Monday, February 15, 2010

Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Right here:

Pass it on.


D.L. Folken said...


This is not evidence against Intelligent Design as all designers are subjective in how they design things.

You can saw that putting an engine in the front of a car makes more sense; however, some decide to put in the rear. However, they both work so the design is irrelevant.

The feature that puts Intelligent design in the running is the fact that things are designed, natural selection provides variation within a kind, in addition you have numerous example of irreducible complexity that really is overwhelming.

On top of all this, Darwinian evolution has never been demonstrated (transition between kinds). Lenski has pretty much falsified the potential of Darwinian evolution. I believe they may need a few more attempts, but the writting is on the wall.

God Bless...

Unknown said...

Then the 'designer' was a moron.

Additionally, in science (scientific method) if anything is 'falsified' on any level of the method, the hypothesis, conclusion, or theory is thrown out.

There hasn't been any falsification. It's just another xtain hoax trying to drum up more business their way.

Everything before, current, and after is a transitional species. We're constantly changing (there's no fixed species). We are evolving before our very eyes. You're just too narrow minded/sighted to see this.

Remember, money and power is what god is all about.

BathTub said...

Sorry ZDENNY, but what was the biological definition of kinds again? No, I don't mean 'give examples'.

mikespeir said...

Sorry, it's not a "six of one, half dozen of the other" kind of thing. When even we mere mortals can see ways it could have been done better, you can't write the problem off that blithely.

Jon Voisey said...

I notice ZDENNY's claims have only one effect: To make ID even more nebulous and even less prone to being tested. No matter what now, it can be passed off as "designer's whim."

Good job at making ID even dumber than it already was.

Oh wait... IDiots have been using this claim for a long time.

Oh well. Good job on exposing it yet again.

Katie (Old Profile-Please disregard) said...

ZDenny, you use the same arguments always spouted by creationists, down to the very terminology you use. Could you give an example of irreducible complexity? Can you define what you mean by "kind?" Can you really deny the thousands of fossils that scientists and researchers agree are in fact "transitional?" If so, can you explain why your definition of "transitional" should be different from the given scientific definition even though you probably hold NO degrees in anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, chemistry or the like?

If not, just put the Geisler and Turek book down, get out of the Creationist Museum and come back into the real world.

zbyte64 said...

Zdenny might be onto something. As an engineer none of my "errors" are really flaws... just a form of creative design decisions. So with the car analogy, if I design a car that accelerates at random and requires me to shift into neutral in order to stop, that is not a flaw, just a design decision. I bet the guys at Toyota will be relieved to hear this.

Jacob said...

Katie. Yes, there are small and big changes with the fossils discover, but can you explain where evolution fits in if your rio-carbon dating system is a fluke itself. The rio-carbon dating system is messed up when salt water is added into it, and pity us Christians for a second. Wasn't there a world wide flood.and also, here's a great example of an irreducable complex thing; the Flajela cell motor. look it up.