Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[leibowde84]

Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design aren't opposites. There's no actual dichotomy here.

That's what I was thinking. It only works if these are the only two options.

 

[philbo]

Funny thing is I tried a lot of pages and couldn't find a single whale shark fin that demonstrated its structure.

Please feel free to provide one of you know where to access an illustration or bone diagram.

Bone diagram?
..for a shark???
How sweet.. sharks don't have bones: http://www.seethewild.org/whale-shark-facts/

Whale sharks are not fundamentally structurally different to other sharks, just bigger.
Animals For > Shark Skeleton

 

[dust1n]

The findings of science are no more than hypothesis, supposition and educated guessing. They have huge gaps that they fill, not with evidence, but with imagination. Science can no more prove that all life evolved from a single organism than we can prove that an intelligent Creator brought all things into existence according to his design.

Good point. Religious explanations are, at best, as terrible as scientific ones, if not worse.

 

[dust1n]

That's what I was thinking. It only works if these are the only two options.

Not really. Evolution could true or not true.

Either way, this means nothing for intelligent design. If anything it means incompetent design. Just ask anyone with cystic fibrosis.

 

[dust1n]

There is no more hard "evidence" for evolution than there is for an intelligent Creator. Those are the facts.

Except all this evidence:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jonathan180iq]

How do they know that when there are no complete skeletons? How do they know what anything looked like just from a few bones? "Reconstruction" is what someone imagines a creature looked like...right? They aren't photographs.

Osteology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Myology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anatomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Written in Bone - Forensic Facial Reconstruction

Is there some art involved? Yes.
Does it start AFTER the application of a lot of science? Yes.

Please feel free to provide one of you know where to access an illustration or bone diagram.

Facts About Whale Sharks (The Largest Shark Species)

What Is a Cartilaginous Fish

SEE ALSO

Rhipidistia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not really. Evolution could true or not true.

Either way, this means nothing for intelligent design. If anything it means incompetent design. Just ask anyone with cystic fibrosis.

Again, that is not true. Random mutations asserts absence of intelligent design. When you positively assert random mutations, you are equally positively asserting the absence of intelligent design.

One may not be able to verify how things were chosen in the past, but one can still do science about how things are chosen now. It is wrongly assumed that current mutations we see happening now are not intelligently chosen.

 

[dust1n]

Again, that is not true. Random mutations asserts absence of intelligent design. When you positively assert random mutations, you are equally positively asserting the absence of intelligent design.

One may not be able to verify how things were chosen in the past, but one can still do science about how things are chosen now. It is wrongly assumed that current mutations we see happening now are not intelligently chosen.

No, it is right. There are under no conditions in which the formation of cystic fibrosis is intelligent.

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, it is right. There are under no conditions in which the formation of cystic fibrosis is intelligent.

Or osteochomdroma:

 

[Nietzsche]

Funny thing is I tried a lot of pages and couldn't find a single whale shark fin that demonstrated its structure.

Please feel free to provide one of you know where to access an illustration or bone diagram.

I'm writing up a respsone to your long one, but, erm, sharks don't have bones. Any. At all. They have skeletons, however.

This is a whale-shark fin;

Here is another;

They're solid pieces of cartilage(the stuff your ears & nose are made of). The rest of the skeleton is also just cartilage. The mouth & nose of most sharks however, tends to have calcium deposits for reinforcement.

 

[leibowde84]

Again, that is not true. Random mutations asserts absence of intelligent design. When you positively assert random mutations, you are equally positively asserting the absence of intelligent design.

One may not be able to verify how things were chosen in the past, but one can still do science about how things are chosen now. It is wrongly assumed that current mutations we see happening now are not intelligently chosen.

Your first statement is a false assumption. You can certainly hold that random mutations cause evolution, but are still part of "God's plan". It merely shows that, if it was God's plan, it doesn't appear to be a very good one.

 

[FearGod]

How so? It is merely an undeveloped human being. According to the law, this undeveloped human being has not achieved "person-hood", based on the fact that the fetus does not have bodily autonomy, and is completely and directly dependent on the woman's organs/body, as it lives inside her. Nevertheless, the fetus is still a human being ... it is merely undeveloped.

the womb is where the human being created, that is why we're a creation, IOW we're product of creation and not evolution, i wasn't evolved but i was made and developed in a womb which means creation and not evolution.

 

[leibowde84]

the womb is where the human being created, that is why we're a creation, IOW we're product of creation and not evolution, i wasn't evolved but i was made and developed in a womb which means creation and not evolution.

Why would your development in the womb contradict evolution. Your argument is incoherent. Human beings as a species evolved. Individually we are developed through natural means in the womb. Both are true according to the evidence that we have. They do not contradict each other in any way, as they can both be true simultaneously.

 

[metis]

the womb is where the human being created, that is why we're a creation, IOW we're product of creation and not evolution, i wasn't evolved but i was made and developed in a womb which means creation and not evolution.

It is very clear that we are all a by-product of evolution, one way or another.

 

[FearGod]

Why would your development in the womb contradict evolution. Your argument is incoherent. Human beings as a species evolved. Individually we are developed through natural means in the womb. Both are true according to the evidence that we have. They do not contradict each other in any way, as they can both be true simultaneously.

Were you developed and made in a womb or evolved by the nature ?

 

[FearGod]

It is very clear that we are all a by-product of evolution, one way or another.

We were created in wombs, logic

 

[jonathan180iq]

the womb is where the human being created, that is why we're a creation, IOW we're product of creation and not evolution, i wasn't evolved but i was made and developed in a womb which means creation and not evolution.

We were created in wombs, logic

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder....
What predictions does ID make?
Could we test them?

 

[FearGod]

 

[jonathan180iq]

[