Hmm, I think you're right: May is when this thread started.  I think the last thread on this topic must have been started by the same guy.  He seems familiar in lieu of this topic.

Oh, not to get your hopes up (or, perhaps, down), somewhat expect a reply in our little debate "soon". :)

OT.  "Intelligent Design", or, rather, Young Earth Creationism.

Intelligent design was ruined by one man: Ben Stein

1 I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here to be honest. Are you saying that the fossil record does not have a complete history of evolution? Because if you are - we already know this. Fossils are rare and the fossil record is incomplete. It does however show in multiple cases a fairly long and complete set for certain animals, for example we can trace the modern horse back about 52 million years fairly completely.

Thank you for your honesty. The horse is not one of the best examples but is in fact. THE best and only good example, I need to study it out further as many findings may have changed in recent years on both sides.

Denton had no clear answer for the horse, he only made reference to another scientist who talked about modern horses giving birth to Pigmy horses that resembled the first horse on that chain.

If it is true, then breeding and/or nutrition may have something to do with the way horses look today. While my idea may sound absurd, I say LOOK TO THE DOG. Great Dane, Bull Dog, Chow, Golden Retriever, the new mini-dogs…etc. They look very dissimilar almost like different animals.

2 Bwahaha. That is the most hysterical definition of the Cambrian Explosion I have ever heard. For one things the short period of time was only short on the timescale that is the history of life. We're talking a period of millions of years here. Multi-Cellular organisms existed pre-cambrian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacara_biota 

When I was a child I heard everyone quoting Sagan, “Millions and millions and millions.” Well, it is true million but only 10 million. The time scale shrinks the longer I live. So, I guess it is relative- 100 million years to 10 million years (conservatively estimated) is a huge change. Ecologically speaking, it is not much time- which is why they call it the Biological Big Bang.

3 Also you make it sound as if everything appeared the way it is during the Cambrian, the Cambrian explosion was an important event that caused several branches far down the evolutionary tree but the Cambrian period had nowhere near the disparity of life seen today.

True. But all of the major classes of animals were created during that time. What I mean is all of the significant body plans of animals were already laid out. Beyond that, in responding earlier to a post about reptiles to mammals, I said that the mammal like reptiles were contemporaries with fully formed early mammals.

This is what you will find with the birds and its missing links. There is no missing links; the animal kingdom is a family full of cousins.

4 Forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't punctuated equilibrium merely an exaggeration of the fact that evolution occurs when population sizes shrink or new ecological niches open up? The cause of most periods of accelerated evolution seems to be mass extinction events.

I forgive you. No, it was a theory that was created to explain the lack of fossil evidence and transitional phases. Though it says that sudden changes happen in small groups or niches, this arose because there are no transitional forms to back Darwin’s Hypothesis.

5 There are connecting points along the way. Ida for example is one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae). In fact its believed that we know what the first form of life on the planet was (and it still exists!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite.

I have yet to look these things up.

 6 A series of quotes arguing evolution does not make an argument. Especially when half of them are taken terribly out of context.

Do you mean by “out of context” that, all of the people who are being quoted did not intend by their quotes to support Intelligent Design. Is that what you mean?

 In court, that is what is called a hostile witness. If the Scientist where being tortured by a small village of I.D.s the quotes would not have weight, but the men spoke these things with out duress.

In research, one man’s theory is another mans breakthrough. One man may reach a result and his peer may find that he reached that result falsely. Researchers are encouraged all of the time to add notes to their work that list details as to why things failed or why there positive outcome maybe flawed.

  String Theory is the result of an Equation created and passed up in the time of the author, it took some many people to come along and get the theory noticed by the scientific community. With that said Darwin’s Theory came from other people’s work too.

7 Err. Wrong. The human eye could have evolved and extensive amounts of study have been done on it. Nothing you posted even argued against the evolution of the eye, it just said that the evolution of the eye would take a complex dance of chemicals. There is no reason why this complex dance of chemicals could not have evolved.

The studies that you talk about were computer models based on shape and function. The computer models did in no way account for the fact that the eye was not formed in a “closed system”. The model did not account for the molecular-machines found in the eye that make seeing possible. All that I have seen are all based on the pre-microbiology assumptions of Darwin (Cupped eye to Human eye).

8 Actually none of them are irreducibly complex. Care to prove otherwise?

As you have criticized me about the eye, you can say anything but I won’t believe it till you show me the money. Google Behe and his explanation of the human eye, then type blood clotting, and then tell me how each molecular machine evolved from species to species and then direct me to a book that talks about it.

DO NOT be afraid to look at his work even if it is listed on a Pro-God sight (Do not hate the scientist for the company he keeps). Every pro-evolution book after Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box has tried to knock Behe down.

At the time of his 1^st books release all that anyone could say about his findings was that they did not believe in GOD. Which, is a bias.

 The problem is that all scientists have a worldview. Atheist are not necessarily impartial- Atheism is considered a RELIGION.

You know I could list all of this stuff for you but you seem to have a grasp on it. So, why don’t you tell me why it is not irreducibly complexed. IF I gave you a long explanation of the blood cascade and a long explanation of cilium (and the test that they have run on them) you may already know this, so please tell me what new information you have that you can with a sentence say that they aren’t irreducibly complexed. You were so talkative about everything else why have you given me just a sentence for that? Please, give me some meat to your argument.

Manusjustus

I need to preference our argument when I speak I feel at times that I have no need to repeat myself. I said a long time ago to another poster that for Intelligent Design to be true there does not have to be an explanation of flaws. If ID is link to a religion then nothing in any religion that I know suggest that man or nature is perfect in fact, they all account for “chaos” or imperfection in some way. In the religion that is hated the most, it is said that nature was altered and corrupted. Most other religions express similar views.

So why am I arguing with you? The problem is that one of you said that we are “the product of bad workmanship.” So, what I am arguing is the absurdity of that statement. If there is no craftsmanship in man or nature then theories like Complexity Theory and String Theory would not have so much appeal. Complexity Theory is a theory that scientist are using to try to account for complexity, information (DNA is like a code, this is not my opinion or only the opinion of ID but of Hawkins and Bill Gates and Francis Crick as well), and beauty. The mere existence of the theory shows that there needs to be an explanation for order. Similarly, String Theory and Inflation Theory are scientific Theories that arose in order to explain Anthropic principle.

So, my problem is the ignorant notion that what you call flaws and things that are flaws are some how evidence of unintelligent design. At the very least, people like WessleWoggle are the closest too any real truth even though WessleWoggle seems mostly to be playing around =-).

There is nothing in Evolution that explains the order that we see. There is nothing in evolution to explain the Origin of life. Nothing in Evolution to explain the complexity, we see at the sub cellular levels. The ball is batted back and forth. One saying “I see order” and the other saying “I see no order”. So, in order to win all you have to say is that humans are poorly made. It’s a dumb, desperate argument.

When I was a kid, tonsils were thought to be useless they use to cut them out without a thought. We now know that they are important, I noticed that they are not on you list. They use to say that the appendix had no purpose at all, now even your article says that it has a purpose. (Maybe there is a reason why it gets inflamed a lot. IF, we did not eat so much meat would it be a stronger organ? We know that our modern diet is not the norm for our species. What would happen if mankind stopped eating meat with every meal, and ate mostly vegetables? What would happen then? Would the organ get stronger?).

Also, saying that people are born without things, and are able to live without it, is not evidence of Evolution. People are born without arms; people are born with webbed fingers- what does this say about evolution? Does it say that one-day man will only need one arm? Does it say that we came from water or that we are going back to the water, or does it say that things go wrong in the womb?

I could go threw item by item and but I would only do so because I like to learn but the argument is somewhat pointless if you cannot even see the order that scientist (who you say I do not follow) see in life.

Fossils:

I had a problem understanding some of what you meant in this section but I made some assumptions with my answer please correct me if I am wrong.

So what you believe in is Punctualted Equilibrium that different species appear abruptly in the fossil record? To quote Wrath:

“I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here to be honest. Are you saying that the fossil record does not have a complete history of evolution? Because if you are - we already know this. Fossils are rare and the fossil record is incomplete. It does however show in multiple cases a fairly long and complete set for certain animals, for example we can trace the modern horse back about 52 million years fairly completely.”

Wrath thinks I am bonkers but his testimony backs up all that I have said, “We already know this” and “fairly completely”.

Others of you have said the Evolution is Side by Side, but if it is side by side then that multiplies the need for more transitional phases. Every time a new species is introduced, it is shown to be a contemporary of what was thought to be its predecessor.

Evolution can’t happen someplace else all of the time.

Darwin the man himself says that there has to be a lot of “missing links” that can show transitions step by step.

Now that is the man talking himself. So, what puts Darwin’s theory above the idea that an Intelligent Designer created species with similar attributes?

HOW?

@CHYUII: I was going to give a serious reply to your over-inflated reply to me, but then I saw you misrepresenting my views and I concluded it's just not worth it.

To be more specific... where on earth did I say the human body is a piece of trash? What I did say was that it's not a very good design (assuming it was designed, which I don't believe of course). You asked me for examples, I gave you three, my job was done at that moment.

Did you creat an account just to say that?

So you found and your family found a Bible buried in the ground interesting.

You know the OT has been around since 1500 BC and the NT since 70 AD so I bet there are probably lots of them in the ground. Christians and Jews were killed with their Bibles by the Roman and they were dumped into mass graves. When Rome made Christianity its official religion (after killing so many of them),later, I bet people were buried with Bibles in the ground and they were dug up by archeologist later.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found later, Thousands of years later, do you know that they found no little change from the Bibles in use and the Bibles they found in the ground.

I know you weren't talking about history when you spoke. You were talking about the Bible you found in the ground. That's neat, was it water damaged or full of bugs? 

LOL

Do not worship the thread though it is not a GOD- it is only an ordinary thread.

No, I think that he means "out of context" as in the person is not actually meaning to say what it seems like they are saying in the quote.  For instance: 

Charles Darwin:  "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
versus
Charles Darwin:  "To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.  When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

You can still have that quote, but you cannot count on the authority of the people you are quoting to support it.  You might as well be saying "coolgurl79, whom I met on AIM yesterday, said this (or made this claim)" and it would have the same meaning as an out of context quote. 

Keep in mind that I'm not actually bothering to find out which quotes were allegedly out of context or judging whether they actually were.