'Intelligent design' supporters ready for Dawkins

"...you are fundamentalist atheists..." <br> What about Christians who accept evolution? <br><br> "So far, abiogenesis researchers can not even reproduce a protein from base chemical [sic]..." And creationists have utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of the being required for their belief. On the other hand, chemicals *do* exist, so...which is more likely to be correct? "Darwinism...predicts that all live [sic] evolved from a single celled organism...The Cambrium [sic] explosion falsified this." Really? How? "It predicts a slow steady evolution." Evolution is evolution, and in the final analysis fast or slow makes no difference. "Species appear fully formed, and then disappear from the fossil record with no net evolution..." They disappear because they went extinct. (How do you square that with ID, by the way?) As for showing no "net evolution", they most certainly do show evolution, but feel free to prove otherwise by falsifying all the research on fossils. "...preposterous idea of Punctuated Equilibrium." I'm not saying it's true, but why is it "preposterous"? Explain if you can. "Darwinism is unfalsifiable..." Not if you find a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian. "Recent discoveries shows that most non coding DNA plays crucial roles in regulating gene expression." What "crucial roles" does it play? I ask because even real scientists are still learning just what and how much part some junk DNA may play. And how exactly did creationists - I'm sorry, ID researchers - make this discovery? What research did they do that led them there? "It seems that ID is a better paradigm to understand DNA than Darwinism." Understand? And how did they gain this amazing understanding? Prayer? Wild guesses don’t count as understanding. "Hmm, so, a bad theory that is materialistic is more "Scientific" than a good theory which allows a divine foot in the door?" ID creationism doesn’t explain anything at all. How does that make it a good theory?

So nice to see that creationism isn't just a problem in the US. ...or if you're a glass half empty person; So sad to see the vast numbers of people who don't understand simple scientific concepts. (like the definition of a theory)

You poor Darwinists. The real reason why you are up in arms, is because you are fundamentalist atheists, and ID threaten your prophet. "There is no God, and Darwin is its prophet." Ok, seriously though. Let's consider ID vs Darwinism as a science. (Which, by the way, is not mutually exclusive) 1) A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable: ID will be falsified once it has been demonstrated that a natural pathway exists from base chemicals to the first cell. So far, abiogenesis researchers can not even reproduce a protein from base chemical, and the precious little they could reproduce, required intelligent interference as a key ingredient. Darwinism - It predicts that all live evolved from a single celled organism. It did not: The Cambrium explosion falsified this. It predicts a slow steady evolution. The fossil record falsified this: Species appear fully formed, and then disappear from the fossil record with no net evolution, forcing Stephan Gould to invent the preposterous idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. I can go on and on, but the basic point is this: Darwinism is unfalsifiable, as there is NOTHING that is cast in stone. 2) A theory needs to make predictions: ID predicted that most of the genome will have function. Darwinism predicted that most of the genome is evolutionary junk. (This is an argument from ignorance, by the way.) ID win. Recent discoveries shows that most non coding DNA plays crucial roles in regulating gene expression. It seems that ID is a better paradigm to understand DNA than Darwinism. "Biochemists need to constantly remind themselves that what they see has evolved, and not designed." Sounds a bit like the fundamentalist priest who did not want to look through Galileo's demonic telescope. Doctrine before fact. Why? "Because we cannot allow a divine foot in the door". Hmm, so, a bad theory that is materialistic is more "Scientific" than a good theory which allows a divine foot in the door? That sounds like bad science to me.

Argh. Reading and understanding is an important skill in life. Joe isn't saying we start as XX and magically change to XY. What he's saying is that humans start with female characteristics and the increased levels of various hormones (namely testosterone) cause male characteristics to develop. Hence individuals who present as female but have internal testes.

Thank you for proving how dumb you are Joe. All humans start out as female! How you claim to know anything about science if you don't know thats utterly wrong I don't know. Look up genetics, the egg is an X chromosome, the sperm either an X or Y. XX = female, XY = male. Moron.

Preacher wrote: "All I have argued is that there is evidence for all theories"

ID isn't a scientific theory. It makes no verifiable predictions, isn't testable - is NOT scientific.

Preacher cont'd: "The age of the earth is another debate that is again subject to interpretation with evidence that defies accepted science."

No it's not! Only the craziest of society (like the flat earthers) don't accept the age of the earth in billions of years.

Preacher asked: "what is your evolutionary explanation for your useless male nipples?"

They are needed by the female of our species to feed their young. Inside the womb all humans start out female, hormone changes soon make men men but we're left with the nipples.

Now - why would an intelligent designer give males nipples when they're clearly only needed by females?

sceptic shows how ignorant of science he is by writing: "ID is a valid theory because you cannot prove life here was not created in the first place"

It really doesn't work that way in science. ID doesn't even have a theory statement. It's not some default (legitimate) scientific theory because we can't prove life wasn't created!! That's about as ignorant a statement on science as I've ever read!

Whatever Joe, your such a poor loser. Preacher never said anything about evolution not happening, neither have I. But Preacher is right, ID is a valid theory because you cannot prove life here was not created in the first place. All you evidence is open to interpretation, it proves nothing. Your continual refusal to accept that just proves what a blind religious fool you are.

Joe, please point out 1 post where I said evolution was not a valid theory or did not happen? You continually act as if I have decried evolution as fantasy, when I have said no such thing. All I have argued is that there is evidence for all theories, it simply depends on the interpretation. As for the fossil record, how do you explain the T-rex bones that were found a few years ago with intact DNA inside them. Yet science declares DNA cannot remain intact after thousands of years. The age of the earth is another debate that is again subject to interpretation with evidence that defies accepted science. By the way, what is your evolutionary explanation for your useless male nipples? Just because you don't understand why their there doesn't mean they are useless. The appendix was long thought to be a useless organ because there was no evidence it did anything. Now it is being accepted as a vital organ with an important function in keeping the bowels healthy.

sceptic wrote: "neither of you can prove your argument because you weren't there!"

Really? (sigh)... evolution is happening everyday. It's not some ancient 'thing' said to have happened thousands of years ago - species are evolving all around us!

If you feel like educating yourself here's a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

This discusses the new species that have arisen in the last couple of decades.

Maharushy Tauranga wrote: "Evolution tells us that “stuff” just is."

Um, no it doesn't. Not even close.

Simply put, evolution is the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

More technically it's "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)

So much opposition to the ToE and it doesn't even seem like you know what the theory says!

Regarding evidence for ID Preacher wrote: "DNA, the fossil record, life the universe and everything... its all around you."

Ahh... I should have been more specific. The fossil record is evidence for evolution because in EVERY fossil discovery we find a new piece to the puzzle of the tree of life. Not one fossil has been found out of place (like finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian strata for instance - this would disprove the ToE!), they all fit nicely with evolution in showing the gradual formation of different species.
Now, how does this support ID?

Preacher continued: "As I said, the evidence of intelligent design happens every day that man intervenes against the evolutionary process..."

This statement seems to be an admission by you that there is an "evolutionary process"! Was that a slip? Do you accept evolution or not?! You can't say humans intervene in the evolutionary process, but the evolutionary process doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense.

Preacher continued: "Yet you find the idea that life on this world was manipulated or created by an extraterrestrial source impossible?"

No I don't. It's not "impossible", it's just without any shred of evidence. It's all about the evidence and where the evidence leads.

ID doesn't have a stated "theory", it doesn't come close to touching the scientific process, it isn't science. It's speculation and guessing without anything to back it up (except for "look at that beautiful rainbow! It ~had~ to be designed!"). It isn't science.