Joined: Oct. 2007
|Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,03:02)|
|Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,02:12)|
|Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,01:26)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 20 2011,03:21)|
|Quote (forastero @ Oct. 19 2011,21:36)|
|An elaborately designed endocrine system purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli; which btw is just the opposite of the pseudo-scientific natural mutation selection theory that says miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they occur at just the right time and niche|
What does ID tell us about how that system came to be?
Let me guess, it was "designed"?
"Designed" appeals much more to Occam's Razor than your pantheism below
Once upon a time in a material world, the citizens worshiped a messiah named SuperPan whom they believed brought random gifts of new life every now and then.
That's all very nice (albeit a bit of a re-run of Harter's 1998 Small and Stupid Gods extended analogy/essay), but it doesn't seem to address the question it's ostensibly a reply to. So... what does ID tell us about how that system came to be?
Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized?
No, I don't, forry, because you didn't present any of Harter's words as if they'd been written by you. Instead, what you did was present a scenario whose basic premise is fairly similar to that of Harter's essay, thus my note about "a bit of a re-run", in somewhat the same way that the Roger Corman sci-fi flick Battle Beyond the Stars could be thought of as "a bit of a re-run" of Kurasawa's The Seven Samurai. Personally, I don't think that noting Theme X exists in an earlier work constitutes an accusation of plagiarism; your mileage may vary...
Still nothing on the topic of what ID tells us about how that system came to be, I note.
|You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.|
No, 'we' don't say that. Would you like to learn about what 'we' actually do say? If so, would you like to discuss what 'we' say before or after you explain what ID tells us about how that system came to be?
|We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet...|
As best I can tell, you IDiots haven't figured out anything, ID-wise. This does not surprise me, because all throughout its existence, the ID movement has always been a wholly-owned subsidiary of good old Creationism, and the scientific content of ID (such as it is) can be accurately summarized in two sentences whose total word-count is less than 15 words. One of these sentences is Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something, and the other is, Somehow, somewhere, some way, evolution is wrong.
If you disagree that the above two sentences constitute an accurate summary of ID, forry, I invite you to identify any point of inaccuracy in them. For instance, you could explain what ID has to say about its Intelligent Designer other than what little information is contained in the phrase 'Intelligent Designer'..?