• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I am very much on the side of Bishop Paley, you opinionated arrogance notwithstanding.

Yes, and so is Michael Denton, whose entire book is a modern repackaging of Bishop Paley's argument with new examples. Not exactly groundbreaking or revolutionary.

Are you able to discuss the issues, rather than your personal opinion of my personality flaws? Thanks, the mods would appreciate it.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
To my knowledge, nothing in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle has been disproven by discoveries made after the 80's.

Your knowledge?!? *falls about laughing again*
1. We're not talking about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle now, we're talking about evolution.
2. Nothing in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (ACP) has been or can be disproven. It's not falsifiable. That's why it's not science.
3. Have you stopped to consider that the ACP depends on ToE being correct? That is, it asserts that the universe is fine-tuned for life to evolve in. In other words, you're contradicting yourself again. That's kind of a hint that there's something wrong with your argument.

So, as I was asking you, what exactly is it that you think is separately created? A class? A family? A kind?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Denton does not say what the origin of birds may be; what he says and provides evidence for is that they could not have descended from dinosaurs because of the uniqueness of the feather and the lung. Here, in his own words, is a summary of his opinion concerning the feather:
"It is true that basically a feather is inded a frayed scale - a mass of keratin filaments - but the filaments are not a random tangle but are ordered in an amazingly complex way to achieve the tightly intertwined structure of the feather. Take away the exquisite coadaptation of the components, take away the coadaptation of hooks and barbules, take away the pricisely parallel arrangement of the barbs on the shaft and all that is left is a soft pliable structure utterly unsuitable to form the basis of a stiff impervious aerofoil. The stiff impervious property of the feather which makes it so beautiful an adaptation for flight, depends basically on such a highly involved system of coadapted components that it seems impossible that any transitional feather-like structure could posses even to a slight degree the crucial properties.'" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p.209)

Ah, so now Sandor is quoting from Denton's earlier book, written before Denton completely changed his views as expressed in Nature's Destiny. As I demonstrated, by the time Denton wrote Nature's Destiny he had become convinced of evolutionary common descent of all life on earth.

IOW, once again Sandor is being dishonest.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Ah, so now Sandor is quoting from Denton's earlier book, written before Denton completely changed his views as expressed in Nature's Destiny. As I demonstrated, by the time Denton wrote Nature's Destiny he had become convinced of evolutionary common descent of all life on earth.

IOW, once again Sandor is being dishonest.
Or ignorant.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
I suspect it was never about discussing evolution anyway. I did want to learn more about the adventures of Magnetar though. :shrug:
UniverseCentre7.jpg
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Or ignorant.

*edit* He made an earlier reference to Denton's book Nature's Destiny...the book where Denton very clearly states that the molecular evidence has convinced him of the validity of evolutionary common descent. So Sandor made it know that he is at least aware of Denton's change of views.

Yet he continued to cite Denton as an authority on arguments against the common descent of birds and reptiles, choosing to rely on his earlier book.

That's not ignorance, that's dishonesty....and from what we've seen from Sandor, entirely consistent with his character (or lack thereof).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Okay, it's been another year and a half. Is there any scientific evidence supporting intelligent design yet? Any published, peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory of intelligent design? Anything?
 
Okay, it's been another year and a half. Is there any scientific evidence supporting intelligent design yet? Any published, peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory of intelligent design? Anything?

now that ID is not a science by law, lets give them some more time to come up with an other name for creationism.
 
Top