.05.02.08
I still don’t understand.
No one would answer the questions in my recent thread. Maybe you can help me.
Some of the former Creationists realize YEC is non sense and are now insisting we teach our children that evolution was guided by Intelligent Design.
Do you think our Bodies were created with foresight? Remember we are HuMan: the Pinnical of Evolution…er… I mean Intelligent Design: Humans are the Pinnical of Intelligent Design.
Please clarify your answer.
r~
A rose by any other name…
Is still a rose.
Are you just looking for opinions to this question?:
“Do you think our Bodies were created with foresight?”
I think you got your answers in that thread. What else are you looking for? There’s no need to start another thread on the same issue.
Anyone else find this amusing? 
Well, that’s a start, anyway.
Any number of “features”–from the veriform appendix through the coccyx and onto the reversed mammalian optic nerve–argue against any idea of a pinnacle of evolution, much less any kind of “Intelligent Design”. Anybody who thinks that the human form, with alll of it’s manifest compromises, is some kind of end result of intentional design is missing the fact that most of us are in fact, pretty awkward, unatheletic, and frankly, pretty replusive.
We are yet another one of those transitional forms that Creationists are always decrying the lack of. Hopefully, we will someday evolve into something as cute as a beagle, which as far as I can tell, is the ultimate form of life in the universe.
All hail Snoopy.
Stranger
Bloody wine-induced grammatical errors! {shakes fist}
And, before anyone else gets to it:
I, for one, welcome our new beagle overloads!
I now return you to your regular wee-hour-of-the-morning programming.
Stranger
IMO, they’re doing that simply because they know they can’t get away with the other; ID is, for the most part (and definitely in the context of it’s activism in education) a dishonest attempt to subtly undermine the teaching of evolution (perhaps science/critical thinking in general). ID claims to be all about ‘looking for evidence of design, by agency unknown’, but when pressed, the overwhelming majority of its promoters reluctantly admit that they are run-of-the-mill creationists,
Why would we be considered the pinnacle? We can’t fly unaided, we can’t breathe under water, we can’t see in the dark particularly well, our bodies are relatively fragile - we don’t even have a decent coat of fur. How exactly are we the pinnacle of design?
I have an appendix and four wisdom tooth that say otherwise, the human body and mind are truly marvellous things, but far from perfect. And for what is worth I haven´t seen that “perfect” thing yet.
ID is PC for YEC.
Itelligent design? Of course. The ears and nose are arranged perfectly to hold eyeglasses and what else are shoulders for but to hold suspenders?
Reminds me of the Robert Sheckley novel Dimension of Miracles, in which the planet-building contractor who put the earth together did it as one of his first projects, so he could only afford cheap materials. He has to pass off the finished project as an Ideal PLanet (a literal Best of All Possible Worlds), struggling like made to rationalize all the defects as desirable features to the eventual customer, God.
After reading a lot od Stephen Jay Gould, you end up not believing in Intelligent Design but The Best You Can with What You Got.
rwjefferson,
I think this was stated in the other thread but maybe not clearly enough.
If you’re looking for creationists to debate with, they’re pretty scarce on this board. The chances are you aren’t going to find anyone around here who believes in ID or at at least who is willing to debate about it. You’re preaching to the choir. We’re all “evilutionists” in these parts.
ID is just creationism repackaged. It still begs the question of how the designer came into being. Surely the designer is at least as complex as any of his creations. And I agree with those who’ve said you won’t find many (if any) creationists/IDers around here.
Intelligent Design is just the label on the snakeoil bottle, if you peel it off carefully you can still see Creationism underneath. Sometimes they even forget to add the new label.
Besides, if we were designed by a higher intelligence (s)he must have been working in the automotive field. Sometimes it feels like each part was made by a different vendor, each of whom was the lowest bidder. 
rwjefferson, help us out here; what question do you want answered?
a) Why do YEC supporters embrace ID?
b) How can ID be a genuine scientific theory?
c) What is the rationale behind ID? (Are you looking for a YEC supporter to come debate you? They probably will not. You have been told they probably will not. Why do you think you will get a new answer with a new thread?)
d) If we grant a possibility of ID, how does it work?
e) Some other not-yet-clearly-stated question?
We do not need a lot of repetitive threads. Please identify the precise question that troubles you or I am going to close this one.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
This is amusing, especially since you were reduced to quoting yourself to bump the last thread on evolution… which had no takers. I too am always eager for a debate on this subject, but really, I think you’d find better opponents elsewhere since almost everyone here either agrees, or is scared poopless of getting piled on by all the desperate amatuer and not-so amatuer evolutionary thinkers just waiting to show their chops.
I would suggest checking out the various forums at about.com or ezboards.com for creationist opponents.
An awful lot of people, from all perspectives, believe that H. Sap. is the “pinnacle” of Earth life. By and large, they’re begging the question that sapience/sentience is the best possible thing evolution or God can produce.
I find that to be interestingly solipsistic of us.
EvC forums would probably be the kind of place you’re looking for, rwj. You can find plenty of creationists there. You’ll starve to death trying to feed on the slim pickens here.
Thank you All for your postings, and especially for the suggestions.
I started a new thread because the old tread ended.
No one even attempted to answer the questions (not even with the usual irrational answers). Also note that no one has disputed that the questions were somehow not relevant. Why?
Although they cannot poke any holes in the Law of Evolution (even with distortions and untruth), the little pricks distract us from the Fact that Belief is not the same as Truth. That is the Breach in their Beliefs.
By coincidence, this morning’s paper had an editorial about attempts to teach the new Religion of Intelligent Design in Public Schools.
Please ask these questions for me:
Can you name at least one thing (other than species) that has not, will not ever change?
What is your strongest proof against evolution? (excluding Holy Books)
Are humans designed intelligently?
If there are rational/scientific answers, I wish to learn. You may have noticed that I also enjoy humor. I Am sure there will be unintended humor in some of the attempts.
I submit these questions are the best non-technical proof of evolution, yet.
I Am open for better questions.
Liberty for All
Through Enlightenment
r~
The NYT Op Ed piece has already been Pitted.
It is not our job to find you better questions. You’re a paid member; do a search on “evolution” or “creationism” to find dozens of threads on the topic.
I will repeat what you have already been told: there are very few supporters of Creationism OR YEC OR Intelligent Design who are going to wander into your threads to respond, simply to be buried under a dogpile of people who have the science education to support evolution and the personalities to support it enthusiastically. (It does not help that you have posed your questions in a somewhat condescending manner that implies that you will not be respectful of their beliefs if they expose them.)
If a genuine debate does not appear here pretty quickly, I am closing the thread.
But lean a little bit closer and roses still smell like boo boo boo