IC was the first major argument used to support ID. The only other argument made since then, that I am aware of, is William Dembski’s specified complexity.
Still no word on a means of actually detecting design in nature. Just more arguments for why evolution/common descent is wrong.
A narrative backed by a mountain of evidence. Which is all ID has done so far, minus the evidence. Pot/Kettle
That is an exaggeration. Your evidence is limited, and does not relate directly to the systems that you claim to be able to create (see above). You cannot show me a dinosaur changing into a bird, and you certainly cannot demonstrate how an ectotherme can suddelny become endothermic.
Incidentally, have you any suggestions how a two chambered heart fits into a non heart controlled blood system? Or maybe where the extra blood vessels just appear to accomodate a 4 chambered heart?
And what evidence do you think can be provided?
It would seem that you are happy for Science to be correct unless proven otherwise, and any criticism will be false until positively proven.
Brilliant.
Just as well you are not involved in Law.
Richard
You are correct that it is impossible to show you such things.
You refuse to even look.
Sounds like a worty effort to me and one of great importance.
Maybe, but evolution has been accumulating evidence for 167 years so it is certainly a lot.
I believe I provided you a link to that information which I am sure you roundly ignored.
Nice article describing this, The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective
Funny how all the explanations that you say don’t exist are easily found online.
And that would be up to the people that want to show ID is correct to determine. Something that they have failed to come up with in 40 years.
Actually that is how science works, correct until proven otherwise.
Point me in the right direction then…
oh, you can’t. The proof does not exist. It vanished several million years ago without a trace… But I am sure you can show me something else that proves nothing or some speculation wrapped up in assumption and extrapolated guess work.
Richard
@Bill_II already posted a link to something on bird evolution. You didn’t even look at it.
So why should I waste my time?
And you know I didn’t look how?
It was still basically a narrative based on compsrative progressions that are no where near the same.
Richard
No where near the same to what? The fossil record is full of similar “progressions”.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Because the forum software counts how many people click on a link, and displays that as a number by the link.
The link @Bill_II posted had no number, so no-one had clicked on it - including you.
So you didn’t read that article.
Which means this:
… is utter bollocks.
Edited by moderator.
Roy, and Richard, please stop. Stop bickering . Stop insulting one another. Stop reacting to one another. This thread has run its course so will close, but please do not take up you bickering on another thread. Use private messaging if you must, but it would be better to just drop it.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.