What kind of evidence, exactly, are you demanding? The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old. We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.
Is this really a fair demand? I’m not going to argue that evolution is definitively proven, it isn’t. It could all be completely wrong. Heck there is even a small chance that 6 day creationism could be correct! The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days. No one is telling us how God may have done the deed. What were the physical forces involved? What was the chemistry? What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating? etc etc
These are tough question to answer but until someone starts gathering serious data, evolution is the best theory we have. Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.
If you could show me some ID experimental studies (if they exist), I would much appreciate it as I have yet to find any.
[[The field of evolutionary biology is only 200 years old.]]
Lol- ‘only 200 years old’ yet it’s made up of scientists of the brightest minds that have been exploring it for these 200 years, and with recent advances are no closer to understanding how a species could macroevoluve.. nother cop out.
[[We would probably need to study life on Earth for thousands and possibly even millions of years from now to observe considerable biological divergence (or nothing). ]]
Why is that? We have supposedly billions of years worth of fossil records, and ALL we find are compelted fully functioning species, and no evidence for macroevolution- just minor microevolutionary change. How long do you need?
[[We can observe some speciation (particularly among bacteria) in our lifetimes but nothing too radical.]]
Yep- microevolution is cool- Bacteria are still bacteria of hte same kind- no matter how many mutaitons we throw at them- they won’t evovle wings because the info simply is not htere for them to do so- All that can be accomplished is manipulation of hte info already present, and htis has species specific limitations, all precoded, all predesigned, and which protect the uniqueness of each species kind.
[[The problem is that ID hasn’t offered any data or explanations for how a complex life-form can be constructed within days.]]
answer below
[[No one is telling us how God may have done the deed.]]
Two points- YES they ARE showing How God constructed- You REALLY need to read that thread about “Life’s Irreducible Complexities” I pointed you to- It lays out how metainfo comes first, and hten shows the lower hierarchies, and htere relations, as well there are several other htreads here on FR showing how IC is constructed. Heck- Even the Rabid anti-ID scientist Miller showed how IC is intelligently constructed when he went step by step through his carefully explained, carefully constructed ‘natural evolution’ of higher complexity blood clotting- the only problem was that He perfectly described HOW God intelligently constructed a designed IC system- this was a very detailed analysis of blood clotting and al lthe subsystems involved, and how htey ‘could have’ formed and come into play while meshing with the species whole systems without causing problems- but again- it was a VERY complex, intelligently designed and cosntructed process. Miller defeated his own claim with his argument- it was kinda amusing, and sad really that he couldn’t recognize what he was doing in his argument.
[[What equations will be used instead of those for radiometric dating?]]
How about equations that follow the evidences and don’t rely on ASSUMPTIONS? Problem is for Macroevolutionists, the ONLY dating method that even comes close to adhering to the evidences is radio carbon dating, although even htis method steps outside of science by ASSUMING dates beyond 10,000 or so years as htere are NO corroberating known dates to judge by- ONLY assumptions!
[[Wish I was rich enough to perform or fund ID experiments but I’m not. I’m also not educated enough or clever enough to know how to start testing such a hypothesis.]]
Ditto- ID NEEDS to be funded more- AND it NEEDS to form one major group that studies just hte science and reports the facts. While religious beleifs are fine, they should be given outside of the strict science of ID, because ID is an honerable science that sticks to the actual mandates of sciecne when it is done objectively. Sites like IRC are fine, but htey are NOT the mainstay of ID sciecne as a whole, strict science. The site is fine for those who search for God, and don’t mind opinions mixed with the science, but I beleive ID could nd should be doen strictly scientifically because it has a lot to offer-
There are some organizations that do just htis- strict ID science, but it’s loosely organized, and the majority of ID knowledge is gained through sites like IRC which infuse the science with opinion, and peopel assume since they are the major online site for ID, that htey represent the science of ID- they do not- they simply report the science (As well as conduct some htemselves) but also again, they infuse their science with opinions that lay outside of the science (BUT then again, doesn’t ALL science do that?) They arem ostly a repotorting and opining site though. There is sound science presented there and on other such sites, but it’s heavy with opinion too, and hard to dig through, but worth the effort sometimes.
BBut I( truly would like to see one major site that presents just hte strict science of ID Which doesn’t have to posit who or what the intelligence is, but simply present enough evidences to show a NEED for an intelligence- which is hte goal of any forensic science