Help me understand Intelligent Design

Your assertion is predictable - and of course very unconvincing. I have never seen any evidence demonstrating slow step by tiny step evolutionary development for anything in the first box above. You very well know there exists zero evidence to back up the endless amount of Darwinian rhetoric for these three evolutionary stumpers. I re-pasted above, in lieu of your present reply, what now has even more meaning when contrasted next to your ad hoc evasion. I and the debate already know you are a evolutionist. Asserting the 3 examples above to have evolved is not evidence - and of course you know this. 2nd request: can you produce any evidence ( I didn't say explanation) for the 3 examples in question ? Having to repeat this simple request indicates stalling, sidetracking, and misrepresentation of which all are synonyms for the inability to do so. I believe it is against the Rules of this board to post a bare link without accompanying argument - which is what you did, originally.I clicked the link and read it and then asked you to make an argument/narrow the field. I was actually just being polite, in reality, when it became apparent from what was written in the link that you were ignorant and quasi-educated I stopped reading and made the request above.Herepton

What does that make you? An intelligent designer?
Ye shall be as what, again? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-27-2005 06:08 PM

Bat hearing is no different than other hearing, and there are only two things that make it remarkable: ultrahigh frequencies, both made and heard (just out of normal people range, but they aren't the only ones) and formed ears to determine directionality (common in many animals, but not all), taking advantage of fact that ultrahigh frequence tend to bounce off things (which is what makes the "sonar" work).IC systems have been explained in evolutionary step for every model that has been proposed. More than that, one has been observed to evolve, thus invalidating the concept entirely.See http://EvC Forum: Typical ID response to rebuttals?
(note that this is another forum where the points are discussed without pulling this one off topic, so take your issues with this fact there).Migratory birds can sense the magnetic field of the earth, a fact established by experimentation with putting birds in magnetic fields and seeing altered orientations. That is all that is needed to explain the long distance flights. It also appears that several dinosaurs migrated, but that is a different issue. What I posted was a link to another thread on the forum where the issue could be discussed without pulling this one off topic. You obviously did not even check it out, or this is the weakest dodge of weak dodges. Oops, looks like you did "read" it ... at least until the evidence portray maxed out your personal {that can't be right} meter (because it contradicts your pet perspectives) so you the fall into the next logical fallacy: attack the messanger instead of the message.here it is again:
http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
The forum topic is about teaching both sides of the design debate and showing that there is better evidence for Silly Design, the post linked is specifically related to what good design results would be versus what is observed.Now you have yet to provide any evidence (at all) that there are design elements visible, and I repeat my request (that predates yours)Would it be too much to ask for actual physical examples? Ones that show all the processes of design?All you have done is list things that your personal incredulity (and lack of ability) see as being wonderous beyond (your) ability to understand without involking a {magician\designer}, you haven't given any reason why these meet the criteria in the linked post for what would be real evidence of design. I have provided much more than you, however we can go over this in more detail after you have fulfilled your half of the bargain first.Denial of evidence is not refutation of it. Attacking the messanger is not refutation of the message.Deal with it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Herepton,In this recent post you've brought up this issue of Cuckoo migration. I'll quote so others don't need to scroll up and down. Now, I am by no means a bird expert, but I do watch dangerous amounts of the nature programing. As a result, I've seen several shows about the Cuckoo (some more than once). I've NEVER heard anyone mention this.So I went on the web and looked for information about it. There are lots of different types of Cuckoo, and I could find plenty of bird watcher sites that described cuckoo migration by region or time, etc. But none of those sites mention anything about a particular bird finding its parents.So, that get's me thinking. How would a scientist study this? They'd have to tag a mother bird, follow it until it laid an egg in another birds nest, then watch the baby bird grow, then tag it. Then follow both birds from the forest where they were originally found to the other end of their migration route, find them again and see that they had found each other.Two problems here. 1) That's a really complex study, especially if you don't plan to publish it. (seeing as I can't find it published).And more importantly 2) If the birds are starting from the same place and going to the same place (since that pretty much describes migration) how do you determine that the birds have found each other.In other words, if you and I both leave Boston seperately and both go to Seattle, that doesn't mean we went there to find each other.So, I'm willing to accept your Cuckoo Hypothesis if you can find the link to the study where this was discovered.But, if you can't find a link either, we've both gotta assume that you're either mis-remembering something, or someone fed you a complete load of bunk.

Apparentley not. There is no theory of quantum gravity.
There is no theory of abiogenisis.
There is no theory of cold fusion.
There is no theory of time travel
There is no theory of intelligent design.
In 1809 there was no theory of evolution.
So? Whats the problemo? Does lack of a theory mean the postulate or hypothesis should be abandoned? I see you personally know every proponent of Intelligent design and have personally heard each one say they are anti-evolution.
You ever heard of something called a blanket statement? ???? BasicalIy I see you are continually making blanket statements.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Ok..If there is a theory of Intelligent Design, you can tell me how it satisfies these requirements.How does it explain what we see?What predictions does it make that we can test (that we don't know yet)How can 'design' be distinguised by random variation with a filter of natural selection?What testable statements , if proven true, falsifies Intelligent Design.

I will quote my own post: # 50 : But it seems the point of post #50 escapes you.

I suppose Ramoss that you would be ok with this paragraph in Science (16 Sept. 2005 Vol 309 p 1796)

quote:

---

Darwin's critics make much of the a distinction between "teaching the controversy" - that is, highlighting what they see as scientific descrepancies in Darwinian theory and - teaching ID. "We oppose any effort to require teachingabout ID. .... WE think that simply politicizes [intelligent] design," says West, adding that Discovery is keen on teaching "scientific" criticisms of evolution. But Miller calls this point " a distinction without a difference...ID is nothing except these arguments against evolution."

---

then?

1.6,You listed a bunch of theories that all have something in common - mechanics.If we discuss abiogenisis, I can tell you the concept behind the theory, I can tell you how abiogenisis would have happened, I can demonstrate the process, etc.No one has been able to do that with Intelligent Design. Who is doing the designing? "I don't know". How? "I don't know." What's the process for picking which design is used in which species? "I don't know." etc etc etcIt's not a blanket statement to say there is not THEORY in this theory.IDers have been asked again and again to come up with some answers, and all they manage to do is come up with reasons they don't believe evolution.Not believing one theory is not evidence for a different theory.So, unless you have some hidden information that has yet to be revealed, my statements stand. The entire movement is simply "we don't want to believe evolution, so we'll take anything else".

As a proponent of evolution how does my allowing for the possibility of Intelligent design fit into your statement that "all Intelligent design proponents are anti evolution?What can be known from t=1 and beyond is a explaination of naturalism.What can be postulated prior is speculation.Does speculation of ID refute evolution?
Does science care about speculation?
Is ID science?
The answer to all 3 questions is no.
I have said over and over ID should not be taught as a science.
It has no place in the teaching of science.
Speculation is just that and should be regarded as such. IMO.
But atheist should resist the urge to wave evolution in the face of theist as evidence of the non existance of god. By doing that they are just as guilty of speculation.
Science is silent in matters of faith as it should be.

& if none(big T word) arises in the next fiver years ...then I'll agree with you (then).
There is some superfludity among "theory", "hypothesis", "postualate(ation)."Figenbaum left Cornell for NYC because despite there being good physics in Ithaca the people were not doing what was really going on.Figenbaum made it superlatively clear that if clouds were then kinematics needs be decripted before dynamics are writ. The events ostentibly within range of ID are not this domain of mechanics. They would be if ID was not only arguements but reason against any rate of change in evolution.I think so, Miller is however mistaken to have thought there never will be another bigger T lept by superIDman. That is just his belief against mine say. It is mathematically clear to me that there is not but "a distinction without a difference" Miller can read EVC if he wishes. So the statement "ID is nothing except these arguments against evolution.", if it refers to really "nothing" must only be speaking in the same tone that Gingerich did when seperating big I and other i. It is clear that Discoverers are not "selling" ID(strange thing about 'merica is that if it gets into the courts or the politics, if it is to survive, it must "sell" advertising"". If one holds a particular indiviudalism in evolution theory no thinking is necessary at that point. Now if Derrida's death was applied to ID where Derrida DID refer to sourced US creationism then there is no way Miller could be correct about what I could write in the next 5 years.What is not clear to me is if a canon necessitates ID. To state ONLY that ID is a distinction without a difference is to fail to observe any averge posting cycle on EVC. That's the difference. I see how biology might be IDistic without being constructed only "against" evolution. If evolutionists think that is going to work this time around to say the changes in creationism are only responses to evolutionary changes and thought, they would be not only sorely mistaken but only listening to Wolfram tones on th
WolframTones
eir Ipod. That's a joke. I hate being serious all the time.

Hi Nuggin: "Some natural structures require accuracy of millionths of a centimeter. The silvery skin of fish is designed to provide a reflective surface that enables them to remain camouflauged and unnoticed by predators, in the greenish gloom of the sea. To achieve this, fish secrete millions of tiny nitrogenous crystals in layers on their skin and scales. But this is not all. To increase the efficiency of their reflective coating (from about 25% reflective to as much as 75%) the fish secrete multiple layers of mirror crystals sandwiched between layers of cell tissue. But to be effective, the "sandwich" has to be an exact thickness - exactly one-quarter of the wavelength of the incident light. For the greenish light of the undersea world, this means a separation of seven millionths of a centimeter.(1) Does anyone really believe that this precision was achieved by random mutation ?" pages 248, 249Only if your theory HAS to be true. "An important area of biology in which the neo-Darwinist theory is an inadequate tool of explanation, and one that leaves a disturbingly large blank on the scientific map, is that of behavior. There is ample evidence that the young of many species are born with highly specialized abilities that they cannot learn from their parents or others of their species and which therefore must be inherited.

​

One of the most striking examples of this kind of behavior is that of the cuckoo. As is well known, the hen bird lays her egg in the nest of another species. The cuckoo's parents both migrate some 12,000 miles to South Africa while the cuckoo chick hatches. Once the young cuckoo is fledged and full grown it, too, will fly 12,000 miles south to join the parents it has never met at the winter quarters it has never seen, with perfect navigational accuracy." page 249.source for the above: Richard Milton (atheist, Mensa member, 30 year science journalist) "Shattering Myths of Darwinism" [1997]1) Milton quoting: E.Denton, [1971] "Reflectors and fishes" Scientific American 224(1):64.More on the amazing abilities of migratory birds and their obvious designs:Page not found – Evolution-Facts"STILL MORE MIGRANTS”How can these creatures travel such long distances and arrive at the right place? How can they have the stamina to do it? Who taught them what to do, where to go, and how to get there? One thing is certain: other birds did not teach them. This is obvious when we consider the cuckoos and Manx shearwaters.When the cuckoos of New Zealand travel 4,000 miles (6,437 km) to Pacific islands, they do so having left their recently-born children behind. After strengthening for the trip, the young cuckoos later fly that same 4,000 miles (6,437 km) and join their parents on those islands!Manx shearwaters migrate yearly from Wales in England”all the way to Brazil. Left behind are their chicks, which follow after they have grown strong enough to make the trip. One shearwater did it in 16 days, averaging 460 miles [740 km] a day. A bird enthusiast became so excited about this, that he took a Manx shearwater to Boston in the United States, tagged it, and turned it loose. In less than two weeks”12 1/2 days”that bird had returned to Wales, a journey of 3,200 miles [5,149 km].The young birds have never seen their destinations or been there. They have never been over the route before. No one showed them a map; no one sat down and explained where they should go or how they should get there." END LINK QUOTEThere exists no EVIDENCE that supports how these examples could evolve step by tiny step as per the concept of evolution. Explanations abound, which are only muttered because no evidence exists.In a courtroom ONE quality incontrovertible piece of undeniable
evidence negates a ton of circumstantial evidence. These birds falsify ToE in its tracks.Also, you evos assert birds descended from dinosaurs. This is
counter-intuitive: very large animals (dinosaurs) evolving into
predominantly small animals (birds) = nonsense.RayThis message has been edited by Herepton, 09-29-2005 02:19 PM

This statement = a display of your lack of knowledge about evolution and dinosaurs.1. Not all dinos were big, there were many small species.
2. Large size is not always a good thing. A large body requires large amounts of food. If an enivroment changes so that there is less food available then the larger species are going to have a tough time suviving. The amount of available food is a selection factor, the smaller the species the better chance it has (in this case) of surviving and passing on its genes.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Yes. What's happening on silverfish is a chemical process, it must be. The fish is not swimming around and picking out tiny nitrogenous crystals and pasting them on. It's secreteing them.So the size of what it secretes isn't really important. Some fish secrete more, some less. The ones that secrete more are too shiny and more likely to get eaten. The ones that secrete less are too dark and more likely to get eaten.The fact that the right amount is seven millionths of a centimeter is incindental. Perhaps I misunderstood your original post, or perhaps you've misunderstood this quote. The young cuckoo is NOT flying to meet his parents he's never seen. He's flying to "the winter quarters" where, incindentally, his parents also happen to be migrating.Yes, migration is interesting and it's a behavior. But lots of things migrate, from butterflies to whales. It doesn't take much in the way of incentive to start a migration. It gets colder at point A, there is less food at point A, the animal heads for point B.That the animal can return to point A, that others of the same species tend to cluster together at point B, all interesting. All answerable without having to rely on an Intelligent Designer specifically mapping out exactly where everything goes. What would you expect / accept as evidence? Do you have similiar evidence that supports an Intelligent Designer?

You're joking here, right?