stop making irrelevant redherrings

You have not convinced me with your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Granted I can't provide a mechanism... So what,?

Just like it is a "pity" that you cant provide any examples of big bang mechanisms, except that nobody makes a big deal, and nobody would reject the BB just because we don't know the mechanism that caused the BB.

I have not argued about the Big Bang, but recognize your straw man argument. I haven't made any claims about high performance V-8 engines either. Care to bring that up in support of your nothing position?

 

[leroy]

Talk to a physicist. They can explain to you tests that would refute the Big Bang. It has been tested several times by predictions that it made that were not known at that time and they were shown to be correct. It qualifies as a theory. You have yet to show that your concept is even a testable hypothesis.

Again stop that annoying tendency of quoting my posts and then make an irrelevant comment. What is the point of quoting my comment if you are going to say something irrelevant to my comment?


The point that I made is that not knowing the mechanism that caused the BB does not invalidates the theory.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again stop that annoying tendency of quoting my posts and then make an irrelevant comment. What is the point of quoting my comment if you are going to say something irrelevant to my comment?


The point that I made is that not knowing the mechanism that caused the BB does not invalidates the theory.....

Do you have anything to demonstrate your claim about ID being the best explanation? How many years have proponents been beating on this with nothing for you to regurgitate?

 

[leroy]

I have not argued about the Big Bang, but recognize your straw man argument. I haven't made any claims about high performance V-8 engines either. Care to bring that up in support of your nothing position?

Really and according to you which is that strawman argument?

The point that I made is that not knowing the mechanism does not invalidate the big bang theory nor ID... Agree yes or no?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really and according to you which is that strawman argument?

The point that I made is that not knowing the mechanism does not invalidate the big bang theory nor ID... Agree yes or no?

That I have been arguing about the Big Bang.

There is something to test with the Big Bang. Still nothing to test regarding a designer.

The mouse rattles its head against the cage
With nothing testable to engage
With only empty claims
On which it must rage.

 

[leroy]

Do you have anything to demonstrate your claim about ID being the best explanation? How many years have proponents been beating on this with nothing for you to regurgitate?

Redherring

Answer the question in the comment that you are quoting, or make a relevant comment based on the comment that you are quoting.

 

[leroy]

That I have been arguing about the Big Bang.

I never made that strawman, where did you get that stuff.?

I simply made the point that you don't need to know the mechanism in irdet to accept the BB theory.