More twaddle from vannakins - except he's now being obtuse rather than ignorant. Selective breeding and genetic modification are not included in what is generally referred to as "intelligent design" or "ID".

<< Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science. Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations, arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science. The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Vannakins should read the Wikipedia article, and the many references to which it links, before posting his next asinine contribution to this debate. Alternatively, he could enrol in an adult secondary science course at TAFE.

as is usual...cj says one thing...
then quotes another..totally not supporting...his/her..previous statement

great one son

cjmoregain..quote..<<Selective breeding and genetic modification are not included..in what is generally referred to as "intelligent design" or "ID>>...

where in the quote..does it say this?

further..he quotes lables...infuring delusion..<<Intelligent design's leading proponents..all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,>>...

LET ME STATE...here...I HAVE NO ASSOSIATION..with the discovery institute...yet another gross egsadjuration...distraction...to not present facts..but we got a dia=tribe/link

a link..from the link
<<Short discussion on Natural Knowledge>>..[natural knowledge?...that sounds interesting..<<and Natural Design..as a contrast to Intelligent Design by Richard Dawkins>>..

so i thought..lets judge this one

http://richarddawkins.net/article,129,Natural-Knowledge-and-Natural-Design,Richard-Dawkins

it dont work..but i would love to rebut his twaddle
thats so typical...

rebutting/intel design...dont go as far as to include any evidence..of the alternative..evolution of genus...un-supported by any science fact..re genus evolving into new genus

but lots re species...vairiations within the species
[evolution/micro-eviolution/of species..IS NOT EVOLUTION OF genus]

lets get some evidence of genus evolving...but there aint none
thus we get the twaddle

so many words..
so few..real fact's
indeed bnot a single faulsifyable fact..whatsover

to quote..one of your own
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2267227/?tool=pmcentrez

<<there are still numerous areas of controversy in evolutionary theory.>>..

thats why they attack creationism...
it sure beats proving a THEORY..

more from the quote..<<..Coyne agreed..“For example, we don't understand how species form.”>>>yet..thiose who also dont know...pretend they do know...lol

<<..His main area of research aims to ascertain whether speciation involves many or only a few genes..whether genetic drift plays a significant role...and whether the movement of transposable elements causes hybrid sterility or whether it undermines viability>>>because thats what the SCIENCE says

by far most mutations are injurous..[thus die]..thus not evolved..but dead..you see their bones...but bones dont tell much...despite movies saying they do..get some facts...evolve just one new genus....FIRST..

FYI:

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/05/first_replicating_life_from_artific.html

Also, recall that we humans are made of elements that would have existed for 1.6 billion years before life, as posted to the attention primarily to vanna. Wherein, we are made of existing materials and the religionist's hypothetical divinity used pre-existing elements.

davidf,

Agree. It would have been tigher to have said Eucarya (included multicelled), but my main focus was on early RNA-like replica.

I am aware there are several classification schemes.

OUG and runner,

My point about the semantic sequencing of Jesus' first sentence was an analogy, perhaps, lost on a Christian. The point was, that even if we assume JC gave the Sermon of the Mount speech, we would also likely conclude that that he learned to speak as a child, and there was a first speech pattern, whose general characteristics could be sensibly postulated by a linguist; yet, no one knows the actual "first sentence"; i.e., the first sequence of words.

Where in the archeological or historical record is difinive proof of Jesus' first sentence? Can't produce it? Hmm.

Vanna, OUG and runner,

Do you believe viruses mutate? Just a simple yes/no or short answer, please.

Vanna,

Is what AJ and I have been saying about the second law of thermodynmics now better understood by you?

You have read the chemical composition of the human body... What do we have, that is not a constituent of inorganic chemstry?

Yes, the "selective" breeding dogs can be intelligent. Ants are intelligent in their own way. But that is not where the ID debate sits. Extreme Christisn creationists believe that life was created by divine miracle on a flat earth in 4,004 BCE. Science suggests; (a) that the earth is not flat, (b) geophysics age the earth at 4.6 billion years and (b) very complex replicating molecules can form in nature.

Also, please be reminded that some Christians would hold that each breed of dog wa created separately by different miracles.

CJ Morgan,
That you accept what you read on Wikipedia as gospel (or even as an authoritative source) says a lot about you.

Please don’t be so condescending as to not call Vanna by his/her preferred name. Once for fun. Twice, and you might be able to laugh at your own joke. To continue after that and it starts to reflect on your own level of maturity. (It shows he/she’s got under your skin.)

I’m not sure where you got that quote which defines Intelligent Design. It is more or less Wikipedia standard, that is, roughly in the right ball park, with some accuracies, some obvious errors, but overall opinionative and lacking perspective; a bit like most encyclopedias.

If I could just point out one error therein, which is easily verifiable, that is not all fellows associated with the Discovery Institute are Christians. There are also Jews and agnostics and people of other faiths. I was just reading a book by one of them, David Berlinski, who describes himself as something of an unbelieving Jew.

Berlinski says that one of his motivations for writing the book was to counter the boasting by some that science somehow supports atheism, or has somehow showed God to be not there or irrelevant. Science has done a lot of things but it hasn’t done that.

As for ‘unequivocal consensus’, CJ, that’s more wishful thinking on your part. Scientists have unequivocal consensus about barely anything, except perhaps the most mundane. That the Discovery Institute exists, let alone may be growing, without mentioning the growing number of Darwin Doubters in other scientific circles, shows that there is no exceptional consensus here.

Pelican,
You say that you cannot argue with faith based reasoning. So why start now?

I am seriously in awe of your sophisticated debating techniques, Dan S de Merengue.

One of the neatest is the way that, whenever you wish to avoid an obvious problem for your position, you focus on some piece of irrelevant minutiae from the opposing side, and wave it around like a triumphant matador.

But sometimes, in your suerte de muleta, you can trip yourself up.

>>If I could just point out one error therein, which is easily verifiable, that is not all fellows associated with the Discovery Institute are Christians. There are also Jews and agnostics and people of other faiths.<<

Is it an error? Really?

The statement was that they "believe the designer to be the God of Christianity". Would not this include the God envisaged by the Jews? Or even the Muslims, come to that. And frankly, I am unconvinced - as you must be - that an agnostic can simultaneously reserve judgment on whether a God exists, yet still manage to attribute the existence of the universe to one, and remain at all credible.

And for some reason, this observation struck me as a classic "straw man".

>>Berlinski says that one of his motivations for writing the book was to counter the boasting by some that science somehow supports atheism, or has somehow showed God to be not there or irrelevant.<<

First of all, define your target as broadly as possible, leaving the weakest argument - "God is somehow irrelevant" to the end. Then say - entirely correctly - that science has been unable to prove that God is irrelevant.

Given the amount of religious strife in the world, I'd agree that "irrelevant" is not an attribute of a God, whether there is one (or many), or not.

Truly masterful performance.

Keep 'em coming.

Oliver wrote: "Agree. It would have been tigher to have said Eucarya (included multicelled), but my main focus was on early RNA-like replica."

I don't know whether it would have been 'tigher' to have said Eucarya (included multicelled) and I don't see how focusing on early RNA-like replica(tion) justifies misinformation. Procarya and eucarya are morphologically different cells.

You also wrote: "Extreme Christisn creationists believe that life was created by divine miracle on a flat earth in 4,004 BCE. Science suggests; (a) that the earth is not flat, (b) geophysics age the earth at 4.6 billion years and (b) very complex replicating molecules can form in nature. "

All the Creationists on this string have suggested is that God has guided the creation and development of life. I don't agree with that. However, I have seen no suggestions from them that the earth is flat or only about 6,000 years old. Argue with what they say rather than with what they don't say.

You also wrote: "Also, please be reminded that some Christians would hold that each breed of dog wa created separately by different miracles."

I know of no Christians who hold that. Please cite your references.

On their part the creationists keep bringing in chance. No scientist maintains that our existence is the result of sheer chance. There are some instances where things could have gone one way or the other. If a meteor had not hit the earth about 65 million years ago the dinosaurs would not have become extinct. However, most scientists maintain that the creation of life and its development into various forms is the consequence of the behaviour of matter according to the physics and chemistry of matter.

Denying science by calling it pseudoscience as done by runner does not make it pseudoscience.

The division between creationists and those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution is probably too great to be resolved, but each side can remember that others are human and entitled to courtesy and kindness.

Please forgive me for preaching. When I am discourteous and unkind please call me to account.