... Prove nature is unguided...

Who believes this is true? As far as I know, the theory of evolution posits that the process generating change (random mutation) is purposeless, though does not extend this notion to "nature".

We have that proven all around us.

The mutations may well be random. The selection for survival of the most favoured or of the most fit is biased in a way that is very much not random...


And all that is very much against any idea of unchanging "design"...

Even religions evolve such that the most "persuasive" survive to this day...


Keep searchin'
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

It seems that most are cowardly by not remaining on topic.

ID this "intelligence" that did the designing did it create Adam fully formed and in its image? Let's see who the cowards are on this supposed forum.

---

It seems that most are cowardly by not remaining on topic.

I take a few days off for my Countries birthday and you all freak out?

Prove nature is unguided...

No need. There is a vast scientific consensus of data, experimental observation and established facts which support the theory of evolution by natural selection. So far, you have failed to make even a small dent in this theory. Until proof of an intelligent designer can be found, then the ID hypothesis remains unproven.
I suspect that you will never be able to provide evidence of a designer because there is no designer.

---

The theory of Intelligent Design is not looking for the Designer, after all the Designer is not within our time line.

As far as proving that there is a design, there is vast amounts of data proving that already collected.

I asked a question and all you intellectual cowards have avoided it so far.

Tell me how Neo Darwin people like yourself explain the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen, that doesn't account for the information transfer needed for all that life... ;-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

The theory of Intelligent Design is not looking for the Designer, after all the Designer is not within our time line.

As far as proving that there is a design, there is vast amounts of data proving that already collected.

I asked a question and all you intellectual cowards have avoided it so far.

Tell me how Neo Darwin people like yourself explain the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen, that doesn't account for the information transfer needed for all that life... ;-)

Science doesn't work that way. You infer design from complexity in biological systems. That is not evidence or data or experimental proof for design. In fact, you provide no evidence that biological systems are designed. Further, ID presupposes design, then looks for it in biological systems. Finally, ID supporters always refuse to speculate on the nature of the designer, leaving that up to the individual. This is a totally unscientific concept in which a theory contains a variable which can take any value you like. That is not science. Intelligent design is a hypothesis which awaits data to support it. Period. Until ID supporters provide evidence of design, ID will remain an unsupported hypothesis.

---

LOL, ummm, back in the day we made atomic bombs, we designed them. With math we tested the bombs. Then we field tested them. Ya know, dug a hole, dropped it in, lite it off....

Everything we see is designed and can be defined by math. Fibonacci numbers..., ...yet you would ignore proof before your own very eyes? Why?

of course you will not read this. of course if you did read this you would have to answer to it and you will not do that. of course you do not want to look at anything that does not support you version of the truth...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Intelligent design is a hypothesis which awaits data to support it. Period. Until ID supporters provide evidence of design, ID will remain an unsupported hypothesis.

Hypothesis? You give it far too much credit. It is a psychological delusion based upon feelings of self superiority.

---

...understanding isn't your goal, I understand that...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

...understanding isn't your goal, I understand that...

On the contrary. I have read the links you provide, looked up web sites from ID organizations and considered the possibility of irreducible complexity. I have read many of the non-peer reviewed articles put out by the discovery institute and others. I have even incorporated elements of the intelligent design hypothesis into my teaching (I am a professor of cancer biology at at major research university) and given graduate students the opportunity to read and discuss ID compared to evolutionary theory. My scientific opinion is that evolutionary theory explains biological diversity whereas the intelligent design hypotheses do not.

---

It seems that most are cowardly by not remaining on topic.

ID this "intelligence" that did the designing did it create Adam fully formed and in its image? Let's see who the cowards are on this supposed forum.

I knew you didn't have the courage to answer my question.

---

ID this "intelligence" that did the designing did it create Adam fully formed and in its image?

psychological delusion of self superiority ...

If the shoe fits ...

---

LOL, ummm, back in the day we made atomic bombs, we designed them. With math we tested the bombs. Then we field tested them. Ya know, dug a hole, dropped it in, lite it off....

Everything we see is designed and can be defined by math. Fibonacci numbers..., ...yet you would ignore proof before your own very eyes? Why?

of course you will not read this. of course if you did read this you would have to answer to it and you will not do that. of course you do not want to look at anything that does not support you version of the truth...

Read it through. Its a philosophical discussion of how information can be coded in systems. Presents a biased interpretation of how information is encoded. Does not have any relevance to biology. Does not contain any data. Does not contain the results of any scientific experimentation. Provides no evidence for design. Just a bunch of nothing. Give us some hard data, not the waffling of Dembski's philosophical nonsense.

---

Read it through. Its a philosophical discussion of how information can be coded in systems. Presents a biased interpretation of how information is encoded. Does not have any relevance to biology.

It falls under if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with B.S.

The author has a PhD, in history and philosophy. He is NOT a scientist.

---

Thought of the day: What if the designer is in fact natural selection?

---

Thought of the day: What if the designer is in fact natural selection?

No. This is the designer.


Right ID?

---

Thought of the day: What if the designer is in fact natural selection?

Oh that can't be ... the designer must exist as some form of being with intelligence, it couldn't possible be just a mathematical probability function.

Except none of his theories begin to describe the designer. And he knows he is made in his design because he is superior. Just the same as the sun revolves around the earth and it is heresy to dare think otherwise and you will be burned at the stake if you do.

It is the very people who did this that he cites as his proof.

---

Thought of the day: What if the designer is in fact natural selection?

Oh that can't be ... the designer must exist as some form of being with intelligence, it couldn't possible be just a mathematical probability function.

Except none of his theories begin to describe the designer. And he knows he is made in his design because he is superior. Just the same as the sun revolves around the earth and it is heresy to dare think otherwise and you will be burned at the stake if you do.

It is the very people who did this that he cites as his proof.

Agrred. Its a fundamental flaw of ID that it refuses to provide any speculation on exactly what the designer is.

---

It is not up to Intelligent Design to define the designer/causal agent for the person. Ideas of what or who the causal agent is varies and that is a personal summation. Causal Agent will do.

Neo-Darwinism does not account for all the information that was transferred during the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen.

I believe in human exceptionalism. There is no doubt about that. Neo-Darwinism is the cool-aide drank to bring a human life down to just a bunch of cells, no more needed then another puppy in the world. This is the belief system needed to dumb down the masses to accept the systematic death of the old and young via a single payer health care system.

This is the preaching that is used in our halls of higher education, you are just a cog, a number, even less then that. They press them out and send them to work, if work is available. You do after all decry capitalism.

You preach your Neo-Darwinism, your nothingness to our young. The lie about how one species has changed into another. You confuse the idea with hypothesis, Fact, and theory. And then, only then can the truth be changed into, legend, and forced into myth.

You have no proof, and every bit the Faith I do it's just your faith is in nothing, nothing at all, just the blackness of nothingness---which you cannot prove.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

If I'm following this, Intelligent Design says "Rather than try to understand where we came from, we will attribute it all to something/someone that we can not, by definition, understand."

Well, I guess that is easier than trying to understand it. Not good enough for me though. I will continue to try to understand it all.

Intelligent Design might work as a hypothesis if we could discuss - and experimentally prove - where the designer came from. Did he/it evolve, or what?

---

It is not up to Intelligent Design to define the designer/causal agent for the person. Ideas of what or who the causal agent is varies and that is a personal summation. Causal Agent will do.

Neo-Darwinism does not account for all the information that was transferred during the Cambrian explosion? Don't tell me oxygen.

I believe in human exceptionalism. There is no doubt about that. Neo-Darwinism is the cool-aide drank to bring a human life down to just a bunch of cells, no more needed then another puppy in the world. This is the belief system needed to dumb down the masses to accept the systematic death of the old and young via a single payer health care system.

This is the preaching that is used in our halls of higher education, you are just a cog, a number, even less then that. They press them out and send them to work, if work is available. You do after all decry capitalism.

You preach your Neo-Darwinism, your nothingness to our young. The lie about how one species has changed into another. You confuse the idea with hypothesis, Fact, and theory. And then, only then can the truth be changed into, legend, and forced into myth.

You have no proof, and every bit the Faith I do it's just your faith is in nothing, nothing at all, just the blackness of nothingness---which you cannot prove.

None of the above is anything to do with evolution or science. Stay on topic.

---