Jump to: Board index
October 16th, 2009, 6:09 pm
October 17th, 2009, 7:50 am
Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.
October 17th, 2009, 2:12 pm
(Juice)I believe that the State vs Scopes, Scopes vs State (Tenn, 1926) (Scopes Monkey Trial) did a disservice to scientific inquiry, initiated by religious fervor, for future generations as it paved the way for a particular level of scientific dogma, pertaining to origins, to prevail over reasoning and logic.
October 21st, 2009, 6:11 am
(Juice)Did gram negative Neisseria Gonorrhoeae (gonorrhea), the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease in the US, suddenly become gram positive, no it became penicillin, tetracycline, vancomycin, trobicin resistant. The ability to resist inherent in it's biochemical information database. But, it is still gonorrhea!
December 7th, 2009, 12:03 pm
(Meleagar)This is precisely what ID theorists are currently striving to do, as well as to find such phenomena, and then to develop research programs of such phenomena based on the finding that they are intelligently designed.
(from article forwarded by Meleagar)if we found something like a very weird-looking spaceship on Mars, that had a power-source and computer-like controls, we wouldn't go around looking for a "natural" explanation to explain it; we would intuitively know it was designed by some form of intelligence.
December 7th, 2009, 7:13 pm
December 8th, 2009, 1:31 pm
Belinda: your design detection model fails, because purebred Pekingese are not the product of natural selection, and they have ancestors going back millions of years.
An artefact is by definition something designed by an agent. Better say some unbiased name, for instance 'entity X'. Let's call it 'Entity X'.If there were evidence that this Entity X had an ancestry going back millions of years,and in the probable absence of any visible agents-- such as dog breeders-- I'd say that Entity X was a result of natural selection.
December 8th, 2009, 7:53 pm
December 9th, 2009, 5:44 am
. (Juice)You are not keeping up Alun . Material evolutionists have long ago agreed that evolution appears designed but contend that the appearance of design is illusory. "A magician’s trick, slight of hand, MYSTICISM!"
Design-Is a plan with a definitive purpose. The "Design Inference" takes the chance out of creation by calculating mathematical probabilities to events. The more complex a structure or event the less chance there is that it came about by chance. Intelligent Design merely studies signs of intelligence not the intelligence itself
December 9th, 2009, 9:04 pm
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that in order to identify any item X as artificial, your model requires that there be artificial evidences of intelligent agents present, but none of those things, which are also classified as X upon discovery, can be identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc.) in your model without first identifying other X's as artificial.
Your model contains a catch-22; no X (questionable item) can be identified as artificial until some or many such X items on that planet have been identified as artificial (tools, shelters, etc. for intelligent agents). This means that no X can ever be identified as artificial.
Come on Belinda the product of an artists endeavors are from an intelligence whether the result of random musings or deliberate thoughtfulness.
A Doctor also utilizes the products of his/her intelligence to do their job.