Intelligent Design Theory

Melatonin,
Again you are latched onto the ominpotent being arguement which is not where I am leading! Do not put words in my mouth. ID does not mean an omnipotent being it just means a more advanced civilization.

The 'tinkering' as you call it regarding the designer (not god) again seems to be a mistake (in my view) that evolutionists make. As I said before, fossilization of bones is a rare occurance that requires specific conditions. Bones that become fossilized are rare. When archeologists find some type of fossil does that mean that fossils that they did not find never existed?
I do not think that scientists are right to dismiss the possibility that man existed long before they claim. In some old cultures the dead are cremated. Their remains would not be found.

Furthermore,
ToE followers too make predictions and when one in a million hits it is used to back-up ToE. If something is found (like very old human skeletal remains) that defies ToE it is dismissed, ignored or explained away. That is what is sad.

Ok sorry Judah, if you were clearer then I would know, you were using the ToE as a secular attack on religion fallacy. The ID'er could be anything from an omnipotent being to a time-travelling alien.

Generally, the 'misplaced' fossils are not a reliable source of evidence. We have numerous hoaxes of many kinds, some that have shamed scientists, some creationists. We need reliable evidence.

Why don't we find a single mammal in pre-cambrian strata? Simply because they hadn't evolved. Doesn't matter about how ancient man disposed of bodies, a landslide etc would enable fossilisation.

When we do find reliable evidence of such things, then we will need to reassess ToE.

If you want to invoke a raelian-type advanced IDer, then we have to ask, where did they come from? Did they evolve, or were they created? - back to square one.

There is just too much evidence supporting ToE that you need to explain away.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Why don't we find a single mammal in pre-cambrian strata? Simply because they hadn't evolved. Doesn't matter about how ancient man disposed of bodies, a landslide etc would enable fossilisation.

As far as I can see not much of anything supposedly existed in the pre-cambrian. Supposedly only bacteria since these strata are attributed to be from the 4.5 billion ya (years ago) a few hundred million ya. Although plant pollen and plant fossil has been found and contradicts ToE since plants were not supposed to have existed then. I assume that not much of any physical evidence can exist so long ago especially with the pressures at those depths.

When we do find reliable evidence of such things, then we will need to reassess ToE.

Not so if it can be proven that fossils cannot survive in those pressures. In my view,they would be metamorphed into an unrecognizable rock.

If you want to invoke a raelian-type advanced IDer, then we have to ask, where did they come from? Did they evolve, or were they created? - back to square one.

Raelians are interesting freaks. I like their ideas but they are obviously a mislead cult.

It can also be said what came before the big-bang. Although ToE is not within the scope of the big bang it is the conventional belief that the big-bang was the initial 'creation' after which the universe formed, the galaxies formed, the planetary systems formed, planets cooled and then life evolved either out of organic compounds that where abundant on some planets or from bacteria bearing comets that impacted with earth. In this case where did that bacteria come from? what existed before the big bang? back to square one.
Moreover - no-one yet was able to create life from unliving compounds.

There is just too much evidence supporting ToE that you need to explain away.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by melatonin]

Agreed that there was much research. I feel that the interpretation of the evidence may be wrong and therefore lead us to a false conclusion.