- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
1 edit
That makes ID fundamentally flawed. ID will likely be never accepted as a valid scientific theory, but if it's ever to be taken seriously, it has to abandon the goal of promoting one specific religion. But then again, ID wouldn't exist if not for the goal of promoting Christianity.
Some said ID was not science because it was not falsifiable.
Then they spent a large amount of time and effort to falsify ID.
Michael Behe Answers Hard Questions: What are some objections to ID from well-known critics?
&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience
Michael Behe: A Mousetrap for Darwin
&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience
31 Jul 21
1 edit
@sonship saidSo you are a young earth adherent and you have the gall to demand answers from me concerning the origins of evolution.
Spelling correction:
Dr. Mary Schweitzer.
Soft Tissue Found Inside a Dinosaur Bone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSaOS7erEOk&ab_channel=StatedClearly
Hey! Get in line or lose ALL your funding and reputation Gal.
- The High Priests of Darwinian Evolution
So can you give me a date for the extinction of the dinosaurs and while your there you can dismantle the fact of continental drift.
Take your time I realise you’ll need to do your research.
I must apologise for all the times I’ve accused you of worshipping the god of the gaps you apparently do not even recognise the gaps.
Reality has simply proven too problematic for you hasn’t it.
31 Jul 21
1 edit
@sonship saidNo they will naturally assume an earlier civilisation did it, what are you babbling about.
Okay. Let's say I am backfilling justification for what I simply want.
Let's talk about what people not wanting to believe anything.
Look at Mt Rushmore in South Dakota.
Four faces of four men clearly appear on the side of a mountain.
Do you want to believe that someday people far removed from current times knowing nothing about Americans today, think ...[text shortened]... and have no preference. So lets see if in the lab we can get weather to work on a rock to do that."
And for all your smoke and mirrors they will still be adhering to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for their own existence.
We are not Rock we are living organisms designed by a conflagration of naturally occurring mutation during cell division and environmental pressures / opportunities. If you want to credit that mechanistic chain to a god or gods / intelligent designer that’s fine but to deny the reality of it in the here and now is laughable and basically dishonest.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So you are a young earth adherent and you have the gall to demand answers from me concerning the origins of evolution.
I am not YEC. I think the soft tissue phenomenon gives rise to the suspicion that the fossils are of animals perhaps not as old as initially thought.
I think you can be Older Earth and think your fossil remains are not AS old as first conceived.
So can you give me a date for the extinction of the dinosaurs and while your there you can dismantle the fact of continental drift.
No. I cannot give any date for mass extinction events.
I will say that I think from the time I was a child until today, I noticed mass
extinction theories to rise up and be more and more proposed.
At first a lot of the illustrations I saw of prehistoric times seemed to have dinosaurs and volcanoes in the background. Then I heard of killer comets, maybe killer gas from out of the ocean, killer ice ages, or other extinction events.
Now it is pretty much taken for granted that something brought that earth epic to a close, and possibly more than once.
As a Bible student that struck me as science theory inching closer to what is conveyed in the Bible. Creation - then the earth became waste, void, empty, judged, chaotic and needing reformation and new life.
I noticed that Noah built the ark using pitch. And that is a petroleum product that was in the ground then at that time. And that suggests long buried organic life become an oil product.
"Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch." (Gen. 6:14)
If RJHinds were here he would tell me that that meant resin from a tree.
So not everyone thinks that verse indicates fossil fuels in the earth already before the flood. But I presently believe that.
Anyway, the past is history.
And much history is none repeatable matter not subject to the scientific method
in that regard. Much evolution theory is a theory about history.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
Take your time I realise you’ll need to do your research.
I must apologise for all the times I’ve accused you of worshipping the god of the gaps you apparently do not even recognise the gaps.
That is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding on your part.
I believe gaps of ignorance seem to get bigger the more we discover.
Lately a lot of the sly little slights seemed designed to close down discussion.
A lot of parting shots of sarcasm lately.
Reality has simply proven too problematic for you hasn’t it.
What reality is too problematic for me?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
1 edit
No they will naturally assume an earlier civilisation did it, what are you babbling about.
Archeologist sometimes find things which they have no idea of whose civilization designed it.
In the case of something like DNA are you tempted to rule out beforehand a
divine Creator? Then you have some other problem perhaps.
And for all your smoke and mirrors they will still be adhering to the theory of evolution as the best explanation for their own existence.
Its not smoke and mirrors that something like DNA indicates intelligence,
You go ahead and call that suspicion smoke and mirrors.
I'm in the corner of the researchers figuring out how it all works.
Especially the ones who have not jury rigged up front the prejudice that a
Creator of intelligence is out of the question.
You go ahead and think DNA came together over ions of lucky accidents.
What do you suppose tells the cell which part of the DNA molecule it should
read to produce the needed protein? Do you think the method of
communicating that information to the cell how to read the molecule
happened by natural selection?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
Remember. Every minute part of this building block of life had itself to go
through the whole evolutionary paradigm. Every chemical combination had to
somehow assemble know what failure was, retry, register success groping its
way luckily towards thousands of operations the factory of a cell performs.
Darwin's scheme has now to be applied far below the level he knew about to
the microbiological and chemical level. Each and every minute function in
that cell had to be arrived at through your modification through natural
selection events.
We are not Rock we are living organisms designed by a conflagration of naturally occurring mutation during cell division and environmental pressures /
But the Darwinists say we came from rock rained on by water for a long time until a soup gave rise to a simple single celled animal - the grand-grand ancestor of every single living thing on the planet of any species or family.
A lot of the text books on Evolution tell us so. It all was kicked of by a soup
that came from water on hot molten rocks. And here we are now the result of
material to life entities contemplating how we got here.
You don't want a second opinion?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
4 edits
If you want to credit that mechanistic chain to a god or gods / intelligent designer that’s fine but to deny the reality of it in the here and now is laughable and basically dishonest.
So it is dishonest to suspect the language bearing information conveying and functionality of the DNA molecule strongly indicates purposeful intelligent planning? Is that what you mean?
We had here a poster once. He was a strong supporter of Hinduism. At a certain point when touching the matter of eating meat discussion ceased with the accusation of dishonesty on the part of any advocating meat in your diet.
Are you on a similar track?
No I honestly look around me at the biosphere and honestly believe it is all
by design and not accidental, happenstance, luck, with no mind behind it.
The age of information will continue to be an increasing challenge to
Darwinian theory. Get use to it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
2 edits
If you want to credit that mechanistic chain to a god or gods / intelligent designer that’s fine but to deny the reality of it in the here and now is laughable and basically dishonest.
On second thought - No, I think you are dishonest with your own self.
However I do not think I would laugh at your predicament.
And I think you may be concerned with how you look to others.
I don't care if it looks dumb to believe DNA and the biosphere are here by design, plan, forethought of some mind, purpose, goal driven, intentionality rather than accident.
Snicker away.
I think the one being bamboozled is you.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
31 Jul 21
. . . you have the gall to demand answers from me concerning the origins of evolution.
I have the gall to ask a few posters here some questions.
I also said that they could think on it or say they didn't have a position yet.
You see. Winning a debate is not as important to me as arriving at truth.
Even if macro evolution happened, how could that happen without a programmer of that grand algorithm? You even have nested loops of logic within the larger cycle.
I mean like the a caterpillar to moth looping logic within the larger cycle.
How did that happen without knowledge of inter nested looping logic within
outer looping logic of natural selection?
Consider the entire biosphere of millions of life forms.
And we have only 13 billion years of so to work with as an age of the universe.
There is not enough time.
Its like how much time would you need to flip a coin a hundred times and get one hundred HEADS in a row. I doubt 13 billion years is nearly enough if it could by chance happen.
31 Jul 21
@sonship said“ In the case of something like DNA are you tempted to rule out beforehand a
@kevcvs57No they will naturally assume an earlier civilisation did it, what are you babbling about.
Archeologist sometimes find things which they have no idea of whose civilization designed it.
In the case of something like DNA are you tempted to rule out beforehand a
divine Creator? Then you have some other problem perhaps.
...[text shortened]... ating that information to the cell how to read the molecule
happened by natural selection?
divine Creator? Then you have some other problem perhaps. ”
I’m an agnostic I do not rule anything out, there is no rational argument for ruling out a Devine creator any more than there is for ruling one in, I certainly, as a rational (in my subjective opinion) individual rule out any holy book you care to mention on the basis that nothing in them is available to empirical proof.
It’s adherents to religious texts who rule out the possibility that we actually do inhabit a natural observable reality that broadly speaking follows the natural laws of cause and effect even though this tends to break down at the edges of our knowledge.
I do not understand why people imprison their world view in the pages of a book regardless of how illuminating its allegorical contents might be regarding the human condition.
If you do not regard the Bible as the literal truth then the truths you find in it are not threatened by evolution or any other theory trying to explain observable reality.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It’s adherents to religious texts who rule out the possibility that we actually do inhabit a natural observable reality that broadly speaking follows the natural laws of cause and effect even though this tends to break down at the edges of our knowledge.
There is no denying on my part of the observable universe.
There is no denying on my part of the realization of natural laws.
Its a kind of brute given that there are natural laws.
They way they all work together - I think is evidence of a Legislator.
The natural laws are calibrated and tailored having human arrival in the universe
in mind.
A couple of non-theists comment:
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Neil deGrasse Tyson answered by stating that he thought that the chances of the universe being a simulation”may be very high”. He believes that there may be a being whose intellect surpasses ours by leaps and bounds and that whatever that being is, it very well might be able to create a simulation of a universe. He goes on to say “And if that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment, I’m saying, the day we learn that it is true, I will be the only one in the room saying, ‘I’m not surprised.'”
Fred Holye -
“Would you not say to yourself, Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
https://appliedapologeticsblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/the-universe-is-a-put-up-job/
31 Jul 21
@sonship saidThe trouble with Mount Rushmore is that 1) they are clearly human faces, which other humans, even those from the future, would obviously recognize as human, and 2) humans know how to carve stone, and have plenty of examples from their own present of what it looks like, so they would recognize it on MR as well.
Okay. Let's say I am backfilling justification for what I simply want.
Let's talk about what people not wanting to believe anything.
Look at Mt Rushmore in South Dakota.
Four faces of four men clearly appear on the side of a mountain.
Do you want to believe that someday people far removed from current times knowing nothing about Americans today, think ...[text shortened]... and have no preference. So lets see if in the lab we can get weather to work on a rock to do that."