Help me understand Intelligent Design

Of course. ID is the identification of systems, mechanisms, features, apparatus, etc. that are observedly designed. ID is the explanation of scientific data, facts, and evidence favorable to the Supernatural worldview, whereas Darwinism, that is the belief that living originate from other livings things (macroevolution) instead of from a Deity, is the explanation of the same scientific data, facts, and evidence favorable to the Naturalism worldview.Supernaturalism worldview accepts all facts produced by Naturalism but we reject any explanation or conclusions based on those facts that contradict the objective facts of Creationism because of the admitted bias of Naturalism in their exclusion of the Divine under the false pretext of neutrality. Basically the same mechanisms identified by Evolution yet correctly attributed to a Designer, IOW, ID corrects the defects of evolutionary explanations and conclusions caused by its mandatory atheistic parameters. Much too ambiguous to comment on. ID bows to observed reality: what we see was designed. ID presupposes the exact antithesis of what Naturalism presupposes, but unlike Naturalism, our presuppositions are based on a foundation of irrefutable facts that correspond to objects in reality.Herepton

Bat sonar.IC systems.Migratory birds. How does the Cuckoo fly thousands of miles to its parents (whom it has NEVER seen or met) and find them ? This is rhetorical. Blatant examples like these is why physical objects reflect an invisible Designer. YOUR explanations are meaningless and are insulting to common sense and observed reality. I say explanations as an insult which infers you must skip evidence because you have none to support your explanations. The examples given fit perfectly in any ID model and defy any Evolutionary model. Negative.Restoring the Designer explains reality and its origins. All that is left is to unlock and discover the seemingly inexhaustable depths of the Designers complex mind and abilities.Science is the discovery and unpacking of creation via various learned and academic methodologies. The IDer doesn't give a fuck about what anyone theorizes or says as long as ultimate credit is assigned to Him as the source.Have you ever been plargiarized, or stolen from, or had a patent or copyright infringement ?ToE has plagiarized the source of creation and assigned it to an incorporeal entity (chance) as explained by them its Prophets and Priests. IOW, you guys have set up yourselves as God and are paying the traditional price of plagiarism: expulsion. The IDer has expelled you - thats the reason why you deny His reality.Your last item has comingled two thoughts so I won't address it.I wouldn't mind discussing your link but you need to narrow what in the link we are going to talk about. IOW, its just too broad.HereptonThis message has been edited by Herepton, 09-25-2005 06:58 PM

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

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