|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
MrIntelligentDesign writes: But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent? It is certainly far away from the basic natural mechanisms that drive evolution.
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution? Right here:
Mutations Confirm Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: Then, tell me, what is that criteria? The main criteria is spontaneity. If it can occur on its own through natural processes then intelligence is ruled out by parsimony. You would need additional evidence of an intelligence in order to conclude one was involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: It really shows that Evolution is an stupid theory since both Evolution and you have no criteria in dealing with biological world. There are many, many criteria that scientists use in biology and within the theory of evolution. The problem is that you don't understand any of them.
Which means that Biological Interrelation, a new model for Biology, as formulated by Intelligent Design, is the only correct theory since Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is supported by many criteria, as discovered by Intelligent Design. Then how does your model explain why we see a nested hierarchy? Why do we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing genomes? Evolution can explain all of these observations. Can "Biological Interrelation" explain these observations? If not, it is a failed model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: That is why you need to make criteria first, since if the biological world has intelligence, then, the biological world must be parsimonious and spontaneous, controlled by intelligence for life. Thus, Evolution has nothing to do with Biology. The criteria have been in place for hundreds of years. If nature operates through spontaneous events then it is not controlled by intelligence. That's the criteria. We observe that the evidence in biology is consistent with spontaneous events. That is why Evolution has everything to do with Biology. Thus far, Biological Interrelation can't even explain the most basic observations in biology. BI has no objective criteria, just whatever you subjectively decide is designed. It all boils down to "whatever MrIntelligentDesign decides to say that day". That's no criteria at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
OK, when I said criteria, I mean, the criteria if the change that are happening inside the cell is guided or controlled or manipulated or not, the same way transitions and transversion is needing criteria inside the cell that need numerical limits, as criteria, to explain two scenarios.
It's the same criteria that we use to determine that hydrogen and oxygen spontaneously combine to form water.
There is no nested hierarchy since Evolution is wrong. Nested hierarchy was an invention of Evolution that is not part of reality in Biology, thus, Biological Interrelation cannot invent like fairy tale about something that never existed. The nested hierarchy was discovered 100 years before the theory of evolution. The nested hierarchy exists whether or not the theory of evolution exists. The nested hierarchy is a fact. The reason why your inane ramblings aren't worth the bits they are written in is that you can't handle the existence of basic facts. Your theory purposefully ignores reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
MrIntelligentDesign writes: Before Evolution could conclude that an X was following an spontaneous process, first and foremost, Evolution and you must make criteria or limits between spontaneous guided X non-spontaneous guided X and conclude. Please, show how you derive that with experiment. I have shown how it is done here: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367 And it is also demonstrated in this paper: Just a moment...
For example, if Evolution is change in frequency alleles with no control, There's no such thing as frequency alleles. Please learn how biology works and what the theory of evolutions states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: You forgot to mention that worshippers of evolution can't be trusted to tell the truth - they're con-artists and the snake-oil merchants of the scientific community. This is why no one takes ID/creationism seriously. All you can do is name call and bury your head in the sand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: ... except no one has discovered a natural cause for the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record. Here it is: Human Genetics Confirms Mutations as the Drivers of Diversity and Evolution – EvoGrad The differences between species have been shown to be due to the natural mechanisms we see creating mutations in living populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: Spoken like a true atheist. Well done. Spoken like a true scientist.
quote: You have superstition. We have science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: What process was responsible for the appearance of those life-forms cannot ever be known ... Why not? We have a direct record of ancestry in the genomes of living species. Why can't we use that evidence to determine how life changed over time?
I believe (neo-)Darwinism is a demonically-inspired cult, the aim of which is to promote atheism (therefore it comes as no surprise that that cult is riddled with con-men, charlatans and liars). Strange how there are thousands and thousands of Christians who are biologists and accept the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
GDR writes:
I think that the best way of looking at this is that taken by Chris Barrigar in his book Freedom All the Way Up.
I was reading the blurb on Amazon and came across this: "Materialism (atheism) claim the universe has no meaning, . . ." Oy. You would think that if someone was going to write about atheism that they would learn what atheism actually is. Many, many atheists, myself included, find meaning in the universe. A lot of these misunderstandings could be cured by having honest and open conversations with atheists. I have actually seen Christian apologists who speak honestly about atheists, so I know it's possible. I just wish it were more common.
I'd be really careful about calling atheism demonic. Firstly if we are the result of evolution then maybe we should look at natural causes for evil. When we do that we can then look at the evil that is done by both theism including Christianity in the name of their deity, as well as the good that atheists can do. Also, I'd suggest that using that type of language about those who disagree with you is not helpful and frankly kinda un-Christian. A definite step in the right direction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
dwise1 writes: About 5 years ago I came across a Christian page, "10 Things I Wish Christians Considered Before Arguing with Atheists". Both of those lists are really good. I especially like, "You don’t know us better than we know ourselves." At it's heart, it's just asking Christians to treat atheists like a fellow human being. Instead of telling someone what they think, why not ask them? Just a basic level of respect. Also, a little humility from everyone goes a long way. Instead of "evolution is wrong," a better approach might be, "From my limited understanding as a non-scientist, I don't see how evolution can be true." Atheists can also turn the dial down and say, "From my limited understanding of Christian theology, this tenet just doesn't make sense to me." It allows for everyone to correct any misunderstanding, and at least try to see things from the other person's point of view.
We have morals too You don’t know us better than we know ourselves We don’t deep down believe in your particular god We don’t hate your particular god We don’t all disbelieve because something bad happened to us Believing isn’t a choice Most of us used to be Christians too Quoting the bible does not work like a Jedi mind trick We don’t worship the devil Hell dosen’t scare us, it does not even make sense to us Not all of us are anti-theists 12. We aren't atheists because we want to sin.13. Atheism isn't nihilism, so we find meaning in life just like you do. 14. Not all atheists claim that God does not exist, we just don't believe in God. Evidence could change our minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
GDR writes: Barrigar's point is that when civilization comes to an end and if there is nothing other than the material, then the meaning and purposes we had in this life will ultimately have no meaning and purpose. As long as there are 2 or more humans interacting there is civilization. If there are no humans, it isn't worth asking about purpose or meaning. Even a lone human can find purpose and meaning as they learn new things and explore before their death.
However again, as this is a finite world and if materialism represents actual reality, then ultimately there is no meaning or purpose to our lives that aren't simply transitory.
What's wrong with transitory meaning and purpose? Finding new meaning and purpose as the world changes around you doesn't seem like a problem. This seems to fit into a trend that I have seen within Christian apologetics. There seems to be a common thread where there can't be meaning and purpose unless it is an intrinsic property of the universe. There also can't be morality unless it is based on some objective standard. Overall, Christian apologetics seems to have a problem with the subjectivity of the human experience. I have often seen phrases like, "in atheism, there is no real purpose in life," as if a subjective purpose is not real. In my own experience as an atheist, I have become very comfortable with the subjective. I don't need the universe to have an intrinsic purpose in order to find my own purpose in life, and subjective morality works quite well for me (and for society). I am able to understand and embrace both my objective skeptical side and my very subjective and fallible human side. The human experience is one big contradiction after another, and I think it's a great ride.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Phat writes: Do you see subjectivity in truth? Traditionally, I attempted to validate belief as an objective truth. I see objectivity as the path to truth. The subjective part is the human experience. For example, I love my parents and siblings. This isn't an objective truth, but it is a very subjective emotion that I hold very dear. It is one of the most important parts of the human experience and being a human. Experiencing a beautiful sunset, listening to an amazing Bach concerto, and admiring a great painting are all subjective experiences, but they are all important parts of life. Something can be subjective and still be very important. It doesn't make it a truth, but it can be a vital part of our lives. Subjective emotions are real, even if they aren't objective truths.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dredge writes: This is about the 3rd time you've presented the same argument by Steve Schaffner. You seem to be running out of ideas. Schaffner's argument is just a theory ... it doesn't prove that science has discovered what process was responsible for the changes in life-forms evident in the fossil record. News flash: A theory is not a discovery. Funny how you can't address the actual observations. It seems all you can muster is "Nuh uh!". Do you know how the scientific method works? Do you know what hypothesis testing is? You seem to be arguing against the very practice of doing science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024