Intelligent Design for Dummies

[squealpiggy]

Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25

Derek Ager is not a paleontologist, he is a geologist. His findings are consistent with the generally accepted model of common descent in use today, that of Punctuated Equilibrium. This is where the fossil record shows long periods of stability in species followed by relatively short periods of rapid change. In this context "relatively short" means tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Darwin believed that natural selection produced slow gradual change, but punctuated equilibrium supports another of his assertions, that change occurs at the peripheries of a species' ancestral range.

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

The only reference to a Mark Czarnecki as a paleontologist is a reference to an article in MacLean's magazine which is quoted by numerous creationists including the notorious liar Harun Yahya. MacLean's is a Canadian current affairs magazine and unfortunately I am unable to locate the rest of the article. Given the tone of the rest of this piece I'm going to make an assumption that Mr Czarnecki is not actually a paleontologist, if he exists at all, and also that this comment was taken out of context. I'll post more if I find out more.

I will however address the comments in the quote: It is a lie to suggest that the fossil record holds no intermediate forms. As previously mentioned the fossil record holds tens of thousands of transitional forms.

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be.

The problem with finding a "missing link" is that the link simply reveals two more "missing links" that creationists demand must be found. Say you have species E and fossil A. Creationists demand you find the missing link. A transitional form is found in fossil C. Now the creationist demands you find a link between A and C and another between C and E. Ad infinitum.

Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27

Robert Wesson was a political scientist, not a biologist. The above paragraph was taken from a passage discussion punctuated equilibrium. I hope as you are using Mr Wesson as a source of authority you agree with the conclusions of his book: That evolution, common descent with modification and natural and sexual selection are the best explanation we have for observable phenomena?

For further details of the dishonesty in creationist writing anyone interested can check out the Talk Origins Quote Mine Project.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot...e/project.html

[TheJoker]

Evolution CANNOT be proven sorry.

THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
The Ever-missing Links
According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.
If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".
If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.
Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed. Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.25

Another evolutionist paleontologist Mark Czarnecki comments as follows:

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.26

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be. Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil record are real and meaningful". He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.27

squealpiggy already destroyed the ( laughable ) article but I just wanted to add my two cents. Even if the article had proven evolution wrong ( which it did not ), that still doesn't prove anything. It is not a proof for Creation/ID, what you are referring to is called a "God of the Gaps"... That means "We don't know, therefore it must have been God" and that's the lowest order of logic there is. This is a classic standpoint of creation science which has lead to such heated "debate" ( dare I call it that? ) over the topic of evolution. As science and our understanding of the world increases, God's domain of the unknown decreases. This goes back to that first logical fallacy I pointed out which you make religiously: Argument from Ignorance.

[THE REED]

the bible makes good rolling papers for spliffs.

I can vouch

[mathed]

No one seems to feel that we are not meant to know why we are here or who created us however it is evident that no one here does.....why?

Is it that our developed smorgasbord of sciences aren't yet developed enough to reach that far back into time? Are we just years away from knowing this answer? If you cannot predict statistically the date or expected time frame needed to determine if evolution is valid or not, why?

All the science that we know is somehow interconnected amongst all the specific physical systems that we deal with on a daily basis and seem to work harmoniously, yet as smart as we pretend to be in the name of science we don't know how it all fits together- why? The more that we try to understand life's purpose and origin, the deeper and deeper we go into defining parameters associated with sciences and theories and pertinent philosophies until the point of exhaustion only to end up back where we started. As smart as the smartest person is on the face of the earth is, they are no closer emotionally nor intellectually to the answer of life- why?
The fastest computer in the world could crank for years and not come to an answer yet can calculate the near mind wrecking number of possible moves in the game of chess, why?

Quite simple to me is that we were DESIGNED not to know the answer- if we were capable of knowing the answer, life would be guided and preordained as to reach our intended goal of existence. We somehow have a sense of things and a deep reaching ability to feel what is right and wrong- a built in definition of ourselves some call a soul. If it is not a soul then what is it? How did people come develop a sense of purpose? What cosmic event sparked this internal development unique to us as humans? Let me guess, we don't know.

No one will ever crack the evolution case nor will anyone be able to prove that GOD is real which leads me to believe that it is a matter of choice to the human to search for an answer using science or intuition. A free choice as it were to decide where we came from. Intuitively, I feel I am infinitely complex and all of my facilities cannot be described in words appropriately, yet I function as a complete package as does every other person within even more complex systems of daily interactions that we could not begin to delineate.

When science gives me a better answer to these simple questions, I will believe in Darwin and his almighty wisdom. Until then I will use my intuition as was intended to sift through the fog and make my choice to BELIEVE in something greater........as this makes sense to me. Choose A or B, one is right and one is wrong, but it is the not knowing the right answer that makes sense to me- if you knew the correct answer why have any more cognitive means than necessary beyond primitive instincts?

[squealpiggy]

No one seems to feel that we are not meant to know why we are here or who created us however it is evident that no one here does.....why?

It's extremely arrogant to assume that there is any more reason for our existence than for the existence of any other organism.

Is it that our developed smorgasbord of sciences aren't yet developed enough to reach that far back into time?

Science is interested in answering questions of how the world works, it's concern is with observable phenomena. It's the pursuit of knowledge, not playing philosophical guessing games.

Are we just years away from knowing this answer?

If you're talking about the meaning of life, the universe and everything the answer is 42. But you're not asking the right question.

If you cannot predict statistically the date or expected time frame needed to determine if evolution is valid or not, why?

I'm not sure what this means. Evolution is valid. If you think that there really is some great controversy about the veracity of evolution then sadly the dishonest creationists have succeeded in what they were trying to do, which amounts to subtracting from the sum total of knowledge of the population.

All the science that we know is somehow interconnected amongst all the specific physical systems that we deal with on a daily basis and seem to work harmoniously, yet as smart as we pretend to be in the name of science we don't know how it all fits together- why?

We are working on it? I mean we have a good understanding of how the physical properties of particles result in the chemical properties of materials, and we're getting a better understanding of how the chemical properties of materials influence the biological properties of organisms. Is that what you had in mind? The answers are difficult and are arrived at through hard research, but the answers are there to be found.

The more that we try to understand life's purpose and origin, the deeper and deeper we go into defining parameters associated with sciences and theories and pertinent philosophies until the point of exhaustion only to end up back where we started.

Science is concerned with observable phenomena, not speculation as to reasons why. Especially when there's no reason to believe that there is any purpose at all.

As smart as the smartest person is on the face of the earth is, they are no closer emotionally nor intellectually to the answer of life- why?

I would guess that it's because there isn't an answer to "life". There isn't even a question really.

The fastest computer in the world could crank for years and not come to an answer yet can calculate the near mind wrecking number of possible moves in the game of chess, why?

Well computers are limited to the data which has been inputted into them. As such they can only find answers that are there to be found.

Quite simple to me is that we were DESIGNED not to know the answer- if we were capable of knowing the answer, life would be guided and preordained as to reach our intended goal of existence.

Unless there is no "goal of existence". Plus the evidence is rather against the notion that any of this was designed.

We somehow have a sense of things and a deep reaching ability to feel what is right and wrong- a built in definition of ourselves some call a soul.

We are social animals and we feel social pressures keenly. Knowledge of right and wrong is nothing more than knowledge of behaviours which either promote or contradict social cohesion.

If it is not a soul then what is it? How did people come develop a sense of purpose? What cosmic event sparked this internal development unique to us as humans? Let me guess, we don't know.

It is likely a behaviour which promotes social cohesion thus enabling survival in a hostile world.

No one will ever crack the evolution case nor will anyone be able to prove that GOD is real which leads me to believe that it is a matter of choice to the human to search for an answer using science or intuition.

"Crack the evolution case"? Again I can't help feel that you have been suckered in by lying creationists who have rallied from their abject failure at having their silly notions accepted as science by attempting to cast doubt on genuine science.

If we searched for answers using "intuition" then we'd still be living in caves, if we were living at all. Trial and error is science at its very basic, and through trial and error we were able to make tools, fire, clothing, we were able to hunt, to farm, and eventually to develop technology. The scientific method which is a continual testing of accepted ideas, the adoption of better ones and the rejection of those which are no longer tenable in the face of new evidence is the single most powerful tool that human beings will ever possess.

A free choice as it were to decide where we came from.

You can choose to believe reality or you can choose to believe the fireside stories of some bronze age goat herders.

[/quote] Intuitively, I feel I am infinitely complex and all of my facilities cannot be described in words appropriately, yet I function as a complete package as does every other person within even more complex systems of daily interactions that we could not begin to delineate. [/quote]

Infinite complexity would be terribly inordered.

When science gives me a better answer to these simple questions, I will believe in Darwin and his almighty wisdom.

As I said you're really asking the wrong questions. Besides which Darwin put his theory forward in 1959, he made an excellent case. But time has moved on. His theory was verified by fossil finds, by the rediscovery of genetics and by the discovery of DNA. Evolution is different than it was, it's improved, it is better at explaining the observed phenomena. But the basic idea remains, descent from a common ancestor with modification acted on by natural selection and other pressures until the diversity and distribution of life develops.

Until then I will use my intuition as was intended to sift through the fog and make my choice to BELIEVE in something greater........as this makes sense to me. [/quote]

I would choose the side of observable, verifiable and testable reality over superstition and conjecture.

Choose A or B, one is right and one is wrong, but it is the not knowing the right answer that makes sense to me- if you knew the correct answer why have any more cognitive means than necessary beyond primitive instincts?

They are asking different questions. As an atheist and a naturalist I don't care much for speculation about deities, but I can step aside from that and make the statement that science deals with reality, the observable and testable universe. Theology deals with... well, the unknowable.

[BrooklynBomber]

You, people, are taking this stuff way too seriously.

[squealpiggy]

You, people, are taking this stuff way too seriously.

I'm wearing a big afro wig as I type.

[P4P Opinion]

I hate to put a dampener on what has been an entertaining thread, but you do all realise that this has been a colossal waste of time and effort, don't you?

Lady Fan and everyone else who subscribes to the ideas of ID will never change their mind, because they don't want to. They didn't set out with a question with the aim of coming to a conclusion, they set out with a conclusion with aim of proving their conclusion. This is the key difference between religious people and rational people. I don't blame them. Imagine being told that everything you believe and live your life by is either wrong or vastly improbable. You're going to fight with your lack of logic and lack of rationality to the bitter end with an incapability to accept your own ignorance.

[squealpiggy]

I hate to put a dampener on what has been an entertaining thread, but you do all realise that this has been a colossal waste of time and effort, don't you?

Lady Fan and everyone else who subscribes to the ideas of ID will never change their mind, because they don't want to. They didn't set out with a question with the aim of coming to a conclusion, they set out with a conclusion with aim of proving their conclusion. This is the key difference between religious people and rational people. I don't blame them. Imagine being told that everything you believe and live your life by is either wrong or vastly improbable. You're going to fight with your lack of logic and lack of rationality to the bitter end with an incapability to accept your own ignorance.

Or surrender to logic and become a happier more well balanced and absolutely cleverer person, like what I done.

[P4P Opinion]

Or surrender to logic and become a happier more well balanced and absolutely cleverer person, like what I done.

Oooh. We finally get 'Squealpiggy: Origins'. Fill me with eternal optimism and tell me you were ever even remotely like Lady Fan.