Good point. If seismologists could just include teaching that Poseidon is a possible cause for earthquakes our education system would improve substantially.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
Intelligent Design doesn't give us any reason for our being and it doesn't give us anything to pin our faith and hopes on. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Intelligent Design You are confusing the scientific theory of Intelligent Design with your belief in the existence of a certain god and your particular religion.
Last edited:
Do you ever discuss things like pedophilia?
1,006 Pedophiles … That Made It To Your Records
or mental health?
The mental health of Jehovah's Witnesses. - PubMed - NCBI
I am just asking to find out if such discussions are encouraged or discouraged.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Because you didn't answer my question, Deeje, so I assumed that your JW's wouldn't. Maybe next time actually answer the question instead of just rambling on and on and on as if you're preaching a sermon.
IOW, get to the point, Deeje, and please spare me all the grandiose sermonizing.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm sorry but this post is ludicrous. Science isn't conducted by one man. Once again, you're forcing your religious principles/dogma/beliefs onto a methodology that operates nothing like religion does.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
In all of these words, you didn't really answer any of my questions. Rather, you've just gone on to speculate even further.
On what basis do you make these claims?
Can you give an example of "positive" information and "negative" information?
What you are describing is a conspiracy. You're saying that all of the scientists currently working all over the world (and over the last 150+ years when it comes to evolutionary theory) collectively ignore "negative" information and only publish and promote "positive" information. Do you have any idea how many people would have to be involved in such a covering up of data and how long a time period we are talking about here?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You've just repeated the same things you've been saying over and over since page one, despite the the fact that I (and so many others) have addressed them so many times. Your claims are not backed by evidence. Sorry.The Emperor is still parading around in his imaginary suit...."you" might like to put him away by providing evidence for the existence of said "suit". If it is so well established, then that should be no problem.
It works just fine because it is the truth. Adaptation has evidence in lab experiments to back it up. It happens within one taxonomic family but has never been witnessed to step outside of one. It produces variety within a species, not new taxonomic families altogether.
It is true that science produces many facts.....macro-evolution isn't one of them.
Since science needed to change the definition of a "theory" to reinforce its position as "fact" rather than unsubstantiated supposition, we can let the readers sort that one out for themselves.
Science is not self-correcting.....it is self-supporting. There is a big difference.
Since no scientist who values his position in the scientific community, will ever publicly question their pet theory....of course they are all going to back one another up. 'Sticking with their pre-conceived beliefs' is what keeps this theory afloat among scientists....not real evidence....because there is none.
Is it that they have given up trying to explain science to me? Or is it more truthful to say that they have given up trying to pass off trumped-up evidence as truth, and having it exposed as mere unsubstantiated conjecture? How many times do you need to see the flaws in their articles? How many "might have's" make a fact?
I am posting it because we always have new readers and I believe that the questions asked are still valid.
I mean, seriously, I've addressed every single one of these bogus claims, more than twice. And you just keep on making them. It's like a merry-go-round.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
An abstract, by definition doesn't provide specifics. It's a summary. Like how the book jacket summarizes the plot of a book without giving away the details. You should read the entire article, including what scientists are talking about when they "reconstruct" timelines, patterns, etc. The article is where you will find detailed descriptions of the evidence.From your second link.....
Abstract
"Most flowering plants establish mutualistic associations with insect pollinators to facilitate sexual reproduction. However, the evolutionary processes that gave rise to these associations remain poorly understood. We reconstructed the times of divergence, diversification patterns, and interaction networks of a diverse group of specialized orchids and their bee pollinators. In contrast to a scenario of coevolution by race formation, we show that fragrance-producing orchids originated at least three times independently after their fragrance-collecting bee mutualists. Whereas orchid diversification has apparently tracked the diversification of orchids’ bee pollinators, bees appear to have depended on the diverse chemical environment of neotropical forests. We corroborated this apparent asymmetrical dependency by simulating co-extinction cascades in real interaction networks that lacked reciprocal specialization. These results suggest that the diversification of insect-pollinated angiosperms may have been facilitated by the exploitation of preexisting sensory biases of insect pollinators."
Please note in just the "Abstract" of this article how much conjecture is passed off as if it were fact. Evolutionists seem blind to this, but those who believe in a much more logical scenario of Intelligent Design see it very clearly. For something that "remains poorly understood", they sure have a lot of speculation about this stuff.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources- sounds like you are advocating for Intelligent Design
ID actually accepts the fossil evidence as is, sudden appearances, gaps, jumps and all- are exactly what it predicts.
It has no need to add infinite imaginary transitionals, and then on top of that, excuses for why they were never found
It also accepts the results of direct experimentation- a strictly limited capacity for adaptation, bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain fruit flies.
It has no need to declare the scientific findings misleading, and insist that major transitions MUST have occurred through random mutation regardless, somehow, sometime
It also accepts the mathematical modeling, which cannot replicate the imagined power of the simple algorithm,
Once again, it has no need to invent excuses for why the cold hard math doesn't appear to comply with the theory
All these assumptions of Darwinism are based 100% on what the theory demands, not what the evidence shows
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I was speaking directly to your comments that no amount of evidence will ever be able to convince you about the reality of evolution.No they won't. If they are not indoctrinated with science's theory, and have read even a small amount of the exchanges on this thread, they would rightfully be having doubts about the valididty of something that makes conjecture and unsubstantiated supposition into believable fact....and then belittle and deride those who don't accept it.
See, this is such a common attitude...."nobody of any repute believes what you believe, so you can't be right because so many intelligent people can't be wrong". What a foolish assumption.
In the scriptures there are many examples of those who thought being in the majority made them right......Noah's flood......the Assyrian King who relied on his military force to wipe out an outnumbered nation of Israel....Jonah.....the ones who chose to follow Jesus when the majority rejected him....and the foretold final part of these days when the majority of mankind, alienated from God will perish, but not before they know who has judged them and why.
I believe that the Bible's counsel in this regard is to be trusted. Being one of the crowd has never been what God's people were noted for....just the opposite in fact. Sometimes it pays to be different.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It's not even a scientific hypothesis inasmuch as it is unfalsifiable.
The fossil evidence does not suggest an intelligent designer. It doesn't rule the idea out, but adding an intelligent agent to the mix is an unnecessary complication. We have a mechanism for evolution that requires no intent.
We keep finding these transitional forms exactly as predicted by Darwin's theory. They are unexplained by creationism.
Creationism also fails to explain the continual appearance of new "kinds." Explain Tiktaalik (intermediate between fish and amphibians) or Archeopteryx (intermediate between reptile and bird) from a Christian perspective. Why are their fossils there?
There are no valid mathematical objections to the theory, which is why it still holds sway everywhere except creationist circles. Hoyle's fallacy, for example, has been debunked repeatedly.
The theory followed the evidence. It conforms to it.
Maybe you'd like to answer the question that Deeje so assiduously avoids :
"Why should we throw out a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources (fossil, genetic, biogeographical, etc), provides a mechanism for evolution, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in living things past and present that have never been falsified, and has practical technological applications that have improved the human condition, for a faith based hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence (pretty pictures notwithstanding), and has no practical value even if correct?"
As I told her, until somebody can provide a cogent answer to that question, there is no reason to consider the intelligent design hypothesis further. We keep which works and discard that which doesn't. Would you consider it wise to do the opposite?
Will you also deflect, or give a reason to throw out what works for what doesn't?
I am the one with a belief system, remember? My beliefs are grounded in my faith and in what can be observed in the real world (as opposed to the imagined world of the evolutionists).....the evidence we have for intelligent design, so obvious in nature, is completely compatible with true science, as opposed to theoretical (unproven) science.
I can't physically prove the existence of the Intelligent Designer, but I am not the one claiming to have "overwhelming" scientific evidence to back up my beliefs. The evidence I have for purpose and design in nature can be backed up by science, but my God cannot be 'proven' by any scientific method invented by the minds of men. He proves himself in ways that science cannot fathom and wants to ignore.
From your link......
"Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."
Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is not based on "real science".....but then, their theory is not based on "real science" either. Both are basically 'belief systems' looking for scientific evidence to support their respective beliefs, but only one is claiming to be faith based. Evolutionary science too, is "faith" based....but can't admit it.
You have to have faith in the words and findings of evolutionary scientists and in the validity of their interpretation of it. You trust them and have actually placed your life and future in their hands. That is how important this issue is IMO.
So there you have it.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Okay, fine if you say so, neither was the primeval atom or quantum mechanics, they were religious pseudoscience
But phrenology, multiverses, big crunch were science , So I'm just less interested in what is a 'scientific theory' and more interested in what is actually true
We only have one proven mechanism capable of originating the engineering and information systems involved, and it ain't luck!
You could have argued that with the curator of the Chicago Field museum,
"We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
By that rationale, the appearance of hybrid crossover SUVs, proves that they came about through accidental mutations?
Many curious phenomena can be successfully modeled mathematically, evolution cannot- random mutations lack the creative force to be the origin of the emergent properties observed- as in Dawkins weasel program. ID agrees with what Dawkins' and every other attempt demonstrates, outcomes must be predetermined one way or another.
the theory was formed 150 years ago, before most of the evidence was in, it has been distorted to try to keep up, splintering into factions,
No, we agree entirely, we should keep the science, throw out what is based only on blind faith
So keep the observed, the measured, the repeatable: adaptation, genetics, the fossil record- acknowledge the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances are real as ID predicted (and many evolutionists are finally accepting)- not mere artifacts of an incomplete record as assumed 150 years ago. Science has come a long way since then.
Lose the pretty artistic impressions of intermediates that were predicted in Victorian times and never found, the imaginary algorithms that faith-free computers do not agree with, the faith in millions of lucky accidents that cannot be observed, repeated, measured- but must merely be believed in, purely at the theory's bequest
Last edited:
You are aware, aren't you, that many of us reject any idea believed by faith or any idea derived from an idea believed by faith. Any other belief grounded in faith is just as (in)valid as yours. Even if one chooses to disregard all of the evidence, by faith alone, one can believe that creationism is false.
There is no evidence for intelligent design. Ask the Discovery Institute. They've invested millions trying to find some and have come up as empty as those looking for the fountain of youth so many centuries ago, and for the same reason, no doubt. If your idea is wrong, nature won't provide you with evidence that it is correct. How could it?
Well, the scientists have that, and to some, that matters. Some people come to conclusions and make decisions based on evidence. For others, who trust faith, evidence is irrelevant.
Yet the science community hasn't embraced intelligent design, and their profession is to evaluate evidence.
One more time:
"Why should we throw out a scientific theory that can unify data from multiple sources (fossil, genetic, biogeographical, etc), provides a mechanism for evolution, makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in living things past and present that have never been falsified, and has practical technological applications that have improved the human condition, for a faith based hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, offers no mechanism, has no supporting evidence (pretty pictures notwithstanding), and has no practical value even if correct?"
Sure, if they have DNA, can pass it along to later generations of cars, and live or die according to the environmental pressures acting on their survival and reproduction.
Evolution is not a mathematical science. There is some application of mathematics to it, such as determining when lines diverged based on a count of the number of differences in their genomes, but like most of biology, math play as very small role. That does not constitute an argument against the veracity of the theory.
Where's the mathematical model for creationism?
Nope.
evidence available to Darwin
[1] Fossil evidence - Darwin had seen extinct transitional forms document change in traits through time. For example, Darwin found the larger fossils of extinct sloths in the same region as present-day smaller sloths.
Since Darwin’s time, many more transitional forms have been uncovered such as Tiktaalic, an extinct fish-amphibian intermediate, Archeopteryx, an extinct dinosaur-bird intermediate, Proconsul, and extinct monkey-ape intermediate, and multiple hominan (sic) fossils of extinct forms leading to man.
We have also examined much of the geologic column, and find the fossils stratified, that is, older ones are deeper and the more recent forms are above them, including more complex forms not found in deeper strata.
[2] Vestigial features in animals - These include tiny, useless leg bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes, and unused eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin was the first to describe and interpret these traits. They’re evolving away.
[3] Biogeographical data. Darwin observed the variation in the Galapagos finches, especially their beaks, that varied according to island and food source. Darwin reasoned that they shared a common ancestor, and had transformed over time to optimally exploit their local food sources.
He was also aware of how the marsupials of Australia seemed to have the forms and behaviors of the placental mammals on other continents, and surmised that these two groups of animals evolved to fill corresponding niches.
Today, we can add ring species, such as the salamanders of California’s central San Joaquin valley that gradually transform as they migrate around some natural barrier. Neighboring variants are still able to mate, but eventually, as the ring closes, the variants on the two ends cannot reproduce and are therefore considered separate species.
Likewise with the Larus gulls of the arctic, who don’t get further north than a certain latitude, and created a similar pattern around the northernmost circle available to them – neighbors are variants that can breed, but by the time the ring was closed, it was now two different species of gulls meeting.
[4] Structural homologies - Darwin pointed out that if all mammals descended from a common ancestor, and if that ancestor had a limb with the same basic arrangement, then it would be logical to observe that its descendants had a modified form of the same arrangement. Darwin was aware that the same bones in the same relative positions occur in primate hands, bat wings, and bird wings, which suggested common descent.
[5] Comparative embryology - Darwin was not only aware of the vestigial bones in some adult forms, but their more pronounced appearance in their embryos such as legs on dolphin and snake embryos, and tails and gill folds on human embryos. Today, man has a vestigial tailbone, the coccyx, but as an embryo, he has a full tail.
[1] Fossil evidence - Darwin had seen extinct transitional forms document change in traits through time. For example, Darwin found the larger fossils of extinct sloths in the same region as present-day smaller sloths.
Since Darwin’s time, many more transitional forms have been uncovered such as Tiktaalic, an extinct fish-amphibian intermediate, Archeopteryx, an extinct dinosaur-bird intermediate, Proconsul, and extinct monkey-ape intermediate, and multiple hominan (sic) fossils of extinct forms leading to man.
We have also examined much of the geologic column, and find the fossils stratified, that is, older ones are deeper and the more recent forms are above them, including more complex forms not found in deeper strata.
[2] Vestigial features in animals - These include tiny, useless leg bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes, and unused eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin was the first to describe and interpret these traits. They’re evolving away.
[3] Biogeographical data. Darwin observed the variation in the Galapagos finches, especially their beaks, that varied according to island and food source. Darwin reasoned that they shared a common ancestor, and had transformed over time to optimally exploit their local food sources.
He was also aware of how the marsupials of Australia seemed to have the forms and behaviors of the placental mammals on other continents, and surmised that these two groups of animals evolved to fill corresponding niches.
Today, we can add ring species, such as the salamanders of California’s central San Joaquin valley that gradually transform as they migrate around some natural barrier. Neighboring variants are still able to mate, but eventually, as the ring closes, the variants on the two ends cannot reproduce and are therefore considered separate species.
Likewise with the Larus gulls of the arctic, who don’t get further north than a certain latitude, and created a similar pattern around the northernmost circle available to them – neighbors are variants that can breed, but by the time the ring was closed, it was now two different species of gulls meeting.
[4] Structural homologies - Darwin pointed out that if all mammals descended from a common ancestor, and if that ancestor had a limb with the same basic arrangement, then it would be logical to observe that its descendants had a modified form of the same arrangement. Darwin was aware that the same bones in the same relative positions occur in primate hands, bat wings, and bird wings, which suggested common descent.
[5] Comparative embryology - Darwin was not only aware of the vestigial bones in some adult forms, but their more pronounced appearance in their embryos such as legs on dolphin and snake embryos, and tails and gill folds on human embryos. Today, man has a vestigial tailbone, the coccyx, but as an embryo, he has a full tail.
How about if you try to explain why anybody would throw out a theory that work for a hypothesis that cannot be used for anything. And please understand in advance that the failure to do so justifies ignoring creationist claims. You'll need to provide a reason to do that for your alternative to receive any credence or serious consideration.
Time will tell then, won't it? Who has more to lose? Bait is always tempting because it appeals to a certain appetite. Can I explain why I like things that my siblings don't? Appetite and what appeals to us as individuals is very personal, isn't it? My sisters love chocolate but I don't. Go figure.
I don't recall Poseidon ever claiming to be the Creator, nor do I see any writings inspired by him that pertains to right conduct or to events that will transpire as a result of his intervention in the future.
True science backs up what the Bible says.....earthquakes have been part of God's expressions at times. When Jesus died e.g. a great earthquake occurred perhaps as an indication of God's displeasure over the manner of Christ's death? Many of the Romans thought so anyway.
But, "great earthquakes" were foretold as part of the sign Jesus gave about the last days of this present system of things. That is not to say that God is causing them, but that whatever is responsible for their frequency will probably be attributable to man's negative impact on this planet in this time period.
Seismology is a science that has real evidence to back it up. Like other branches of science, it is not theoretical, but measurable and often predictable. We don't have to wonder when a great earthquake has occurred.....do we?
Yes, one only has to mention "abiogenesis" and watch the evolutionists duck for cover.
You can't ask the bigger question about how life began, because science has no idea really.....try as they might, they cannot make anything 'live', unless it was taken from something already alive....they know for sure that "all life springs from pre-existing life"....and yet this apparently doesn't apply to evolution, because if life was created by an Intelligent Designer, then their whole theory goes down the gurgler.
"Don't ask me about abiogenesis because it has nothing to do with evolution" is a poor cop-out....how life began is THE more important question. Who cannot acknowledge this?
It is the very large elephant in the room.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
They are likewise described by digital information yes, which is passed along, reproduced in later generations depending on how well they survive environmental pressures. None of this even hints at accidental design changes- again we only know of one proven cause for this observed pattern
I agree and that's the fundamental problem with it, it was conceived before evidence like DNA, quantum mechanics
which like everything else comes down to information, mathematics, that's how we discovered the 'immutable' laws of classical physics were likewise inadequate.
And that's the ultimate advantage of ID, it can create it's own math, it's own custom engineered information systems, rather than simply obey them. There is no creative capacity in the latter
Nope.
evidence available to Darwin
[1] Fossil evidence - Darwin had seen extinct transitional forms document change in traits through time. For example, Darwin found the larger fossils of extinct sloths in the same region as present-day smaller sloths.
Since Darwin’s time, many more transitional forms have been uncovered such as Tiktaalic, an extinct fish-amphibian intermediate, Archeopteryx, an extinct dinosaur-bird intermediate, Proconsul, and extinct monkey-ape intermediate, and multiple hominan (sic) fossils of extinct forms leading to man.
We have also examined much of the geologic column, and find the fossils stratified, that is, older ones are deeper and the more recent forms are above them, including more complex forms not found in deeper strata.
[2] Vestigial features in animals - These include tiny, useless leg bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes, and unused eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin was the first to describe and interpret these traits. They’re evolving away.
[3] Biogeographical data. Darwin observed the variation in the Galapagos finches, especially their beaks, that varied according to island and food source. Darwin reasoned that they shared a common ancestor, and had transformed over time to optimally exploit their local food sources.
He was also aware of how the marsupials of Australia seemed to have the forms and behaviors of the placental mammals on other continents, and surmised that these two groups of animals evolved to fill corresponding niches.
Today, we can add ring species, such as the salamanders of California’s central San Joaquin valley that gradually transform as they migrate around some natural barrier. Neighboring variants are still able to mate, but eventually, as the ring closes, the variants on the two ends cannot reproduce and are therefore considered separate species.
Likewise with the Larus gulls of the arctic, who don’t get further north than a certain latitude, and created a similar pattern around the northernmost circle available to them – neighbors are variants that can breed, but by the time the ring was closed, it was now two different species of gulls meeting.
[4] Structural homologies - Darwin pointed out that if all mammals descended from a common ancestor, and if that ancestor had a limb with the same basic arrangement, then it would be logical to observe that its descendants had a modified form of the same arrangement. Darwin was aware that the same bones in the same relative positions occur in primate hands, bat wings, and bird wings, which suggested common descent.
[5] Comparative embryology - Darwin was not only aware of the vestigial bones in some adult forms, but their more pronounced appearance in their embryos such as legs on dolphin and snake embryos, and tails and gill folds on human embryos. Today, man has a vestigial tailbone, the coccyx, but as an embryo, he has a full tail.
[1] Fossil evidence - Darwin had seen extinct transitional forms document change in traits through time. For example, Darwin found the larger fossils of extinct sloths in the same region as present-day smaller sloths.
Since Darwin’s time, many more transitional forms have been uncovered such as Tiktaalic, an extinct fish-amphibian intermediate, Archeopteryx, an extinct dinosaur-bird intermediate, Proconsul, and extinct monkey-ape intermediate, and multiple hominan (sic) fossils of extinct forms leading to man.
We have also examined much of the geologic column, and find the fossils stratified, that is, older ones are deeper and the more recent forms are above them, including more complex forms not found in deeper strata.
[2] Vestigial features in animals - These include tiny, useless leg bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes, and unused eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin was the first to describe and interpret these traits. They’re evolving away.
[3] Biogeographical data. Darwin observed the variation in the Galapagos finches, especially their beaks, that varied according to island and food source. Darwin reasoned that they shared a common ancestor, and had transformed over time to optimally exploit their local food sources.
He was also aware of how the marsupials of Australia seemed to have the forms and behaviors of the placental mammals on other continents, and surmised that these two groups of animals evolved to fill corresponding niches.
Today, we can add ring species, such as the salamanders of California’s central San Joaquin valley that gradually transform as they migrate around some natural barrier. Neighboring variants are still able to mate, but eventually, as the ring closes, the variants on the two ends cannot reproduce and are therefore considered separate species.
Likewise with the Larus gulls of the arctic, who don’t get further north than a certain latitude, and created a similar pattern around the northernmost circle available to them – neighbors are variants that can breed, but by the time the ring was closed, it was now two different species of gulls meeting.
[4] Structural homologies - Darwin pointed out that if all mammals descended from a common ancestor, and if that ancestor had a limb with the same basic arrangement, then it would be logical to observe that its descendants had a modified form of the same arrangement. Darwin was aware that the same bones in the same relative positions occur in primate hands, bat wings, and bird wings, which suggested common descent.
[5] Comparative embryology - Darwin was not only aware of the vestigial bones in some adult forms, but their more pronounced appearance in their embryos such as legs on dolphin and snake embryos, and tails and gill folds on human embryos. Today, man has a vestigial tailbone, the coccyx, but as an embryo, he has a full tail.
So as we dig into the past, we see a timeline of shared traits, generally increasing complexity, with some gaps, jumps, stasis, some dead ends and even regressions in some cases- what are you claiming this is evidence for?
exactly, why would we throw out the only known explanation that is a proven phenomena, actually concurs with all the scientific evidence AS IS, and is also proven to be capable of creating the information systems essential to life in the first place
and instead put it all down to a theory driven by blind chance, demanding belief in countless creatures, transitions, lucky mutations, that can never be scientifically verified, and utterly fails to offer any explanation for the actual origin of life itself?
As for receiving credence, belief in Darwinism stands at 19% in the US, and that's WITH all the pop science media and school curriculum, - ID is not the theory desperately struggling with credibility here!
Last edited:
ID has no advantages. Goddidit explains no more than It-did-it-on-its own. The question remains, how? The theory of evolution tells us how life evolved. It includes a mechanism. Goddidit doesn't.
So where's this mathematical formulation of ID?
Along with the genetic evidence, the comparative anatomy / physiology / embryology / biochemistry evidence, the biogeographical evidence, and the fact that we can witness evolution occurring, it's more of the evidence for the correctness of the theory of biological evolution.
- Consilience - agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects.
So no answer as to why we should throw out what works for what doesn't? I'm guessing that that is because like Deeje and me, you have none.
Sorry metis, it is a great weakness of mine to include a lot of detail.
Sometimes I answer a question with a lot of what I consider relevant detail and the point might get lost on someone who is not interested in following my line of reasoning. How I arrive at my conclusions are as important to me as what I believe. Perhaps this is why I find science's explanation of how evolution supposedly took place, so empty.....it is a belief system founded on an idea....but when you examine the foundations of this elaborate 'building', you find nothing but matchsticks.
Details are important to me and I assume that they are important to others who require a full explanation of the subject under discussion. I think it's the details that can slam dunk points in a discussion....but that is just me.
Intelligent Design assumes the existence of an Intelligent Designer......I am not confusing anything. Perhaps you are confused?
That the existence of an Intelligent Designer, who had a purpose for his creation (who designs things with no purpose?) is supported by true science, is because the entirety of creation exhibits purpose. Purpose is an indication of planning and planning needs intelligence.
Creation is not a gigantic accident with no one to receive credit for what we see (albeit at present, hazily) As things unfold, in time humans will see it all in its original condition, a perfect planet, inhabited by perfect people who will not treat their home with disrespect, nor treat the Creator with the same disrespect. I believe that all humanity will be given enough time and opportunity to make their choices.
It's not really "what" you believe but rather, "who" you believe......we must choose wisely.
- Status