Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[painted wolf]

Isn't it nice that they have their own 'science journal' now... since they couldn't get published in respectable, established scientific publications.

It's kind of cute. (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.)

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

A shining example from that bastion of nonsenseknowledge. Check out this fantastic work of comedicacademic genius from the first edition:

Abstract

Because one is tangible and the other intangible, the physical and metaphysical are generally treated separately. But this dichotomy is illogical; at the very least it is inconsistent with reality, for the two are inseparable. A basic introduction to the principal issues in quantum physics is provided to stress two points: (1) our physical reality consists mostly of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information; and (2) the metaphysical implications of nonlocality as evidenced by studies in entanglement, quantum teleportation, and zero-point energy. Then the impossibility of three critical events is addressed: the spontaneous ex nihilo appearance of an exploding mass via its own nonexistent energy, the spontaneous generation of organic life from inorganic nonlife, and the spontaneous generation of a complex metaphysical reality from physical matter. This leads to an apology for the necessity of a creator.

Finally, a theory is set forth that reconciles inorganic, organic, and animated matter with the metaphysical realities of both the creator and the created. By coupling the metaphysical implications of quantum physics with the biblical understanding of God’s attributes, the thesis is set forth that our immediate physical reality—consisting of empty space, electromagnetic energy, and information—is basically a hologram depiction of God’s intent. God spoke and it was so. Since creation, God’s Spirit has continued to energize and interact with the universe in an entangled nature at the quantum level. Similarly, the individual metaphysical reality (the spirit) of each animated being interacts with its individual corporal body via this same entangled nature at the subatomic level.

Man being created in the image of God, freewill, the existence of evil, and redemption are also addressed. And finally, because man is a special creature created in God’s image, it follows that man, merely by intent, has within him the ability, at least in a limited capacity, to cause change to his environment, this holographic reality; thus biblical healings and miracles occur. This concept could also provide an explanation for certain other human-generated phenomena.

Full intellectual trainwreckcommentary here.

I dare any scientifically literate person to read the thing and not collapse into hysterics. This is both comically tragic and deeply disturbing in equal measures.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Come on, madhair.

Immediately below the title, tThe article clearly states that it is an "Abstract".

Could they have been more accurate? I think not.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Inb4 Answers Research Journal

A lot of credit is due. The coloration and the layout of the page are quite pleasing to the eye.

On the other hand, the use of the phrase "Research" was a bit of a stretch.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Isn't it nice that they have their own 'science journal' now... since they couldn't get published in respectable, established scientific publications.

It's kind of cute. (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all.)

wa:do

It's downright adorable. It's kinda of like when two 5 year olds pretend like they're married and play 'house'.

Hmmm, actually, it's exactly like that.

 

[painted wolf]

thus far I haven't seen a paper that isn't an abstract... Scientific format for papers isn't all that hard to follow. It's also important so you can actually see where the data is supposed to be and what methods were used... I'm not finding any of that thus far, in any of the articles.

*edit: so far I haven't seen any data at all... a lot of assertions and bible quotes, but no testable experimental data. Not a lick of it.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Just keep pluggin, PW. I'm sure it's in there somewhere. I mean, these people wouldn't lie, would they?

 

[Willamena]

thus far I haven't seen a paper that isn't an abstract... Scientific format for papers isn't all that hard to follow. It's also important so you can actually see where the data is supposed to be and what methods were used... I'm not finding any of that thus far, in any of the articles.

*edit: so far I haven't seen any data at all... a lot of assertions and bible quotes, but no testable experimental data. Not a lick of it.

wa:do

Perhaps it's intended that the readers check the references.

 

[Willamena]

A shining example from that bastion of nonsenseknowledge. Check out this fantastic work of comedicacademic genius from the first edition:



Full intellectual trainwreckcommentary here.

I dare any scientifically literate person to read the thing and not collapse into hysterics. This is both comically tragic and deeply disturbing in equal measures.

It looks like a (liberal) interpretation of Dharmic/monastic philosophies.

 

[themadhair]

I’ve toyed with the idea of submitting a fake paper (although, given the usual standard of the journal, I’m not sure how ‘fake’ it would be) reinterpreting the COBE results to be evidence of hell.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps it's intended that the readers check the references.

Referances are there to support basic information in the text, not substitute as data itself.

It's the body of work that you are basing your knowledge and subsequently your experiment on.

This reads like a bad student opinion paper before editing. Absolutely not a scientific publication at all.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This reads like a bad student opinion paper before editing. Absolutely not a scientific publication at all.

wa:do

You're being too harsh, PW. There are bad students across the nation that should be offended by your remarks.

 

[Zephyr]

LOL at 6 pages without a single cdesign proponentsist.

 

[tomspug]

In researching ID, I did come across something called the "Cambrian Explosion"... Is anyone familiar with that? What is the general evolutionists opinion of that time period?

 

[painted wolf]

You're being too harsh, PW. There are bad students across the nation that should be offended by your remarks.

You're absolutely right... my apologies to the bad students. They simply haven't learned the right way to write yet. My first few attempts at science writing were not exactly glorious after all.

In researching ID, I did come across something called the "Cambrian Explosion"... Is anyone familiar with that? What is the general evolutionists opinion of that time period?

What do you want to know about it? It's not an explosion, it's not all that sudden (unless you think more than 80 million years is 'sudden') Precambrian fossils are showing that it's really more the Cambrian "nice preservation effect". Or the Cambrian "It's about time we can make full shells" event.
And the critters that lived then were wild beyond anything that lived afterwards. Truly weird marvels that are utterly unlike anything living today.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

In researching ID, I did come across something called the "Cambrian Explosion"... Is anyone familiar with that? What is the general evolutionists opinion of that time period?

Wot’s an ‘evolutionist’?

As painted wolf correctly pointed out, the Cambrian explosion was only an explosion in geological time – which meant that it still occurred over a period spanning millions of years. There are two reasons why the Cambrian explosion is referenced so much in ID:

1) Evolutionary theory, being a process of gradual steps, is not compatible with spontaneous generation of lifeforms. The Cambrian explosion is the ID’s attempt to point at a spontaneous generation of lifeforms in the fossil record.
2) The biggest reason I suspect it is referenced so highly is because Darwin himself wrote about it. He considered that the lack of Precambrian precursors could be “truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory.


There are two main responses I throw out to those attempting to use the Cambrian explosion against current evolutionary theory.

1) The fact that ID/creationists accept the science used to determine the Cambrian explosion while rejecting that the very same science completely debunks their claims is pretty fuсking funny.
2) The precursors to the Cambrian lifeforms that were undiscovered in Darwin’s time have since been discovered. This paper discusses some of those findings.

In 1859, in On the Origin of Species, Darwin broached what he regarded to be the most vexing problem facing his theory of evolution—the lack of a rich fossil record predating the rise of shelly invertebrates that marks the beginning of the Cambrian Period of geologic time ('550million years ago), an ‘‘inexplicable’’ absence that could be ‘‘truly urged as a valid argument’’ against his all embracing synthesis. For more than 100 years, the ‘‘missing Precambrian history of life’’ stood out as one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in natural science. But in recent decades, understanding of life’s history has changed markedly as the documented fossil record has been extended seven-fold to some 3,500 million years ago, an age more than three-quarters that of the planet itself. This long-sought solution to Darwin’s dilemma was set in motion by a small vanguard of workers who blazed the trail in the 1950s and 1960s, just as their course was charted by a few pioneering pathfinders of the previous century, a history of bold pronouncements, dashed dreams, search, and final discovery.

 

[themadhair]

Detecting design 101.

Here are a few oddities. Can you spot the natural formation from that which is designed?

Object 1:

Object 2:

Object 3:

Object 4:

Object 5:

Object 6:

Object 7:

Object 8:

Can you spot the designed from the non-designed?

 

[fantome profane]

In researching ID, I did come across something called the "Cambrian Explosion"... Is anyone familiar with that? What is the general evolutionists opinion of that time period?

From Talk Origins (an old classic)

1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).
3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
   
   Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
   
   And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.
5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:
   • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
   • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
   • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
   • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
   • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
   • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
   • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).
6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).
7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

So tomspug, what is your opinion of that time period?

Where have you been “researching I.D.”?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Detecting design 101.

Here are a few oddities. Can you spot the natural formation from that which is designed?

Can you spot the designed from the non-designed?

I did this one.:yes:

 

[Tristesse]

The only "evidence" they've ever had, was the bible or some other text. Which should count as evidence for anything.