Intelligent design is 'antithesis of science'

Daniel Girt states there "is just as much scientific proof, if not more ... for Intelligent Design as there is for evolution" . Where is all this evidence, and why isn't it presented in science journals and at ...

[Everton]

Bill Brown are you out of your mind - do you expect people to think critically for themselves?

The word of GOD is in the BIBLE. There is no need to logically approach the reality we call life.

If you can not accept 'intelligent design' on God given 'blind faith' then you are damned to hell!

[Amy4peace]

Everton wrote:

Bill Brown are you out of your mind - do you expect people to think critically for themselves?
The word of GOD is in the BIBLE. There is no need to logically approach the reality we call life.
If you can not accept 'intelligent design' on God given 'blind faith' then you are damned to hell!

LOL

[Zeke]

The drivel in the above post by CDavidParsons isn't worthy of a reply, but I'd like to highlight three phrases that each gave me a good laugh:

"unprofitable Darwinian view"

"magical application of mathematics"

"the mystery of fire"

Anyone who could swallow even one of those is probably a good target for the DI's next fundraising drive.

[MikeF]

David, David, David. Don't you ever have anything original to say other than your cut and paste plug of your book?

[llDayo]

Careful, Bill Brown! Now the DI will use the term "Antithesis of Science" as a persuasion tool for people who don't understand any of those three words!

[thinkgoodthings]

Atheism and Satan are the antithesis of God.

You are right about evolution though, some people (BB) are only a few steps removed from monkies. It's amazing how they learn to write.

How sad one looks who has no faith.

[Nettiebelle]

thinkgoodthings wrote:

Atheism and Satan are the antithesis of God.
You are right about evolution though, some people (BB) are only a few steps removed from monkies. It's amazing how they learn to write.
How sad one looks who has no faith.

Oh, For God's Sake.

[Missing Link]

Let me ask Bill Brown or anyone else who buys into evolution as a resonable explanation for how we got here. Do you know anything about genetics? Because Darwin did not. Evolution says it was a gradual progression by natural selection for one species to evolve to another. So let's take the fish that over time grew legs and moved out of the water. Where did the genes come from to turn the fins into legs? Each cell in an animal is predetermined by its genes to be what it is. So you will say it mutated, that is how the fin became a leg. First of all in every know mutation, the mutation occurs because of a loss of information in the genetic code. Even if the mutation created a leg, this fish would have to find another fish with the same mutation to mate with. Even if that happened the mutation of the gene causing a fin to be leg would be a recessive gene which means there would be a 75% chance the offspring would not carry on the recessive mutated gene.

[MikeF]

Really!

Hey ThinkGoodThings (ironic name given your post), exactly where was it that Mr Brown said he had no faith. Or do you just believe that anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist?

[Missing Link]

Leaving a GOD of creation out of the discussion and just dealing with Science. There is just know way that Chance, natural selection and time could have created the world as we know it.
Scientists have millions of fossils but they have not a single one of any animal in its transitional state from one speices to another, i.e. a fish with legs.
The complexity of our world and what we know about it suggests a designer. Look at Mt.Rushmore, you see it and you know that some intelligent being created it, it could not happen by chance. How much more complex is the human body? To suggest that humans arose out of pure luck and chance is ignorant.

[MikeF]

What Darwin knew about genetics is immaterial. And you're oversimplifying. You state this as if it concerned on lonely, mutant fish.

In any population, there will be variations. To use your example, some fish will have stronger/longer/whatever fins than other that would enable them to be more successful in surviving. In this case, perhaps to move further out of the water in search of food. They would then be more successful in breeding and passing their genes on to subsequent generations.

[Missing Link]

The fact of the matter is that beleiving in Evolution takes just as much if not more Faith than Intelligent design. Evolutionist rail against Creationism/Intelligent Design because of the requirement of faith, what hypocrites. They have just as much faith in evolution because it can't stand up to the scrutiny of real science and that is why they won't even tollerate the debate.

[Nettiebelle]

Missing Link wrote:

Leaving a GOD of creation out of the discussion and just dealing with Science. There is just know way that Chance, natural selection and time could have created the world as we know it.
Scientists have millions of fossils but they have not a single one of any animal in its transitional state from one speices to another, i.e. a fish with legs.
The complexity of our world and what we know about it suggests a designer. Look at Mt.Rushmore, you see it and you know that some intelligent being created it, it could not happen by chance. How much more complex is the human body? To suggest that humans arose out of pure luck and chance is ignorant.

Evolution does not prove or disprove Creation. Evolution is concerned with what happened after the first spark of life occurred.

[MikeF]

Missing Link wrote:

Scientists have millions of fossils but they have not a single one of any animal in its transitional state from one speices to another..

BS.

[BloodyViking]

Missing Link wrote:

Let me ask Bill Brown or anyone else who buys into evolution as a resonable explanation for how we got here. Do you know anything about genetics? Because Darwin did not. Evolution says it was a gradual progression by natural selection for one species to evolve to another. So let's take the fish that over time grew legs and moved out of the water. Where did the genes come from to turn the fins into legs? Each cell in an animal is predetermined by its genes to be what it is. So you will say it mutated, that is how the fin became a leg. First of all in every know mutation, the mutation occurs because of a loss of information in the genetic code.

Wrong. Anyone who knows anything about genetics, or even bothers to look it up, knows that there are Multiple mechanisms which add information to the genetic code.

Missing Link wrote:

Even if the mutation created a leg, this fish would have to find another fish with the same mutation to mate with.

You have gotten your information from a Creationist strawman argument. No one who knows anything about evolution claims that it goes from a fin to a leg in one giant leap.

Missing Link wrote:

Even if that happened the mutation of the gene causing a fin to be leg would be a recessive gene

Why do you think it would automatically be a recessive gene?

Missing Link wrote:

which means there would be a 75% chance the offspring would not carry on the recessive mutated gene.

Wrong again. In your case, which is completely nonsensical, there would be a 50% chance of carrying the gene, and a 0% chance of expressing it in the first generation.

[Ida Tarbell]

Scopes Monkey Trial II here we come.

Sad.

[Missing Link]

I never said Mr. Brown had no faith, I am speaking about what the evolution crowd says about those that believe in Creation. And what did I say about the fossils is BS? Have you seen the fossil of any species in its intermediate stage? The answer is NO because it does not exist.
And Nettie---the first spark of life? where did it come from? how did it create something from nothing? these are questions that evolution can't answer. And yes I know that Creationism can't answer them either, that is the point, both require a degree of faith and neither theory can be or has been proven. That is why both should be taught and it can be done and God never has to be mentioned.

[deanoff]

Missing Link wrote:

Leaving a GOD of creation out of the discussion and just dealing with Science. There is just know way that Chance, natural selection and time could have created the world as we know it.
Scientists have millions of fossils but they have not a single one of any animal in its transitional state from one speices to another, i.e. a fish with legs.
The complexity of our world and what we know about it suggests a designer. Look at Mt.Rushmore, you see it and you know that some intelligent being created it, it could not happen by chance. How much more complex is the human body? To suggest that humans arose out of pure luck and chance is ignorant.

Yet again we have someone who thinks they are qualified to debunk evolution even though, from reading this post,it is blatantly obvious that they don't know even the basics of the science involved.
Darwin was spot on when he commented.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

[Missing Link]

Bloody, tell me what mutation adds information to the genetic code. The code is a series of proteins that are made up of amino acids and they have to be in exact order no mutation adds an amino acid to this string, mutations only remove or destroy the strings in some fashion.

[MikeF]

Missing Link wrote:

I never said Mr. Brown had no faith

It certainly reads that way.

Missing Link wrote:

Have you seen the fossil of any species in its intermediate stage?

Sure have. And they has been pointed out to you over and over. Please continue to ignore the evidence so I won't have to revise my opinion of you.

Missing Link wrote:

...these are questions that evolution can't answer.

One more thing pointed out over and over, Straw Man. The Theory of Evolution does not address the beginning of life. Continue to ignore this as well.