Empirical evidence for Intelligent Design

More evidence here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• behe
• irreducible
• complexity
• dna
• genetic
• common
• design
• ancestry
• embryonic
• genesis
• bible
• dogs
• fossils
• transitional
• forms

[baassietje]

@bishbosh1962 Thats not an answer...

[bishbosh1962]

Hmmm, Christianity? The belief that a cosmic jewish zombie that was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Yeah, makes perfect sense!

[TheMors666]

Most of the arguments you give are evidence of common descent. In your 2nd point you even include a picture of Haeckel's embryos... this is an argument often brought up by ID advocates against evolutionists because it exaggerates the similarity between embryos of different species.

You're using the top arguments ID advocates have AGAINST evolution and trying to make them support your belief. It won't just be atheists that thumbs down your videos but ID advocates too.

[TheSeantague]

@watergaia But the whole point is that if you define your god by what we dont know, then as we learn more your god shrinks and might as well be nonexistant.

[watergaia]

@TheSeantague one more thing about the god of the gaps argument i have to add is that i think it's a valid argument, because we can never understand anything entirely, so there is always a gap which is explained by god. even though we understand a little more today how lightning is created, it's still god who creates lightning. god is the cause behind everything.

to explain gravity as the curvature of spacetime is more useful to science, but it's more true to say that god causes gravity.

[TheSeantague]

@watergaia There is no "if", we have. Search Craig Venter. Anyway, the entire reason the computer/calculator work is because of these brainless natural laws. This is getting really off-topic, and I've already addressed this issue.

[watergaia]

@TheSeantague it's not so strange if we humans create "reproducing life" because we are intelligent. nature is not, so i don't see how brainless natural laws could create the most advanced computer ever, when evolutionists don't even think a calculator could evolve into being without some intelligent designers.

[TheSeantague]

@watergaia This is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. It goes, "since humans have not been able to do this yet, God must have done it." Even though we have artificially created reproducing life, it is somehow illogical to think that nature could have done that on Her own.

[watergaia]

@TheSeantague just because a computer reproduces doesn't mean that no one created it. on the contrary, it's logical to assume that is must require an extraordinary intelligence to make a reproducing computer, because no human has been able to make one yet. so, while reproduction allows for small mutations and variations in us, it's also just further proof of our intelligent design.

[TheSeantague]

@watergaia Every human on the planet has 6 unique mutations, never seen before. This is in an organism with very strict ways of making sure there are no mutations in the genetic code. If 6 mutations can sneak past the excellent mutation detectors we have per generation, I hardly think its much of a jump to think that earlier organisms, without these mutation detectors, would have evolved much faster than eukaryotic organisms are now.