Intelligent design, my version.

[Bunyip]

And why it doesn't need a designer ?

The question is, why DOES it need a designer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What do you mean?

At the heart of evolutionary theory is fitness, defined (albeit with some disagreement over nuances) in terms of fitness of an organism to a particular environment. Environments vary over space and time. However, generalized robustness to all environments is common amongst certain organisms, and these are quite old. Not only are they old, but they are dominant.

Sure they have varied, they are incredibly diverse.

I'm actually referring to specific organisms, but hell: the entire "kingdom" Archaea, while diverse, is radically uniform compared to all other kinds of life. They are the among the oldest forms of life around and they are incredibly well-equipped to survive in diverse environments. They are likely the oldest form of life and least changed yet most prevalent relative to environmental changes over time and space.

Darwin never actually published on the origins of life, just the origins of species

I'm aware. I've read Darwin. And he did write about what he imagined to be the origins of life, he simply didn't include this as part of his theory of natural selection (as it wasn't related and he lacked evidence for it).

Nor has the primordial soup notion been disproven,

It has. At least as far as any and all research on the origins of life on this planet is concerned.

Extremophiles were a focus of several units I did some years ago - sure, they persist, but are diversifying all the time.

This is not the same as the "vast diversity" among plants or any other organisms outside of this "kingdom". Diversity is relative. Sharks are very diverse compared to prokaryotes. They virtually unchanged compared to viruses or insects or primates and most other orders/superorders. The fact that change is constant and given need not mean the "vast diversity" you referred to or that we find, but it has meant the vast extinction of most life on this planet.[/QUOTE]

 

[FearGod]

The question is, why DOES it need a designer.

If you can prove to me that it doesn't need a designer then i would admit it doesn't need a designer.

 

[viole]

I support the idea of intelligent design being taught in Schools,as per this type;

Some people believe God created the Earth some 5 billion years ago, God was in no hurry so he spent 3 billion years before creating primitive bacterial life in a soup like mix of DNA strands, 1 1/2 billion years later he created the dinosaurs, and skipping ahead only 100,000 years ago he created the first Humans, one woman Eve and probably more than one man as her mate, skipping ahead to 15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood, 98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned, In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.

I call it intelligent design, and its based on the idea that evolution is the way God creates, by encouraging mutations to occur over million of millions of years etc In a regular science course at high school all it would take is one one hour class to discuss it as a possible alternative to Godless evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin and most modern scientists.

If He is so intelligent, why does He need volcanoes, massive meteorites and other catastrophies in order to Influence who survives and who doesn't? Why not start with what He wants from the beginning?

Maybe we should call it SD instead of ID; where the "S" means "Suboptimal", of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Noah's flood according to the bible which says it was a worldwide flood doesn't make any sense to me.

Do Flying Horses to Heaven make any sense to you?

They do not seem, prima facie, to be more plausible than global floods.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bunyip]

At the heart of evolutionary theory is fitness, defined (albeit with some disagreement over nuances) in terms of fitness of an organism to a particular environment. Environments vary over space and time. However, generalized robustness to all environments is common amongst certain organisms, and these are quite old. Not only are they old, but they are dominant.


I'm actually referring to specific organisms, but hell: the entire "kingdom" Archaea, while diverse, is radically uniform compared to all other kinds of life. They are the among the oldest forms of life around and they are incredibly well-equipped to survive in diverse environments. They are likely the oldest form of life and least changed yet most prevalent relative to environmental changes over time and space.

Sure. All elements come from hydrogen, but hydrogen is still common - so what? What is the point you are making?

I'm aware. I've read Darwin. And he did write about what he imagined to be the origins of life, he simply didn't include this as part of his theory of natural selection (as it wasn't related and he lacked evidence for it).


It has. At least as far as any and all research on the origins of life on this planet is concerned.

How so? On the contrary, much of the early formation of life has been experimentally replicated. How can a theory Darwin never posited have been disproven?

This is not the same as the "vast diversity" among plants or any other organisms outside of this "kingdom". Diversity is relative. Sharks are very diverse compared to prokaryotes. They virtually unchanged compared to viruses or insects or primates and most other orders/superorders. The fact that change is constant and given need not mean the "vast diversity" you referred to or that we find, but it has meant the vast extinction of most life on this planet.

[/QUOTE]

Sure, that's how it works. As I said, the simplest element - hydrogen is still common, but so what?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure. All elements come from hydrogen

WHAT!!!??

What is the point you are making?

I already said.

On the contrary, much of the early formation of life has been experimentally replicated. How can a theory Darwin never posited have been disproven?

Because I never said Darwin's "primordial soup" was a scientific theory as he or his contemporaries would have understood theory to mean, but rather that his descriptions on the origins of life are at odds with our evidence. This should be expected, given that Darwin was writing before Mendelian genetics or the structure uncovered by Watson & Crick.

Sure, that's how it works. As I said, the simplest element - hydrogen is still common, but so what?

That isn't how it works. At all. That's basic evolutionary biology you are contesting.

 

[FearGod]

Do Flying Horses to Heaven make any sense to you?

They do not seem, prima facie, to be more plausible than global floods.

Ciao

- viole

I don't believe a bout a flying horse, not true story because the prophet didn't know how the paradise looks like, so saying that he visited paradise and hell is a fabricated story.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Principles of creation science

- creationism is based on dualism, creator and creation. The existence of the creator is a matter of opinion, the existence of the creation is a matter of fact. An opinion is the result of choosing about what it is that chooses, a fact is model of something forced by evidence of what is being modelled.

- the act of making a decision is to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not.

- creatio ex nihilo and ex nihilo nihilo fit. Creation from nothing, and from nothing can only come nothing. Meaning the totality of the universe can only equal the mathematical 0.

- for a first decision in a system, all possibilities are equally likely, no matter how complex (because the totality is 0 for every configuration of the universe, they are equally likely)

- a decision combines with previous decisions, which makes possibilities around what has been previously chosen more likely.

- the existence of everything in creation is conditional, it can also be chosen to not exist anymore.

- the identity of what makes a decision turn out the way it does is a matter of opinion. This is the logical foundation of all subjectivity, expression of emotion.

- an object, such as a planet, or the human body, has a future and a past. The past is called the retardation of the object, and the future is called the anticipation of the object. (that is the terminology in use as far as I know)

- objects consist of the laws of nature, which basically means that mathematics is the long sought "theory of everything". Mathematics can accurately and exhaustively model what the universe consists of.

- the DNA system is a world in it's own right, much like a 3D computergame is a world in it's own right, containing full representations of the adult organism, and parts in the body, some environment, some other organisms.

- a representation of an adult organism is chosen as a whole in the DNA world, from other possible adult representations of organisms. This representation of the adult organism in the DNA world guides the development of the body of the organism into adulthood in the physical world.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

WHAT!!!??

Not far off: Chemical element - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Do you think the stone is intelligent ?

No. Not by our standards.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you can prove to me that it doesn't need a designer then i would admit it doesn't need a designer.

So can you prove it does need a designer? Can you prove God exists?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thats my question!
Is it due to luck that such mutations didn't happen and end life on earth.

What prevents bad mutations of happening every second to eliminate life on earth.
Is it due to luck ?

There nothing preventing anything. It's already an inevitability the entire earth will one day be gone. Whither it comes through mutations like a super virus rivaling the plague in the dark ages, or the sun itself once it's hydrogen is depleted, it's pretty well assured the earth itself will be destroyed, much less all life living on it.

 

[nazz]

On what exactly?

the scientific evidence against theistic evolution

 

[FearGod]

So can you prove it does need a designer? Can you prove God exists?

Real prophets prophesy future events that people will see it happening.

Several events tell that they were right except if we have to think that they were lucky enough that they got it right.

 

[YmirGF]

I support the idea of intelligent design being taught in Schools,as per this type;

Some people believe God created the Earth some 5 billion years ago, God was in no hurry so he spent 3 billion years before creating primitive bacterial life in a soup like mix of DNA strands, 1 1/2 billion years later he created the dinosaurs, and skipping ahead only 100,000 years ago he created the first Humans, one woman Eve and probably more than one man as her mate, skipping ahead to 15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood, 98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned, In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.

I call it intelligent design, and its based on the idea that evolution is the way God creates, by encouraging mutations to occur over million of millions of years etc In a regular science course at high school all it would take is one one hour class to discuss it as a possible alternative to Godless evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin and most modern scientists.

A valiant attempt at making a dead end view of creation relevant in the face of mountains of evidence that religious creation myths are just that -- myths. It is also noted that your amusing assertion about "the flood" is due to the end of the last Ice Age. I've not run across that wee nugget before. Terribly amusing, nevertheless.

 

[averageJOE]

Fear God, Well the rise in sea level all around the world was the same, almost all the people then lived close to sea level, which is now underwater, so the flood would have been worldwide, and the rise in level may have gone up much more than 400 ft then settled back down to 400 feet as it says in the Genesis account, I think some people in high altitude survived, but quite likely Noah story has some truth, all over the world different races, different religions, all have flood story, my mother studied it when I was in high school, Alaskan eskimo have flood story, Babylonian have flood story, on and on. I think descendants of Cain, Asian people survived the flood near high Mt Everest Mountains. South American, North American natives survived the flood, not descended of Noah, enough for now

People from New Orleans and Thailand also have flood stories.

 

[averageJOE]

In any event I have only limited trust in "scientific evidence" from atheist evolutionary scientists, who if they found evidence that the flood occurred would deliberately hide the evidence and distort the data.

Do you have any evidence that every scientist would do this? Why would a scientist "hide" and "distort" evidence that would change the world and win him/her a Nobel Peace Prize?

 

[YmirGF]

Nazz, I really believe Noah is the father of all the middle Eastern people, and probably the Caucasian race too, it wasn't just a slow melting of the glaciers, The holy Koran talks about huge torrents larger than major rivers pouring out of the higher altitudes as the glaciers were RAPIDLY melting, not a slow gradual rise in sea level taking many years. It may have been cause by a colliding asteroid or comet, that penetrated the earths mantle and released a hot cataclysm of burning lava, I don't know.

You left out the possible attack by an unfriendly alien race ... just sayin'...

In any event I have only limited trust in "scientific evidence" from atheist evolutionary scientists, who if they found evidence that the flood occurred would deliberately hide the evidence and distort the data. Is evolution an atheist conspiracy, I know it "sounds" crazy but knowing pure evil and seeing it in action, you can never dismiss the possibility that evolution is made up.

This statement is ignorance on steroids. And yet, we are supposed to take your childish view of reality seriously? Seriously?

 

[Skwim]

15,000 years ago God created a great furnace to melt the Ice that covered most of the world and there was a great flood, 98% of the World's people lived below our present sea level and when most of the glaciers melted there was a cataclysm of Global warming that raised the sea level 400!!! feet and 99% of the world's people drowned, In the middle east everyone was killed except for a visionary nautical engineer that built a great ship his name was Noah and you may or may not believe the rest of the story but people of faith believe some of it is recorded in the bible.

This would mean that 99% of the people in the world lived on the continental shelves, (a landmass that is, on average, only 50 miles wide*) and no one would have lived inland from there: occupying any of the land that is now above sea level. Don't you think this is rather ridiculous? Of course it is. For one thing, it would mean that practically no one lived in any of the areas listed below.

source: Wikipedia

the rise in level may have gone up much more than 400 ft then settled back down to 400 feet as it says in the Genesis account,

And just where would all this extra water have come from? Nowhere, which is why the sea could never have risen more than 400 feet.

*source