You're not listening to what I was saying. I'm not saying that mass extinction is a random event.

I'm saying that if you look at the fossils in the earth, you can tell when a mass extinction occurs because the number and variations of fossils drops drastically over a short period of time. Right after this extinction, there is an explosion of new life. Fossils of the same species can be found, except there is -a lot- of variation between creatures of the same species. After a mass extinction, there is very little life left on earth. Natural selection says that creatures evolve because of competition. For example, lets say there is a group of beetles, some are born with black shells and others born with gold shells, this is comparable to some humans having blond hair and others having brown hair. Anyway, over time, birds will be able to see and eat the gold colored beetles easier than the brown ones, so the gold ones will die out because they cannot survive to reproduce.

In the case of a mass extinction, there is very little to no competition afterwards. If there's nothing to eat the beetles, for example, they can develop however they want. Gold beetles will survive just as well as brown ones. -This- is the proof of random evolution. After mass extinctions, there are explosions of new life, where large numbers of fossils can be found of the same species, with a lot of variation between them.

How does intelligent design explain this?

At least he openly admitted it with me.



The fact that my definition matches his quote is irrelevant, I guess. He may read parts of your post, but he doesn't understand any of it.

What does omniscient have to do with Intelligent Design?

Do any of you people read multiple sources for hot topics of debate, or do you just read "your side"'s writings?



Yes, I understood what you were saying, but I still don't see how that has anything to do with random.

That looks like direct cause and effect to me.




You have some serious biased reading issues.

I was ignoring your post because you can't seem to stop yourself from insulting the person speaking, instead of the things they are saying.

from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.


Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.


Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.


Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Side note:

One can be a Creationist and believe in completely random evolution. One needs only to look at the religious literature which depicts G-d as creating tests and challenges for His creations. Look at say the book of Job, or the 10 tests of Abraham.

Okay, even if religion separated ID theory makes sense when you apply it to Earth, it doesn't when you look at the bigger picture. Designer that isn't god would have to be designed himself. That leads to the first designer who has to be god. Therefore, ID only makes sense as a religious theory.

Unless information is itself something which can be understood and manipulated, almost quantified.

Information Theory is chalk full of weird almost metaphysical ideas which are not intended to be metaphysical.

I don't know all the details, but I remember reading an article which was debating what counts as an "observer" in quantum mechanics, as being a related topic.

edit: Your statement sort of reminds me of the 11th century Ramban, who said that magnetic stones requires an understanding of angels to be understood. (i.e. You can't move something unless something actually "pushes" it).

Just like we don't -need- to posit spiritual beings which makes various forces work, you don't -need- to posit a god for information/design to exist. (though of course absent the concrete knowledge of how information works, most people are inclined to do so. And that is why you get all these ad hominem attacks against ID. Its not science because the guy who is proposing the theory believes in Christianity *gasp* Its all a charade to push his religion on people!

as evidence by this Wikipedia article paragraph


But ofcourse when you look at the Intelgillent Design.org website, it says the exact opposite.

No, not really. At least I do read your posts and address them, as opposed to your favored methods of debate: "My old argument was just proven wrong by this person, so I'll ignore it and start a new one with someone else." and "I'm going to ignore all of your argument except the parts I can counter with religious zealotry." As I'd hope that you would have realized by now, you've done both of those within the confines of this one little thread. You did it last time there was a big argument, too, but when I pointed it out you told me to stop attacking you and start attacking the arguments (which, conveniently enough, had already been done - quite like this time).

This is like watching a stubborn little kid try to put the square block in the circular hole and not being able to show them that they're doing it wrong. I'm done, I guess.



Oh, one last thing. You see all those sources that you copied along with the quote? They mean either that you're wrong or "Intelgillent Design.org" is overly biased and/or incorrect.

If you say so.

I must have missed any points you made. I couldn't find them in the wasteland of insults and ad hominems. Perhaps you can try restating them, or quoting them?

It is cause and effect. But how is multiple variations of the same species evolving anything but random? Some beetles are black some are gold. Some insects had one horn, others had two, some had none, some had spiny armor, some had no armor. Those things happened for no reason other than the fact there was nothing for the organisms to compete with, so random mutations occured and were able to run rampant.

Hahaha, oh God, it's like you're intentionally doing exactly what I just described.

Fine, I'll go point by point.

I'm quoting Jewish texts, only to prove the point that your generalizations are false.



False:




I didn't think it was really necessary but ok.

-The fossil record of change in earlier species -- Just as god creates people to go from babies to adults, so all his creations grow and change over time.


-The chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms -- G-d creates similar being in similar ways so that we may learn from their form and apply them to ourselves.

-The geographic distribution of related species - For each being in each situation, G-d creates a creature designed for its environment.

-The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations -- It is not enough to know your destination but also to know the path you took to get there. The way of following G-d's way is not about the destination but the journey. So to for the rest of creation.





--Actually I am. (except for when I'm quoting places)



Gah this is anoying to respond point by point... I'll just sum it up.

1. You keep assuming things about people and their actions and motivations, and continue to be wrong about them. Try sticking to the actual point of the argument. You don't know me, you don't know what I do, or why I do it, so stop pretending you do.

2. Creationism is not science. Logic and philosophy are not science. Don't confuse the two.

3. Believing in G-d or in Creationism does not halt scientific progress. It never has, and I don't forsee it doing so in the future. Many of the most astounding breakthrough in origin sciences came from Christian priests.

I'll let Verithrax, Xavius, and any others deal with that, I've already finished arguing.

I'm not a zoologist, and I'm not going to pretend to be one. However, this is what I imagine "random" variables to be.

Some beetles are black, some are gold, some are neon pink, some are blue, some are green, some are red, some are yellow, some are orange, some are purple, some are etc etc etc.

Some insects should have one horn, some have two, some have three, some have none, some have sideways horns, some have horns on their butt, some have horns on their kneecaps , etc etc.

You should have horrible freaks of nature every few generations like you do in those sci-fi movies when they attempt to genetically engineer new animals.

Variation and randomness are two different things.

Those interested in an opposing, pro-evolution view, should perhaps look at Richard Dawkins' work. It's very, very readable, even to those without extensive scientific knowledge - I'd suggest, in this rough order, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and then, finally, The God Delusion.

Or, for those looking for pithy quotes, look on Youtube for Dawkins reading the God Delusion at Randolph Macon.

Oh!

I forgot to ask. Is this thread referring to Christian creationism and ID, or simply creationism and ID?

Figures. I waste my lunch hour for nothing.

You insult and insult and insult, and then produce nothing.

Oh the great Dawkins. King of flamers and Strawmen.

He is a great source if you wish to learn how to remove any respect for a human being.




I don't know much about Christianity, so I'm going off creationism and ID in general. (though the ACTUAL topic of the thread has be long lost to the people who wish to keep brining up evolution as if that is a counter point to anything.)

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here. What does information theory has to do with what I said?


But ID theory postulates intelligent designer. Or is that it just covers Earth's history while conveniently ignoring any ramifications that come from it.

Daganev, much of my respect for your arguments simply goes out the window with that.

Yes, Dawkins is used extensively by trolls, because he possesses wit and the ability to mount quite devastating logical attacks. This does not affect the academic merit of his work - one does not attain a chair at Oxford for being 'king of flamers. Simply stating 'oh, he's irrelevant because he's simply flamebait' is a fallacy, as I have simply pointed out his work, not selectively quoted him in this context, though I have to admit, I was quite tempted.

Furthermore, if I really wished to flame you, I'd simply have gone through your posts and re-posted them, editing where appropriate to introduce the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or her newer cousin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.