Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

CON Forum
» back to
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Theory of ID (Version 3.5)
       Here it comes!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin


|     |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

Look carefully and you'll notice that it begins with what the Discovery Institute stated the theory explains _ followed by the only science that actually explains exactly that, relatively "routine science" that is not in dispute among scientists. There is also a Q&A on the blog including computer lab to produce/detect intelligence, and more.

Theory of Intelligent Design (Version 3.5)

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause _ present at the levels of cellular and molecular, which is emergent from the behavior of atoms, which is emergent from the behavior of subatomic particles, which is emergent from the behavior of energy that became the universe wherein forces (bonding, polar) self-assemble cell membranes and crystalline designs where molecular behavior produces simple snowflakes to the highly complex genome catalyzed ATP synthase, flagellum motors, with far simpler starter mechanisms to begin design of living things including sunlight powered clay/dust/mineral metabolic pathways to power forward/reverse Krebs Cycle metabolism that produces the starting molecules all else (including genome) self-assembles from which from as little as a single codon replicates more advanced memory based intelligence producing mechanisms (genetic memory, somatic hypermutation) that increase in complexity in much the same way a cellular level brain learns and with motor action powered by molecular forces that through reproduction one step at a time build upon a previous design as is evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from.

New designs at the multicellular level are in part guided by what the organism itself intelligently finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate.  Examples include the peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail, led to males with brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

Occasionally, chromosome complexity increases when two entire chromosomes fuse at opposite ends to become one.  This has made humans unique among its kind where such a fusion makes a total of 46 chromosomes, instead of the 48 of all great apes.  Here, a parent passed to offspring a fused copy in one of the two parental gametes, to birth a being with 47 chromosomes.  That fusion then passed into the population where the fusion would then on occasion have the fusion in both gametes to make the first 46 chromosome beings.  From a man and woman both with 46 (fusion in both gametes) could only come 46 chromosome offspring, us.

(Edited by Science101 9/3/2008 at 12:44 AM).

Posts: 4 | Posted: 12:41 AM on September 3, 2008 | IP

|        |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

So... do you agree or disagree with it?

We're official!

Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:16 AM on September 3, 2008 | IP

|      |       Report Post

Post Score

Rate this post:

It still an allusion to an unnecessary strange element: intelligence.

There are several beings who's designer should say"oops!".

Creationist don't agree between themselves in very important points. So important that they can't say they're in the same frame of reference. Why do they think that happens?

Like i said before, they all try to add to the Bible the smallest amount of metaphor that can make those stories pass through their throats (metaphorically speaking).

The more knowledge they gain, the more metaphor they must attribute to the Bible.

So bats being birds is a metaphor. So is pi=3. And the gates of heaven. And a solid sky to hold the waters above it.

Man... It's so much easier to disregard the whole thing...

Even Saint Paul recommended "not to give heed to Jewish fables" (Titus 1:10-16) but to follow the gospel.

This version of the creationism is all but new, actually. There are metaphorical steps to creationism. Each step laughs at the step/s below (except for flat earthers, who belong to the first step, and hate everyone but look down at nobody).

Well, the "steps" are not very well defined. So the number of "steps" is variable (but always big).

Perhaps the highest step is taoism. Taoists can't say "God" anymore. They don't even say "tao" that much either.

Quantum physics tend to make people practical taoists.

You can read more about my statement in The Tao of Physics (by Fritjof Capra). You can read or download it here.

(Edited by wisp 10/20/2009 at 9:39 PM).

Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at

Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:16 PM on October 1, 2008 | IP
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread


Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.