A post pulled from RDF, The original poster was banned for being a creationist and his arguments were never resolved. I am also banned for the crime of being Christian on RDF and never got to see the results of these posts, If indeed they were continued.
So lets discuss them here shall we.
Post 1: The Burden of Proof
We keep hearing that there is no proof of Intelligent Design and that there should
be no further discussion about this. Oh really?
Given the fact that the human body itself is an intelligence and that no
intelligent system known to Man has ever been created by anything other than by an
intelligent design, this seems a corollary. Talk of "Blind Watchmakers" is a
contradiction ,par excellence, as is talk of "Deaf Musicians".
Indeed, the design for the human organism is contained in all 60 trillion cells, in
the DNA that constitutes the blueprint for life. The Darwinists retort, as they
did in the New Scientist, with Michael LePage claiming that 97% of the DNA is
"junk" and "defunct". Yet the evidence over the past 4 years indicates that ncDNA
plays a vital role and that redundancy in genes prevents diseases and disorders.
Once again, this is an example of the Darwinists using trickery to deceive the
public.
The burden of proof is not on us ID proponents, but on the Darwinists to fully,
verifiable and comprehensively show how the irreducible integrity of the human
body, right down to the living cell is the result of selective and random processes.
To this day, the evidence they have presented has been paltry. Sickle cell
anemia presented as proof of a positive mutation in its heterozygous form,
the population fluctuations of moths for natural selection and so on. It is
almost embarrassing at times.
Under close analysis, Darwinian models of evolution just don't hold up..they
are theoretical, biased and sometimes just plain wrong. For all their talk of
selection, migration, recombination etc....Darwinism is just an attempt at
saying that life evolved by blind chance, wrapped in pseudo-scientific
terminology.
Intelligent Design alone should be taken seriously. The origin of the intelligence
behind it is irrelevant to scientific investigation, only its existence and effect.
So lets discuss them here shall we.
Post 1: The Burden of Proof
We keep hearing that there is no proof of Intelligent Design and that there should
be no further discussion about this. Oh really?
Given the fact that the human body itself is an intelligence and that no
intelligent system known to Man has ever been created by anything other than by an
intelligent design, this seems a corollary. Talk of "Blind Watchmakers" is a
contradiction ,par excellence, as is talk of "Deaf Musicians".
Indeed, the design for the human organism is contained in all 60 trillion cells, in
the DNA that constitutes the blueprint for life. The Darwinists retort, as they
did in the New Scientist, with Michael LePage claiming that 97% of the DNA is
"junk" and "defunct". Yet the evidence over the past 4 years indicates that ncDNA
plays a vital role and that redundancy in genes prevents diseases and disorders.
Once again, this is an example of the Darwinists using trickery to deceive the
public.
The burden of proof is not on us ID proponents, but on the Darwinists to fully,
verifiable and comprehensively show how the irreducible integrity of the human
body, right down to the living cell is the result of selective and random processes.
To this day, the evidence they have presented has been paltry. Sickle cell
anemia presented as proof of a positive mutation in its heterozygous form,
the population fluctuations of moths for natural selection and so on. It is
almost embarrassing at times.
Under close analysis, Darwinian models of evolution just don't hold up..they
are theoretical, biased and sometimes just plain wrong. For all their talk of
selection, migration, recombination etc....Darwinism is just an attempt at
saying that life evolved by blind chance, wrapped in pseudo-scientific
terminology.
Intelligent Design alone should be taken seriously. The origin of the intelligence
behind it is irrelevant to scientific investigation, only its existence and effect.
