Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Wow...that sounds like a plot for a movie.....its all there...bloviation!

What scientists are trained to do? (I think we know) the stark clarity of the intellectually dishonest world that I project from experiences onto the screen of corruption....!!!

OMG! Is there a screen writer in the camp?

Is this a clear picture of how an intellectual bloviates? I can only assume that I am making you feel irritated (I get that distinct impression) But why?
If what evolution teaches is such a foregone conclusion, why do you feel the need to even comment? Your replies reveal little more than insults from intellectual snobbery and an appeal to science's credentials as if they mean anything to the Creator or me.



You know, Sapiens, it must be hard to go through all that study and research, and then at the end of the day to stand up for something that can never be proven. I have faith that my Creator is real, probably because I am a spiritually minded person, but when I have done my own research I find no assurance in science that anything they believe today will stand up tomorrow. How do you dedicate yourself so wholeheartedly to something so fickle and largely unsubstantiated by anything more than educated guesswork?

When will science use terms that indicate substantiated fact instead of saying that something "might have" or "could have" taken place? Are scientists not screaming to the world that they hope that evolution took place the way they 'suggest', or else they are going to feel really silly?

If I 'suggest' that something 'might have' taken place, or that circumstantial evidence produced by a group of thoroughly biased individuals, has led to a theory......how convincing could their evidence be? They would all be trying to make the evidence fit the presupposed belief.
If you cannot substantiate your theory with anything more than supposition and nice diagrams, so what do you really have at the end of the day? No more than we do. You have a belief that cannot be proven, just like us.



Is it? Isn't it more correct to say that the entire theory of macro-evolution is based on micro-evolution (adaptation) and that there is not a single piece of solid evidence that any species' adaptation has ever been observed to go beyond its "kind"? This theory is not testable and micro-evolution demonstrates that all creatures have the ability to adapt to a changed environment, but they always remain within their genus. Under experimentation for speciation, the fish remained fish, and the flies remained flies.....there is no proof whatsoever that one kind of creature can become something other than their "kind", no matter how much time you throw at them. Anything over and above what can be observed is pure speculation, not scientific fact. Science just cannot seem to be able to admit that.



I am sure that someone like yourself who takes inordinate pride in their intellectualism can have no other view either, so there is an equality here, isn't there? You apparently see no real need to understand the Bible and its teachings, (an area that I am well versed in) so you can make suppositions about it from ignorance too. How are you different from me apart from your superior academic education? A person can be a genius and not have an ounce of common sense or a spiritual bone in their body......what is so great about that?

Is there ever likely to be many among the scientific community, prepared to be caught dead asserting that evolution is NOT true? Would it be worth the derision and ruin it would mean to their careers if they dared to speak up? I see in your attitude exactly why they would choose to remain silent.



If all of those very bright people begin with a false premise and then all of them would be equally wrong.....collectively ignorant by choice...the very thing I believe that you accuse us of being.

As I've pointed out several times now, anyone who managed to falsify evolution would surely win a Nobel Prize and would instantly become famous. It would turn a great deal of science on its head. It would change the scientific world. If evolutionary theory really is as bogus as you claim it to be, this should have happened long ago.

Remember, evolutionary theory was rejected by many religious folks when it was first proposed. They've had 150+ to falsify it. So what are they waiting for?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

See post #1614.

The church is not and never has been for perfect people, and as long as people are running the church-- any church or "kingdom hall"-- mistakes, intentional or accidental, will be made. The importance is whether the church and denomination is teaching the necessity of believing in God and Jesus and acting out of love, and all denominations do this. and that includes my wife's RCC, as I attend the services there pretty much every Sunday with her. If you don't think so, then why not check it out for yourself.

How did "perfect people" get into this discussion? There are none. But God's Word does provide us with perfect guidance. It's up to us to try and live it.

There's a big difference between "accidental" mistakes, and "intentional".....'mistakes'?? (intentional mistakes....Sounds like an oxymoron.)

Is it simply a mistake to join a country against another country, and kill?

Religions, with their members, should be above what the world does.

It's not self-righteousness, it's not cowardice, either.....its 'following Jesus' steps closely.' -- 1 Peter 2:20-23

20 For what merit is there if you are beaten for sinning and you endure it? But if you endure suffering because of doing good, this is an agreeable thing to God. 21 In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely. 22 He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth. 23 When he was being insulted, he did not insult in return. When he was suffering, he did not threaten, but he entrusted himself to the One who judges righteously.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Sapiens]

Wow...that sounds like a plot for a movie.....its all there...bloviation!

What scientists are trained to do? (I think we know) the stark clarity of the intellectually dishonest world that I project from experiences onto the screen of corruption....!!!

OMG! Is there a screen writer in the camp?

Is this a clear picture of how an intellectual bloviates? I can only assume that I am making you feel irritated (I get that distinct impression) But why?

If forced to guess, I'd say it is the result of the same sort of self-important ego-centrism that makes you so comfortable with belonging to an insular anti-intellectual group, that sees itself as the last refuge of a chosen people.

If what evolution teaches is such a foregone conclusion, why do you feel the need to even comment? Your replies reveal little more than insults from intellectual snobbery and an appeal to science's credentials as if they mean anything to the Creator or me.

If that is all you have taken away from our interchanges then I am truly sorry and you are truly blind.

You know, Sapiens, it must be hard to go through all that study and research, and then at the end of the day to stand up for something that can never be proven.

Since nothing outside of mathematics can actually be "proven" in a scientific sense that causes me no loss of sleep. At the end of the day I approach "proof" as a limit and I do not let the still missing small fraction of a percent trouble me. You, on the other hand, appear to me to be such an absolutist that you through the baby out with the bathwater and cleave to fairytales that pander to your inability to accept a bit of mystery in your life that that has yet to be explored.

I have faith that my Creator is real, probably because I am a spiritually minded person,

I've seen many things from the top of the highest mountains to the bottom of some of the deepest seas but I have never seen anything that was outside of reasonable natural explanation. Spiritual-mindedness is, in my experience, either an an expression of what is actually quite natural awe, or is a symptom of having your mind so far open that your brains have slid out.

but when I have done my own research

I have seen no evidence of you being either equipped or qualified to, "do your own research." I rather doubt that you know what real original research is. Hint: it has nothing to do with reading tract after tract of garbage promulgated by fools who've done naught but the same thing ... you have to go to original sources.

I find no assurance in science that anything they believe today will stand up tomorrow.

Lots stands up, some is fine tuned, a little is overturned and replaced. But is is science that is triumphant and that maintains primacy: 'If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science." - Dalai Lama XIV

How do you dedicate yourself so wholeheartedly to something so fickle and largely unsubstantiated by anything more than educated guesswork?

Because educated guesswork molded into substantial theory is infinitely superior to hidebound fairytales that completely lack provenance and can not be revised to meet obvious failings.

When will science use terms that indicate substantiated fact instead of saying that something "might have" or "could have" taken place?

Never, it is an integral part of the scientific method to maintain at least a small degree of curiosity and inquisitiveness and to recognize that all measurements and thus all conclusions have error terms.

Are scientists not screaming to the world that they hope that evolution took place the way they 'suggest', or else they are going to feel really silly?

No they are not, do old geologists feel silly today because they did not grock plate tectonics? Do old physicists feel silly that they did not know about left-handed fermions) or up-typequarks? Of course not, but the revel in the new findings.

If I 'suggest' that something 'might have' taken place, or that circumstantial evidence produced by a group of thoroughly biased individuals, has led to a theory......how convincing could their evidence be? They would all be trying to make the evidence fit the presupposed belief.

Even when scientists are absolutely as sure as they can be, they 'suggest' that something 'might have' taken place. It is a form of polite courtly speaking that you are confusing with a lack of conviction. Circumstantial evidence does not lead to a scientific theory since a scientific theory is (by definition) "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments."

I suggest that if you do not understand a term you learn what it means before you use it.

If you cannot substantiate your theory with anything more than supposition and nice diagrams, so what do you really have at the end of the day? No more than we do. You have a belief that cannot be proven, just like us.

That's just word salad, look at the definition and then tell me how I can not substantiate something (my theory) that is already, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments" with anything more than supposition.

Is it? Isn't it more correct to say that the entire theory of macro-evolution is based on micro-evolution (adaptation) and that there is not a single piece of solid evidence that any species' adaptation has ever been observed to go beyond its "kind"?

This theory is not testable and micro-evolution demonstrates that all creatures have the ability to adapt to a changed environment, but they always remain within their genus. Under experimentation for speciation, the fish remained fish, and the flies remained flies.....there is no proof whatsoever that one kind of creature can become something other than their "kind", no matter how much time you throw at them. Anything over and above what can be observed is pure speculation, not scientific fact. Science just cannot seem to be able to admit that.

No, until you come up with a clear and unambiguous definition of "kind" your question is meaningless. You should note that "kind" is translated from t he Hebrew " Min" that can mean anything from "quorum" to "nation. to "type" to "group."

I am sure that someone like yourself who takes inordinate pride in their intellectualism can have no other view either, so there is an equality here, isn't there? You apparently see no real need to understand the Bible and its teachings, (an area that I am well versed in) so you can make suppositions about it from ignorance too. How are you different from me apart from your superior academic education? A person can be a genius and not have an ounce of common sense or a spiritual bone in their body......what is so great about that?

I'd say that my pride is, in fact, ordinate. It is your stated pride in your lack of intellectual sophistication that might be best described as "inordinate."

Is there ever likely to be many among the scientific community, prepared to be caught dead asserting that evolution is NOT true? Would it be worth the derision and ruin it would mean to their careers if they dared to speak up? I see in your attitude exactly why they would choose to remain silent.

You just don't get it, there is no such think as heresy in science, there is just stupidity and muddled thinking in its place. I'd love to see evolution disproved and if I could make a case for it, I would. I don't because there is overwhelming evidence that is simply ignored by your overweaning lack of biological acumen.

If all of those very bright people begin with a false premise and then all of them would be equally wrong.....collectively ignorant by choice...the very thing I believe that you accuse us of being.

And you think that we are on an even playing field. What you miss is that I am as familiar with your data (having read your Bible in English, Greek and Latin) as you are, perhaps more so. Have you read Darwin or Malthus or Dawkins or Coyne, etc.? I rather doubt it. So stop pretending that we sit at the same table and break the same bread, 'cause we don't. As I often observe, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

 

[Sapiens]

Hmm I don't remember positing a review paper as having empirical experiments in it. It would appear that you are cherry picking the review paper submission which ended up having bad press because it was an undesirable id paper published in an evolutionists main venue.

Most of the papers I have paid for to review the empirical experiments on were done by Douglas Axe and he specifies every experiment. So, you can of course cherry pick what you want to look into from the ID peer reviewed list but, I have seen the full text of the experiments by Axe and I still assert that if you disagree with his findings then perform those same experiments and show how wrong he is.

Empirical experiments are #1 everything else is opinion

No, I just took the first paper in the list. Let's turn to the first Axe paper:

• Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

... the claims that have been and will be made by ID proponents regarding protein evolution are not supported by Axe’s work. As I (Arthur Hunt) show, it is not appropriate to use the numbers Axe obtains to make inferences about the evolution of proteins and enzymes. Thus, this study does not support the conclusion that functional sequences are extremely isolated in sequence space, or that the evolution of new protein function is an impossibility that is beyond the capacity of random mutation and natural selection. - Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

Now let's do a little justifiable character assassination:

1. Axe's paper was not cited even once, a real dud.
2. No refereed paper by Axe contains – or even attempts to mount – any refutation of evolution, much less evidence for intelligent design. Your basic premise that his paper, were it worthwhile, refuted evolution or provided evidence for ID is false.
3. Axe is on the record arguing that problems with evolution are evidence for intelligent design, insofar as if the theory of evolution cannot explain some data it means that there can somehow be no naturalistic explanation at all. In other words, Axe seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would have to be correct — which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to begin with, and is thus not even in the running. Axe can't even handle basic logic.

Further insights on Axe's work:

False Dichotomy

A false dichotomy is when you are presented with two choices and told that if one is wrong then the other must be correct but there are actually other choices.

Intelligent Design Creationists are very fond of this argument. They tell you that there are only two choices when it comes to explaining biology: either Darwinism or Intelligent Design Creationism. If a given feature of the biological world cannot possibly be explained by Darwinism, then God must exist and he must have designed the feature.

Here's Douglas Axe illustrating the false dichotomy on Evolution News & views [Let Science Be the Arbiter: A Reply to James Shapiro]:

As an ID proponent, I've put forward the scientific case for thinking that the thousands of distinct structures that enable protein molecules to perform their specific tasks inside cells cannot have arisen in a Darwinian way. Moreover, the facts of this problem seem to preclude any naturalistic solution, Darwinian or not.
There is no crutch here. The aspects of protein structure that appear to preclude a naturalistic origin have been described in detail. If Shapiro or anyone else were to show in detail how these are overcome by a naturalistic mechanism, then my argument would fall and I would let it fall. But the reverse needs to be true as well. Scientists who personally side with naturalism have to be willing to let naturalism fall, as otherwise they would be guilty of using a crutch to prop it up.This is actually an attempt to get around the charge of false dichotomy by extrapolating from a rejection of Darwinian explanations to any naturalistic explanation. If Axe is truly able to demonstrate that his "data" cannot possibly be explained by any naturalistic means then it follows logically that the only other type of explanation has to be supernatural. But what Axe is really arguing against is a Darwinian explanation and it's only his lack of imagination and arrogance that allows him to claim that no other naturalistic explanation is possible.​

As we have seen time after time, the Intelligent Design Creationists do not have a scientific theory or any kind of scientific explanation for biological phenomena. All they have is criticisms of science—criticisms that are usually based on a lack of knowledge. When will we see an ID explanation of protein folding and function?

------------------------------

Who needs an IQ test when you’ve got coalescence?

I am just blown away by the consistency of this observation. You know, the creationists are not all stupid; there’s a wide range of intelligence in their camp, even if they are all wrong. But this one recent paper on the gorilla genome has become such an excellent tool for discriminating the competent from the incompetent.

This was the paper that unsurprisingly explained that gorilla genes reveal a mosaic; that some gorilla genes are closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other. If you understand the logic of coalescent theory at all, you know this is an expected result. The only way you could fail to see the distribution we observe is if the population went through a bottleneck of exactly two individuals.

But once again, one of the so-called scientists of intelligent design creationism blows it. Doug Axe has announced that the ape family tree is hopelessly broken, and that the gorilla data should call evolutionary theory into question.

Until recently, the answer was that a real family tree should generate a fully consistent pattern of similarities. [Not true at all. Coalescent theory is an extension of Fisher/Wright models of large populations, and the formal mathematics were worked out in the 1980s] For example, we are told that chimps and humans came from the same ancestral stock (call it CH stock) and that gorillas, chimps and humans all came from an earlier ancestral stock (GCH stock) [Correct so far]. If so, then the human and chimp genomes should consistently be more similar to each other than either is to the gorilla genome [WRONG. They should not be consistently more similar. Does he know nothing of probability?], since the human and chimp histories were one and the same thing more recently than the human and gorilla (or chimp and gorilla) histories were.

Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there [Jebus. Read the paper. The pattern observed is the expected pattern.]. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic [AS WE’D EXPECT.]. According to a recent report, “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…”

That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple [And yet the creationists keep throwing up their simplistic models and being surprised that they’re wrong].

Axe is the one guy the creationists keep touting as a real scientist, a guy with genuine chops in molecular biology, the man who is doing serious scientific work. You know, if you’re going to publicly criticize an observation and claim it calls into question the entirety of evolutionary theory, you ought to first look into it and see whether that observation actually fits a prediction of evolution — actual evolutionary theory, not that cartoonishly naive caricature of evolution the creationists all have in their heads.

There’s a nice, short history of coalescent theory by Kingman. It’s been around for decades, long before the gorilla genome was sequenced, and it predicted what kinds of distributions we ought to see in our comparisons of different species…predictions that were borne out by the paper Axe thinks contradicts evolutionary theory.
- Who needs an IQ test when you’ve got coalescence?

There is not a refereed paper in your list that stands up to scrutiny and that either refutes evolution or advances ID. Sorry ... no cigar.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Says the Christian that denounces other Christians for accept evolution. Hilarious.

No, I accept evolution within species.

But I don't accept common descent. Neither did Jesus. -- Matthew 19:4-6

Furthermore, CD negates the value of Jesus' sacrifice. It renders it useless.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

. "Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem." .

This is a straw man if there ever was one.

I would love for you to be able to tell this to Newton and Boyle.

 

[Deeje]

Could you please just directly respond from now on to what I post without resorting to posting a sermon that includes everything but the kitchen sink?

Again, the issue of Peter's reference to "Babylon" (feminine form) cannot logically be what you say because it implies he is in that location (Rome): 1Pet.5[13] She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

So, it's obvious that all you did with the above response is to fabricate a story that rather clearly cannot logically relate to what you say it does.

I was referring to Babylon the great in Revelation 17 &18 and giving you the background for my conclusions.
This reference in 1 Peter 5:13 is the city of Babylon where Peter wrote his letter(s). It is a city and it is referred to in the feminine form as are other cities in the Bible.

According to Peter’s own testimony, he composed his first letter while in Babylon. (as stated in 1Pe 5:13)
Available evidence clearly shows that “Babylon” refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed. Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon. (Galatians 2:8, 9) There was a large Jewish population in and around the ancient city of Babylon.

Since Peter wrote to “the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Pe 1:1), it logically follows that the source of the letter, “Babylon,” was the literal place by that name. Never does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome, nor does it state that Peter was ever in Rome.

 

[Deeje]

I shortened your full sermon because you did not answer my question-- you just walked around it. Let's try again: John 3:16 says one is "saved" by having a belief in God and Jesus, but you have kept adding all sorts of elements well beyond that.

The elements I added were the elements that the rest of scripture adds. If you remember I mentioned James 2:19 a few times.

"You believe that there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder. 20 But do you care to know, O empty man, that faith without works is useless?"

Is "belief" enough then? The demons "believe" and yet they know that they will perish.

James went on to say.....
"You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.....Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead". (v 24, 26)

So what is the difference between "belief" and the exercise of "faith"?

What does John 3:16 actually say metis?

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (NASB)

"For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting." (Douay)

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (NKJV)

That is pretty much a universally accepted rendering of the verse......right?

Look closer....what is the opposite of "believing" in God's son? Most people concentrate on the first part of that verse without acknowledging the equally important second part. If one fails to "believe" then the penalty is "destruction".....not torment in a fiery hell, but to lose life altogether.

The word rendered "perish" in that verse means.....

" 1. to destroy

2. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin

3. to kill"

Genesis Chapter 1 (NASB)

So just "believing" is not all that is required. Its like the difference between 'having a dog and exercising the dog'....
If faith is not demonstrated in everyday life, then the time someone spends in church practicing ritual and repeating words is wasted.

So, how do you reconcile your ignoring of what Jesus said? If Jesus narrowed down the entire Law to two Commandments, and they are to love God and to do unto others.....then why do you feel some obligation to add more?

It is far from ignoring what Jesus said because hes added so much more himself in the rest of his teachings. His apostles clarified things even more.

The two recommendations of the "law of love" that Jesus gave did not mean a mere acceptance of him as the Christ. It was not to be a blind faith with nothing but ritual performance to back it up.....more was required as Jesus' teachings indicated. He reinforced God's original standards for marriage and divorce, even to the point of saying "don't even look at a woman with the wrong motives or God counts that as "committing adultery in your heart". (Matthew 5:27-28)

He demonstrated what it meant to love one's neighbor, and commanded his disciples to preach. (Matthew 10:11-14; 28:19, 20; Acts 20:20) Do we see the churches doing that? What happens when one country declares war on another? The clergy are right there encouraging the slaughter as if Christ did not teach the opposite. This was the situation in the two World Wars....Catholic killed Catholic and Protestant killed Protestant.....were either of them obeying the Christ, who taught us to "love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us"? (Matthew 5:44)

This is important because there are undoubtedly many people in various denominations who do believe and do try to follow what Jesus taught, and yet you keep coming back adding A, B, C, D, ...

Now, please do not write another sermon in response.

I'm sorry but I am a stickler for detail.....if it results in a sermon I apologize.

The reason why I include relevant information is because these things are important.

 

[Deeje]

As I've pointed out several times now, anyone who managed to falsify evolution would surely win a Nobel Prize and would instantly become famous. It would turn a great deal of science on its head. It would change the scientific world. If evolutionary theory really is as bogus as you claim it to be, this should have happened long ago.

They are not mountain climbers.....the egos of evolutionary scientists and their supporters have been demonstrated all through this thread....
We ID proponents are nothing but uneducated morons......rejected by all academia!!

But I think 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 sums up the situation from the Creator's perspective quite nicely......

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth,  but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame;  and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,  so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

I think that higher education, when it is used to demean others, is a liability to many. It means that they can't see past the end of their snooty educated noses to acknowledge the simple logical facts. Purpose needs a purposer and design needs a designer. When is that not true in human experience? What do you use for a specific purpose that was not designed by someone?

Remember, evolutionary theory was rejected by many religious folks when it was first proposed. They've had 150+ to falsify it. So what are they waiting for?

LOL...they are waiting for scientists to realize that their first premise is dead wrong. Science has built a colossal edifice on matchsticks. It will fall over one day, I am certain of it........But that is just my uneducated opinion.

 

[Sapiens]

No, I accept evolution within species.

But I don't accept common descent. Neither did Jesus. -- Matthew 19:4-6

Furthermore, CD negates the value of Jesus' sacrifice. It renders it useless.

Before you go quoting someone you need to document his existence and once that is done, the veracity of the quote. In the case of Jesus ... you can't do either. His existence is an unsubstantiated claim same for the quotes.

This is a straw man if there ever was one.

I would love for you to be able to tell this to Newton and Boyle.

Easy, I'd have been happy to decry Nweton's views on alchemy and astrology and Atlantis and the Rosicrucians.

Boyle would, no doubt, be a staunch evolutionist, since he was a monogenist..

What was your point, save revealing a lack of knowledge concerning the history of the two men?

 

[ArtieE]

Ah yes I see what you mean now. Here is one from 2013;

Introducing a New Intelligent Design Curriculum: Discovering Intelligent Design

That's what I meant. I'll give it a shot.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But that is just the point....science doesn't either. It deals in speculation masquerading as facts. You cannot refute anything if you have no "facts"......I can't "prove" that my God exists, and you cannot "prove" that evolution ever took place.
It boils down to a choice between belief systems.

Except its not. If I have a belief that the bus will arrive on time based on past evidence of the bus arriving it is very very very very different than the belief that the bus is actually a psychic whale that is eating little bits of our souls each time we ride it. Both are beliefs right? So they must be equal right?

You are talking about a being whose "life" (or existence) and abilities are beyond human comprehension at present.
You demand knowledge of something that you have no way of processing. We will know all we need to in due time.

I take this exact statement and re-direct it to you. The only change I take is that when referencing god I say universe.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that death in the animal kingdom for the majority of creatures is just accepted. Some species, especially those who operate in "family" groups, like elephants or apes, might appear to treat death a little differently, but it is more about adjusting their programming than genuine grief over a loss in the troupe.
Humans are the only species who can contemplate their own death. We are the only ones who can process concepts like past present and future. So imagining the possibility of dying or losing loved ones in death causes us great distress. Why are we the only ones with this ability?

Scientists have acknowledged that the human brain has the capacity to last many lifetimes.

This little exercise was posted in "Scientific American"....

"The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage."

What Is the Memory Capacity of the Human Brain?

So if science could accurately measure the capacity of the human brain, it would look something like that. Not designed for the short 70 or 80 years of the average lifespan....but many lifetimes.

When you speak of limits, science really has no answers as to why we die. The process of cell renewal in the human body should theoretically go on indefinitely, but something happens to slow it down and then stop it altogether. The Bible calls that "sin" which simply means the loss of perfect function.

I think our social skills are rather advanced. We don't know if we are the only creatures that contemplate our own death. Most creatures with a knowledge of self fear death and to a degree means that they contemplate it. They take calculated risks. But this is a side topic that doesn't actually have anything to do with our debate. Creatures die. We, no differnetly than any other mammal, will die. Do you find it so strange that chickens die of old age? Or that bears die of old age? Its the same biological processes.

"We" are so much more than that. "We" do not have a way to process death or tragedy, and yet it happens to us all too frequently. Some of us never recover.

If the personality can die before the body, it is clear that we are more than just a wave of energy. We are more than mere drivers in a fleshly vehicle. Why is it that we have certain expectations that are collectively felt regarding beauty or ugliness, attractiveness and repulsiveness? Who set that standard for humankind?

It does not. Becoming depressed after tragety doesn't mean we are any more than chemical energy. Its just a side effect of cognition.

Science cannot make a blade of grass. It cannot produce "life" unless it has life to pass on in some form. It isn't math or a hunch...its a fact and science cannot argue with it. Even having the right environment for life to thrive will not make it happen without a first cause.

That isn't math. I asked for the math. Show me the math.

LOL...here we go again....

What good has science done in this world that is not offset by something more devastatingly evil? When we see how polluted the earth is, tell me if it was religion or science who created that problem? What science is selling is not FREE....the cost is actually more than what the production was worth. We are all paying for it in one way or another....and our earth is being exploited by greedy men using science to decimate the whole planet. How much is science used to destroy life and property, rather than to promote life and health?

I could also ask that science stops trying to "brainwash" our children by forcing evolution on them at school as if it were a proven fact. Call it a theory by all means, but don't penalize our children for wanting to have a choice in this matter.

Science doesn't brainwash. Correctly taught it teaches children exactly why we have come to these conclusions.

And really? Really? The breakthrough medical advances, ability to communicate, travel, go to space, air conditioning, ect? Science is a tool. It smiply broadens our ability to do good or bad. If humans use it to harm then it is humans doing the harming. Religion however has done vastly more harm than science over the years and hasn't done us a lick of good!

As to passing laws, there is nothing in the Bible about advocating government policy by promoting what the Bible teaches. That should be entirely voluntary. You cannot legislate people's morals, feelings or motivations.

I would like you to tell that to the Republican Party of the United States.

Really? How would you know that and how would you prove it?

Earliest known structure made by mankind is the Cairn of Barnenez which was built around 4850 bc. Humans first began leaving africa around 75,000 years ago. For a savant to have imbued his genes throughout the whole of the human race it would have had to have been prior to that piont. And that is if we totally ignore the Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Easy, I'd have been happy to decry Nweton's views on alchemy and astrology and Atlantis and the Rosicrucians.

Touché. You've got a point.

Boyle would, no doubt, be a staunch evolutionist, since he was a monogenist..

No, he wouldn't have been. He had too much respect for the Scriptures....as I'm sure you're aware, the Bible teaches monogenesis.

 

[Olinda]

As this thread seems severely affected by scope creep, I thought I’d summarize my understanding so far.

@Deeje believes that the beauty of creatures, and their not-yet-completely understood capabilities, conclusively point to each being deliberately and intelligently designed for its niche.

She also believes that the weakness of the ToE is demonstrated by the careful wording of scientific material which avoids claiming fact and certainty, and that illustrations and diagrams are part of the whole attempt to pass evolution off as fact when it is ‘unproven’. The only proof acceptable would be to directly observe evolution between species.

Further, that where evolution is concerned, scientists as a whole are unable or unwilling to consider anything that could disprove evolution. She accepts adaptation within a species, but entirely rejects the possibility of any Biblical ‘kind’ evolving beyond that ‘kind’.

Although @Deeje accepts and uses tools developed by science and engineering, she differentiates between ‘true’ science and evolutionary science, because it depends on an unproven theory .

If any of the summary so far is incorrect, I’m happy to discuss and/or be corrected.

Now of course @Deeje and @Hockeycowboy can believe as they wish, but to convince others their position needs to be logical and coherent. I don’t think it is, for the following reasons:

Firstly, here is no clear line between accepted science and science rejected due to evolutionary taint. In fact @Deeje quoted a JW article on the complexity of the atom which said that evidence not available by direct observation could be accepted, since obviously no-one has directly looked into an atom. Yet despite the masses of evidence for the evolutionary process, the absence of this kind of ‘proof’ is seen as a basis to relegate the ToE to a ‘belief'.

Secondly, as in all threads on this subject, the definition of ‘kind’ is avoided. This means that @Deeje’s beliefs cannot be tested or even debated.

I for one, cannot conceive of a loving God who would punish people for failing to convert to an illogical position, so hopefully the ID proponents can demonstrate a logical basis – of course I may have missed it.

 

[Shad]

No, I accept evolution within species.

But I don't accept common descent. Neither did Jesus. -- Matthew 19:4-6

Furthermore, CD negates the value of Jesus' sacrifice. It renders it useless.

So in the end you dismiss evolution as it contradicts your religion (doctrine), nothing more. This is the typical ID/creationism slant combined with literalism

 

[Shad]

So science is practicing the art of prediction

Models are created in order to predict outcomes then evaluated as to how accurate and useful the model is. I thought you said you know science yet you just figured this out now?

.....I thought that was tied in with sorcery and magic.

Anyone can make a prediction, it is pretty easy to do. Here is a prediction based on a model. You will eat biomass within a week. Here is another one. A USA hockey team will win the Stanley Cup. If you see that as magic you live in a very small and isolated world.

I wasn't hiding them.

Never said you were.

You still didn't tell me what AIG is.

Answers in Genesis. You have also used creation wiki along with a number of blogs which contain or repeat arguments against evolution.

We Aussies don't do the "initials" thing very well.

No problem.

 

[Shad]

Can you point out exactly what my reasoning is?

You cited a blog by a man that only has a degree in theology.

1. He is not an expert on biology thus you are using an argument from false authority.
2. His career is based on a presupposition which has no method to ascertain truth from falsehood.
3. His argument is simply "Evolution could not have happened within X timeline because I can't believe it"
4. He relies on Sternberg unpublished and unreviewed evaluation making it argument from authority

 

[Sapiens]

Touché. You've got a point.




No, he wouldn't have been. He had too much respect for the Scriptures....as I'm sure you're aware, the Bible teaches monogenesis.

I think you underestimate Boyle and misunderstand the flack he received in the 1600s for including animals (races other than Caucasians) as legitimate descendants of Adam and Eve. A quick read of the Origin of Species would have had him aboard, he was much more like the Dalai Lama than like Behe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They are not mountain climbers.....the egos of evolutionary scientists and their supporters have been demonstrated all through this thread....
We ID proponents are nothing but uneducated morons......rejected by all academia!!

But I think 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 sums up the situation from the Creator's perspective quite nicely......

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth,  but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame;  and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,  so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

I think that higher education, when it is used to demean others, is a liability to many. It means that they can't see past the end of their snooty educated noses to acknowledge the simple logical facts. Purpose needs a purposer and design needs a designer. When is that not true in human experience? What do you use for a specific purpose that was not designed by someone?




LOL...they are waiting for scientists to realize that their first premise is dead wrong. Science has built a colossal edifice on matchsticks. It will fall over one day, I am certain of it........But that is just my uneducated opinion.

None of this actually addresses what was said or speaks to reality at all.

You should meet and talk to a scientist sometime. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[metis]

There's a big difference between "accidental" mistakes, and "intentional".....'mistakes'?? (intentional mistakes....Sounds like an oxymoron.)

The point is whether what we do wrong was intentional or accidental, we need to make up for what we did wrong. The word "sin" does not denote whether we "miss the mark" accidentally or intentionally.

Religions, with their members, should be above what the world does.

Supposedly, but it does not say that the church is to be exclusive from the world, as Jesus and the apostles were not Essences, for example. We're in the world, should be appreciative of that and all God's creation, and then act accordingly.

Take care, my cousin.

Thanks, and the same to you.