Proof of evolution!!!

quote:

---

If any physical construct exists, and there is a God, then God can create that physical construct, for God is all knowing and all powerful. Therefore, any physical construct can be designed.

---

There is a hole in your logic.It should read:"If any physical construct exists, and there is a God, and if God is all knowing and all powerful, then God can create that physical construct. Therefore, if all of these are presupposed to be true any physical construct can be designed.

Guido...Only because YOU started this topic in an attempt to prove intelligent design by way of an intelligent designer(whom we as humans only know or dont know subjectively, and we as Christians know objectively and personally) will I take the time to deal with you here. And the challenge of being able to hang in there and defend your ideas is in no way a challenge to your belief and your relationship to Jesus, Guido.Jesus always takes the time to listen to us...and He knows each of us and our own crazy quirks and quarks..(Sorry, Ned, I could'nt resist! ) See, Guido...nwr is a good teacher not because he tells you what to believe but because he is teaching you how to discipline yourself to think! Oh, Oh! Lemme go check this out:
BTW...the reason that I am including your "idea" in this conversation is so that you stay focused here. I still want you to answer Jars question above, and also to understand why nwr is challenging you to examine your thinking process. Guido....lets focus on THIS thread, OK? Yes....finish your supper, and then we can go chew on some more knowledge after we deal with this thread. Close it? We have just gotten started! Please answer my thread so that we can move on!

Guido, allow me to clear up a slight misunderstanding on your part about predictions.Ramoss said: to which you answered: You must know that when scientist speak of predictions, they do not claim to know what will happen in the future. They do not make what you might call 'prophetic' predictions, like those you find in the bible.Instead, what they mean by 'prediction' is that they want to test a theory by conducting an experiment and they want the theory to tell them beforehand what result can be expected, if the theory is correct. They also want to know what result would indicate that the theory is not correct.Let me give you an example. Suppose my theory is that the die you hold in your hand is loaded. To test my theory, we will conduct an experiment: we will throw the die six-hundred times and jot down the results. And here comes the important bit: I predict - or rather, my theory predicts - that one of the faces will come up more often than others.I am not sure which face it will be, but it might for instance be that 6 will occur more often than 1 through 5. An unloaded die would give us approximately a hundred occurrences of each face. So, if the 6 comes up a lot more than a hundred times, then your die is probably loaded and my theory is supported by evidence. But if all faces come up about a hundred times each, then your die is probably not loaded and my theory is bunk.So you see, a scientific prediction is not some kind of prophecy that we have to wait for to come true, but it is an expectation of a result, that we can start testing actively and immediately. It is the kind of prediction that would make you exclaim: "O yeah? Well, we'll see about that!"The predictions of ID you mentioned, on the other hand, are of the prophetic kind. We cannot test them other then by sitting on our bums and waiting for them to come true.Scientist are not generally known for sitting on their bums.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02-Dec-2005 10:41 PM

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Do you know what evolution is? What is the scientfic defintion of evolution? What you desecribed IS evolution.If you are specifically asking for speciation events,How about the speciation of the Faroe Island Mouse, which occured within 250 years of the introduction of the mouse on the faroe island? You can read up on it i tanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

That is a faith statement. What objective evidence do you have of this?We have objective evidence for evolution. Evolution has made predictions, and can be used in real world situations for , amoung other things, the development of antibodics and vaccines.I take it then that since you invoked 'God' and "Jesus", you are admitting that "Intelligent Design" is not science, but is a faith matter??

You've cleared nothing up because I already knew what predictions meant and that is what I meant.OK, let me rephrase the predictions:1. Junk DNA serves a purpose.
2. Alleged vegital organs serve a purpose.This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 12-02-2005 07:35 PM

There is no hole because I used God with capital letters and that type of God means all knowing and all powerful.But your restatement is correct, and still in favor of what I am saying so it was basically meaningless that you said anything about it.

It doesn't differ from the predictions of ToE then? Only it has less of them, and they are less specific. Reminds me of Jerry's predictions and evidences.

But we allready know that many vestigial organs serve a purpose? Vestigial does not imply that the organ is useless, but is simply a classification pertaining to the history of the said organ.Bones in our ears are vestigial jaw bones. They have developed from the jaw of reptiles, where they had a different function - THIS functionality is now lost - but the bones now have a DIFFERENT function - helping us hear./Soren

Very well.But now I'd like you to clear up something for me. It's this: why are those predictions you mention predictions of ID, and not just of regular science?

---

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

Wow, I must say that it is quite a brilliant idea to use a flawless analogy to prove one set of circumstances by way of another. I'm sorry, that is not what I wanted to say exactly. It is actually a horrible idea. There are no two situations that are similar enough that the evaluation of one can provide a conclusive solution of the other. Many times it appears to work that way, this is when the circumstances of each of the situations are similar enough and the derived conclusion of one set of circumstances is broad enough to cover the other. The consistencies of electronic circuits and life are not substantial enough to qualify the analogy as one of those special cases.

you really want to keep.And welcome to EvC.At the bottom of this message you'll find links to threads that will help make your stay here more enjoyable.

---

Although those of you who agree with intelligent design and creationism have made it clear you feel this way, you have failed to prove your point. You cannot simply look at something and say "yep, that thing right there is definately designed." Nor can you compair life to technology and say that because technology is designed life must be as well. Technology is known to be designed...we know the people who invent it and work in the factories to create it. There is no proof that life is designed. All we can witness is more life being born...biologically, not mysteriously created. There is also no proof of the creator. Show me the creator, or even good evidence that he is doing something and i'll believe you. But until then, you cannot assume that because something is complex it is designed. There is nothing to warrent your claim. Also, claiming that you know God does nothing to validate him. Give proof. The whole world will not base the origin of life on blind faith.

There is no proof. And never will be. Most religions state that faith - belief without proof or even evidence - is the most important concept in their doctrin. If there was any proof, it would undermine the test by faith.There is no proof becuase God didn't leave any evidence or clues to his excistance and involvment in our creation. Instead he asked us to have faith in him. So scientifically there is no concrete evidence or even indication of ID, but God is still behind it all. He just wiped of all his fingerprints before leaving the room.

Jesus wasn't proof, 2000 years ago? Or parting the sea, sending angels from heaven, that kind of thing? How come present day people are subject to this "test of faith" rule, while a couple thousand years ago they weren't?