Different Opinions....Who is right?

[gnostic]

I always find it hilarious when people try to "tell me" what I believe instead of asking first.

Yes, he does that to me a lot, too.

And I find it irritating than hilarious.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Hockeycowboy...you know you've touched a nerve when the replies are so desperate to prove you wrong.

LOL.

I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see. They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

The video below, highlights it (note how Mr. Marshall is so willing to discard the ability of natural selection, since he claims there are now more viable mechanisms creating evolutionary pathways....as always, Meyer does a great job explaining ID):

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Hockeycowboy...you know you've touched a nerve when the replies are so desperate to prove you wrong.

LOL.

It is no effort at all. Showing that you are both wrong is easy. You guys just post the same refuted claims you always post. The same logical fallacies. The same subjective emotional appeals. The same lack of evidence. The same silence in response to questions you cannot answer or support you cannot provide.

Funny thing though, your post does look like a desperation response. Too bad you run from my posts. I would enjoy reading a response from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see. They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

The video below, highlights it (note how Mr. Marshall is so willing to discard the ability of natural selection, since he claims there are now more viable mechanisms creating evolutionary pathways....as always, Meyer does a great job explaining ID):

You know? What would that be? What do you know? You appear to know how to move goal posts. You can post videos by guys who are not scientists.

What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it? ID is religion. A series of claims taken on faith with no evidence to support the claims.

That was easy and we didn't even need Russ Meyer or whatever his name is to note is to death.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see. They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

The video below, highlights it (note how Mr. Marshall is so willing to discard the ability of natural selection, since he claims there are now more viable mechanisms creating evolutionary pathways....as always, Meyer does a great job explaining ID):

A philosopher and a marketing consultant. What expertise! Astounding. Perhaps you can find some videos of a plumber and a car salesman explaining the Big Bang.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it? ID is religion. A series of claims taken on faith with no evidence to support the claims.

Well, @Deeje, here’s someone who didn’t watch the video. Not surprised

The evidence is, Dan, whenever other fields of science find discoveries that reveal either functional or interactive patterns of information, Intelligence is always attributed to be the cause. (Grief, SETI actually searched for it!) Except in biology, where the most functional & complex data of any systems, are found.


You ask, “What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it?”

You kidding me? Simple...the same as now: How it was made!

It even would provide a reason to search for an explanation as to ‘why’ it was made, the purpose behind it.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly! Were some creationist -- any creationist -- to show me that intelligent design could "out-predict", so to speak, evolutionary theory, I would be compelled to consider intelligent design the superior model, and in all likelihood, closer to the truth.

There can be other means or grounds for deciding between competing notions of what the case might be, but a notion's usefulness in making accurate predictions is more or less the queen of them all.

The idea of intelligent design and the idea of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Some Christians who are Young Earth Creationists might like to say they are, and some others who do not believe in a creator may like to say also that they are mutually exclusive. The reality seems to be imo that the Bible can be understood with evolution and an old earth and universe in mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, @Deeje, here’s someone who didn’t watch the video. Not surprised

The evidence is, Dan, whenever other fields of science find discoveries that reveal either functional or interactive patterns of information, Intelligence is always attributed to be the cause. (Grief, SETI actually searched for it!) Except in biology, where the most functional & complex data of any systems, are found.


You ask, “What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it?”

You kidding me? Simple...the same as now: How it was made!

It even would provide a reason to search for an explanation as to ‘why’ it was made, the purpose behind it.

This isn't news. This is the same old watchmaker argument rehashed...reworded...reeeeppppeeeaaattteeeddd. Ad nauseam.

All that you have is the same refuted claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, @Deeje, here’s someone who didn’t watch the video. Not surprised

The evidence is, Dan, whenever other fields of science find discoveries that reveal either functional or interactive patterns of information, Intelligence is always attributed to be the cause. (Grief, SETI actually searched for it!) Except in biology, where the most functional & complex data of any systems, are found.


You ask, “What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it?”

You kidding me? Simple...the same as now: How it was made!

It even would provide a reason to search for an explanation as to ‘why’ it was made, the purpose behind it.

No point in alerting @Deeje. Apparently, she is on the run from my posts. She cannot see them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, @Deeje, here’s someone who didn’t watch the video. Not surprised

The evidence is, Dan, whenever other fields of science find discoveries that reveal either functional or interactive patterns of information, Intelligence is always attributed to be the cause. (Grief, SETI actually searched for it!) Except in biology, where the most functional & complex data of any systems, are found.


You ask, “What is there about ID that would require much in the way of expertise to explain it?”

You kidding me? Simple...the same as now: How it was made!

It even would provide a reason to search for an explanation as to ‘why’ it was made, the purpose behind it.

It was not a video. It was a radio program with a picture. I listened to enough to know it was not supporting your claims.

Are there any scientists making your claims that have actual evidence to support them that you can post hours long videos without any commentary from yourself?

I am curious, if you summon other JW's and make pithy posts to them about others, do you consider that as evidence that you are correct?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The reality seems to be imo that the Bible can be understood with evolution and an old earth and universe in mind.

And you would be correct, imo.
Evolution processes have limits. Very limited ability to create de novo anatomical features. At least, not to account for the diversity we observe. (That’s why many scientists are arguing in support of the Extended Synthesis. Gerd Müller referred to the Modern Synthesis as having “Explanatory Deficits”. But some here are diehards....) As even artificial (lab-controlled) evolution reveals, all types of species can form, but they always stay within their *families / orders*.

The barriers exist within those animal groups, which the Bible refers to, somewhat indistinctly, as “according to their kinds.”

Now, regarding an old Earth, those Creative Days are brought under scrutiny. Does the Bible specifically mean 24-hr. days? Not at all. ‘Yom’ (the Hebrew Word there) can mean an indeterminate period.
One piece of evidence that this applies to the creative days, is found by examining Day 6.
A lot was going on. But the clincher is when, after Eve was created, Adam exclaimed, “This is at last bone of my bones...”
No one says that about anything after a measly 24 hrs! ((Unless it’s food, lol.)

Stay safe...have a good day.

 

[Bear Wild]

The idea of intelligent design and the idea of evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Some Christians who are Young Earth Creationists might like to say they are, and some others who do not believe in a creator may like to say also that they are mutually exclusive. The reality seems to be imo that the Bible can be understood with evolution and an old earth and universe in mind.

Except life on earth does not show evidence of intelligent design but rather the interplay of a complex genetic code with its environment. There are far to many aspects of life that makes no sense in intelligent design and are explained through the changes in the genetic code that allow that phenotype to utilize the resources available and to change when those resources change so the argument for intelligent design completely fails.

 

[Bear Wild]

I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see. They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

The video below, highlights it (note how Mr. Marshall is so willing to discard the ability of natural selection, since he claims there are now more viable mechanisms creating evolutionary pathways....as always, Meyer does a great job explaining ID):

Listened to the radio broadcast. There is so much wrong but here are at least some of the clear problems.
No sooner into the broadcast then you get misinformation about scientists in the field of evolution arguing about neo-Darwinism which combines Darwin's mechanism of natural selection with genetics. Those making the arguments about "Neo-Darwinism" are only saying that we need to add extensions of new knowledge about phenotypic changes in time such as epigenetics. They accept natural selection without question, they accept genetics as a part of evolution, but add new knowledge about mechanisms of trans-generational inheritance independent of DNA sequences. As for presentations of evolution to the public, most are simplified presentations for the general public giving only the basics and will certainly include epigenetic factors in the future as the new information becomes integrated into the theory. So the speaker uses these simplifications incorrectly. None of the scientists disagree with the Theory of Evolution. So there is nothing to defend about evolution but rather to move forward as science does using the knew knowledge to strengthen the theory of evolution.

Their insinuations that the "third way" referred as epigenetics displaces the previous is false.
Epigenetics does not remove the importance of natural selection and genetics, it only adds to it! You still need the changes to occur in the genetic code over time and natural selection continues to occur so it is not a new view it is an addition to the old view!!! So the studies of the heart genetic expression mentioned do not eliminate the Neo-Darwinism mechanisms which are still important in the evolution of the heart but that there are additional levels of regulation.

It gets worse from this point as the guests create false understanding of the epigenetic factors and complex design using Gerd Muller's views which "again" are that epigenetic factors play a critical role in evolutionarily processes. It takes both genetics and epigenetic interactions that drive increasing diversity. This discussion also does not take into account genetic changes in control genes which can have profound and rapid changes in phenotype as well as epigenetic influences.

Then the speaker makes false statements about how science proceeds to make it seem that they are not open to new ideas. This is misuse of the scientific process plain and simple. There is no epigeneticist in the field of evolution that would say Natural selection is not a part of evolution or would dare to say that genetics is not a part of evolution! (the word epigenetics gives this away). The only thing they are saying is that there are new discovered aspects of phenotypic expression where cellular as well as environmental influences interact with the genetic code.

Next we go to the large infusions such as computer programs as being active evidence for intelligent design without any explanation of how that works. We already have genetic and epigenetic evidence of transmissions of large amounts of information through natural ways. The false claim of one and only one cause is not supported by science but out of desperation. They use human behavior to explain why intelligent design must exist and do not understand that human behavior is the outcome of evolution.

They want to see themselves closer to a god because humans design things. Well humans, crows, chimpanzees and other animals design things so wouldn't it be a surprise if god was a crow after all crows can design. Maybe people would think twice about killing a crow. You sould certainly think twice before killing one of Odin's crows.

As for the extra dna, the study of evolutionary biology has slowly been uncovering new aspects of the dna not designed for a specific program but for regulation. This is a natural progression of understanding and learning in science.

Natural selection only explains that things die??? So he obviously has no understanding of what the process of natural selection is. Natural selection influences changes in the genetics and epigenetics. Someone needs to tell them to come onto the forum and learn about the subject they do not understand!!!!

The last section was their standard we do not have all the details to explain everything so throw out everything you know and just accept what we are saying. It is magic!

So what do we learn from this broadcast.
1. Natural selection, genetics and epigenetics with the influence of the cell and environment explain evolution.
2. Epigenetics strengthens the theory of evolution.
3. Proponents of intelligent design do not understand evolution and worse misuse information to discredit a theory that the information actually supports.
4. Any individual scientist may be wrong at times but the cumulation of information with new findings only strengthens the theory of evolution through challenges to the current idea from new findings.

oh and for me
5. Reaffirms the dishonesty of the creation/intelligent design "scientists"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

At least, I can tell you listened to the program.

They want to see themselves closer to a god because humans design things. Well humans, crows, chimpanzees and other animals design things so wouldn't it be a surprise if god was a crow after all crows can design.

Sounds like you accept that there is design evident in living systems.
Hey, that’s a start!

 

[Brian2]

Except life on earth does not show evidence of intelligent design but rather the interplay of a complex genetic code with its environment. There are far to many aspects of life that makes no sense in intelligent design and are explained through the changes in the genetic code that allow that phenotype to utilize the resources available and to change when those resources change so the argument for intelligent design completely fails.

A complex genetic code that can interplay with it's environment and change when necessary. What a fantastic system that was intelligently designed to keep life going and enable it to adapt to it's environment.
You look at the fantastic array and complexity of life forms and pick out little things that you don't like and forget that they were sort of designed by a system. It is the genetic code system in existence that you have as a starting point, but you forget that this had to be designed.

 

[Bear Wild]

I know!
They have no "verifiable evidence", as they put it, to explain the development of the information-rich systems that govern these diverse forms of life that we see. They know so little, yet they assume so much. When many begin resorting to overhaul evolution by calling for extended syntheses, you know they are grasping!

The video below, highlights it (note how Mr. Marshall is so willing to discard the ability of natural selection, since he claims there are now more viable mechanisms creating evolutionary pathways....as always, Meyer does a great job explaining ID):

Listened to the radio broadcast. There is so much wrong but here are at least some of the clear problems.
No sooner into the broadcast then you get misinformation about scientists in the field of evolution arguing about neo-Darwinism which combines Darwin's mechanism of natural selection with genetics. Those making the arguments about "Neo-Darwinism" are only saying that we need to add extensions of new knowledge about phenotypic changes in time such as epigenetics. They accept natural selection without question, they accept genetics as a part of evolution, but add new knowledge about mechanisms of trans-generational inheritance independent of DNA sequences. As for presentations of evolution to the public, most are simplified presentations for the general public giving only the basics and will certainly include epigenetic factors in the future as the new information becomes integrated into the theory. So the speaker uses these simplifications incorrectly. None of the scientists disagree with the Theory of Evolution. So there is nothing to defend about evolution but rather to move forward as science does using the knew knowledge to strengthen the theory of evolution.

Their insinuations that the "third way" referred as epigenetics displaces the previous is false.
Epigenetics does not remove the importance of natural selection and genetics, it only adds to it! You still need the changes to occur in the genetic code over time and natural selection continues to occur so it is not a new view it is an addition to the old view!!! So the studies of the heart genetic expression mentioned do not eliminate the Neo-Darwinism mechanisms which are still important in the evolution of the heart but that there are additional levels of regulation.

It gets worse from this point as the guests create false understanding of the epigenetic factors and complex design using Gerd Muller's views which "again" are that epigenetic factors play a critical role in evolutionarily processes. It takes both genetics and epigenetic interactions that drive increasing diversity. This discussion also does not take into account genetic changes in control genes which can have profound and rapid changes in phenotype as well as epigenetic influences.

Then the speaker makes false statements about how science proceeds to make it seem that they are not open to new ideas. This is misuse of the scientific process plain and simple. There is no epigeneticist in the field of evolution that would say Natural selection is not a part of evolution or would dare to say that genetics is not a part of evolution! (the word epigenetics gives this away). The only thing they are saying is that there are new discovered aspects of phenotypic expression where cellular as well as environmental influences interact with the genetic code.

Next we go to the large infusions such as computer programs as being active evidence for intelligent design without any explanation of how that works. We already have genetic and epigenetic evidence of transmissions of large amounts of information through natural ways. The false claim of one and only one cause is not supported by science but out of desperation. They use human behavior to explain why intelligent design must exist and do not understand that human behavior is the outcome of evolution.

They want to see themselves closer to a god because humans design things. Well humans, crows, chimpanzees and other animals design things so wouldn't it be a surprise if god was a crow after all crows can design. Maybe people would think twice about killing a crow. You sould certainly think twice before killing one of Odin's crows.

As for the extra dna, the study of evolutionary biology has slowly been uncovering new aspects of the dna not designed for a specific program but for regulation. This is a natural progression of understanding and learning in science.

Natural selection only explains that things die??? So he obviously has no understanding of what the process of natural selection is. Natural selection influences changes in the genetics and epigenetics. Someone needs to tell them to come onto the forum and learn about the subject they do not understand!!!!

The last section was their standard we do not have all the details to explain everything so throw out everything you know and just accept what we are saying. It is magic!

So what do we learn from this broadcast.
1. Natural selection, genetics and epigenetics with the influence of the cell and environment explain evolution.
2. Epigenetics strengthens the theory of evolution.
3. Proponents of intelligent design do not understand evolution and worse misuse information to discredit a theory that the information actually supports.
4. Any individual scientist may be wrong at times but the cumulation of information with new findings only strengthens the theory of evolution through challenges to the current idea from new findings.

oh and for me
5. Reaffirms the dishonesty of the creation/intelligent design "scientists"

At least, I can tell you listened to the program.



Sounds like you accept that there is design evident in living systems.
Hey, that’s a start!

So you believe in Odin like me?

 

[Bear Wild]

A complex genetic code that can interplay with it's environment and change when necessary. What a fantastic system that was intelligently designed to keep life going and enable it to adapt to it's environment.
You look at the fantastic array and complexity of life forms and pick out little things that you don't like and forget that they were sort of designed by a system. It is the genetic code system in existence that you have as a starting point, but you forget that this had to be designed.

Except it happens all the time without an intelligent designer. Complexity is not an equivalent to design. The fact that the environment is the driving factor of adaptation is the hallmark of evolution. Nothing has to be designed, it becomes influence from the environment but no design needed. You have to do better than that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Except it happens all the time without an intelligent designer.

"All the time"?
No, we don't. We rarely observe novel information forming. Eating citrate? Ingesting nylon?
These abilities came from already-existing genes....even if new gene development was observed, it wouldn't alter nor debunk my claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The fact that the environment is the driving factor of adaptation is the hallmark of evolution.

This is ultimately yet another contradiction for common descent evolution: uniformitarianism, geology's 'guiding principle.'

For evolution to occur, it needs environmental changes, or pressures exerted on organisms to effect their adaptability. With all the diverse life we've found, and more everyday, there would have to have been major changes all over. But uniformitarianism would work against such varied change happening. Forms of life are just too diverse!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you believe in Odin like me?

Well, I believe there are genuine invisible entities that exist.... One could be called "Odin". Do you believe in Thor? Or Frigga?