Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

[Autodidact]

You take me for a total moron. No, I study the book, highlight it, digest the info. and think about it critically. The fact that it is written by an expert (for me a person with a Ph.D in the field) makes the info. more credible, though not infallible, of course.

And yet all you present as an argument is, "Michael Denton thinks so." After you study, highlight, digest and think, you'd think you could use that to present an actual argument.

 

[sandor606]

sandor: Earlier you asked why your personal credibility should have any bearing on the strength of your argument. I will give two answers.

1. It's hard to make an argument without any credibility.
2. Common folk wisdom tells us that if something were true, you wouldn't have to lie to convince of that truth.

Autodidact,
The arguments are made by scientists and they deserve the credibility. I share their views and I am reporting on them. My well-intentioned misrepresentation of one fact about myself may say something about my character, but it has nothing to do with the scientific facts presented. You still mix message with messenger; under these conditions, objective and judgement-free discussion is impossible.

 

[painted wolf]

Can you cite a book from after the 1980's?
Or better yet a scientific article?

the arguments from the 1980's are positively quaint give the speed at which science advances.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact,
The arguments are made by scientists and they deserve the credibility. I share their views and I am reporting on them. My well-intentioned misrepresentation of one fact about myself may say something about my character, but it has nothing to do with the scientific facts presented. You still mix message with messenger; under these conditions, objective and judgement-free discussion is impossible.

Well I responded to Denton's argument, and your only response was to ask me whether I thought I knew more than Denton. Once again, and this is your pattern, you did not make any meaningful response to the points I raised.

So, as I was saying, your explanation for the existence of birds is that you don't have one?

Do new species ever come into existence?

 

[sandor606]

So your argument is entirely negative? Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs and you have no idea where they came from? Is that your position?

btw, I asked you some time ago, and you failed to answer, are you arguing that no new species ever comes into existence, but every species has existed on earth in its present form since...I don't know, sandor, since when, you tell us.

Concerning birds this is my position which is also John A. Davison's:
"55,000,000 years ago the evolutionary march was marked by the sudden appearance of the first of the true birds, a small pigeonlike creature which was the ancestor of all bird life. This was the third type of flying creature to appear on earth, and it sprang directly from the reptilian group, not from the contemporary flying dinosaurs nor from the earlier types of toothed land birds." (The Urantia Book).

I believe that the bird "family," like every other family, stays unchanged. Many species and subspecies of birds evolve from the original bird but they will always be birds and will not mutate into another family.

Imo, multicellular life began with the Cambrian explosion about 600 million years ago, about the same time and manner as reported in the The Urantia Book.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., if I understand you, each family (in the taxonomic sense?) sprang into existence or was created at some point in the past, and new species do evolve (in the same way described in ToE?), but no new families, is that right?

Actually I think birds are classified as a class, with dozens of families. So what is it that you think was created, taxonomically speaking?



Why did you put so much energy into denying that new species do evolve?

 

[painted wolf]

Imo, multicellular life began with the Cambrian explosion about 600 million years ago, about the same time and manner as reported in the The Urantia Book.

What about fossils of multicellular animals older than the Cambrian?
Or do you choose to ignore the fact that they exist?

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

And yet all you present as an argument is, "Michael Denton thinks so." After you study, highlight, digest and think, you'd think you could use that to present an actual argument.

When it comes to proof, Dr. Denton has much more credibility than I do, of course. Since his opinion is both revolutionary and a potential intellectual bombshell, I let him speak directly; this way I avoid becoming the target of the naysayers and have him get the heat.

 

[Autodidact]

We're not looking for proof, we're looking for evidence. Tell the truth, if you know how. You don't know the first thing about the Philosophy of Science, do you?

O.K., well I shredded Dr. Denton's argument, and he's not here to defend it, so I guess that goes down in flames.

His opinion is about as revolutionary as Bishop Paley's, which it is, repackaged. Hardly an intellectual bombshell.

*resists temptation to make another dig at sandor's nonexistent credibility*

 

[sandor606]

What about fossils of multicellular animals older than the Cambrian?
Or do you choose to ignore the fact that they exist?

wa:do

No, I do not ignore it. I use the Cambrian Explosion because it represents an event that could not have been the result of gradual accumulation of changes. "The theory holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum both appeared in the Cambrian only to rapidly disappear." (Virtual Fossil Museum)

 

[sandor606]

We're not looking for proof, we're looking for evidence. Tell the truth, if you know how. You don't know the first thing about the Philosophy of Science, do you?

O.K., well I shredded Dr. Denton's argument, and he's not here to defend it, so I guess that goes down in flames.

His opinion is about as revolutionary as Bishop Paley's, which it is, repackaged. Hardly an intellectual bombshell.

*resists temptation to make another dig at sandor's nonexistent credibility*

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

 

[sandor606]

Can you cite a book from after the 1980's?
Or better yet a scientific article?

the arguments from the 1980's are positively quaint give the speed at which science advances.

wa:do

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

 

[painted wolf]

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

Nothing in it has been proven either....

and I'm not surprised by "to your knowledge"....

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

No, I do not ignore it. I use the Cambrian Explosion because it represents an event that could not have been the result of gradual accumulation of changes. "The theory holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum both appeared in the Cambrian only to rapidly disappear." (Virtual Fossil Museum)

So in other words... you are ignoring it... classy.
Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation -- Lieberman 43 (1): 229 -- Integrative and Comparative Biology

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry to get a late start here, but let me see if I get what we have...

• sandor606 misrepresented him/her self.
• sandor606 attempted to use deceptive means to get his/her point across.
• sandor606, without any evidence, is a believer in the Urantia cult. Basically an "alien conspiracy theory"
• sandor606 relies on outdated, debunked "evidence" to support his/her theories on ID.
• sandor606 ignores contemporary, verifiable evidence that is counter to his/her beliefs.
• sandor606 wishes we would just ignore his/her deceptive practices, and instead focus on his/her attempts to present flawed "evidence".

And he/she wants us to take him/her seriously?

 

[sandor606]

[/font]So in other words... you are ignoring it... classy.
Taking the Pulse of the Cambrian Radiation -- Lieberman 43 (1): 229 -- Integrative and Comparative Biology

wa:do

Thanks for the link. I did not know about the study and on the face of it it appears to be proof. However, as you know, one study does not constitute final proof; more are needed that corroborate the findings. Meanwhile,I will continue to subscribe to this view:

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camblife.html

 

[painted wolf]

Here are 299 other papers covering the same subject...
Integr. Comp. Biol. -- Search Result

the UCMP Berkeley pages need to be updated and have need this for a couple of years now.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Concerning birds this is my position which is also John A. Davison's:
"55,000,000 years ago the evolutionary march was marked by the sudden appearance of the first of the true birds, a small pigeonlike creature which was the ancestor of all bird life. This was the third type of flying creature to appear on earth, and it sprang directly from the reptilian group, not from the contemporary flying dinosaurs nor from the earlier types of toothed land birds." (The Urantia Book).

Paleontologists tell us that the first true bird dates back to at least 135 million years ago, the [FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Liaoningornis. Most would include Archeopteryx, 150 million years ago. Where are you getting 55 million?[/SIZE][/FONT]

I believe that the bird "family," like every other family, stays unchanged. Many species and subspecies of birds evolve from the original bird but they will always be birds and will not mutate into another family.

Could you tell us what you mean here by "family?" Do you mean the class,Aves? Or something else? If so, what?

Imo, multicellular life began with the Cambrian explosion about 600 million years ago, about the same time and manner as reported in the The Urantia Book.

So basically you disagree entirely with modern paleontology on this? On what basis, other than the Urantia book, which I am ignorant of?

 

[Autodidact]

No, I do not ignore it. I use the Cambrian Explosion because it represents an event that could not have been the result of gradual accumulation of changes. "The theory holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum. It is also postulated that many forms that would rightfully deserve the rank of Phylum both appeared in the Cambrian only to rapidly disappear." (Virtual Fossil Museum)

The Cambrian "Explosion" is a gradual accumulation of changes.

 

[sandor606]

Here are 299 other papers covering the same subject...
Integr. Comp. Biol. -- Search Result

the UCMP Berkeley pages need to be updated and have need this for a couple of years now.

wa:do

Thanks, I will study the papers.