Math, who has more faith than evolutionist?

[johnhanks]

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory?

Oh rusra, you scamp, you're doing your favourite misrepresentation trick again, aren't you? You know very well that in the post you responded to Bob Dixon was countering the assertion that evolution is baseless by pointing out that it is so well evidence-based that virtually all working biologists accept it. That is not what you have declared above, as I'm sure you well know.

But, really, that is a good question.

No, I think I've just demonstrated it is a baseless (right word this time) question.

And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster

It's been explained to you many times that this "commitment to materialism" is not something scientists adopt as a bias or an add-on to their science, it is inherent to science. Anyone who starts factoring unobservable, untestable, non-repeatable phenomena into their explanations of the world is not doing science - it's that simple.

 

[idav]

Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based.

The agenda is to show our origins.

Numbers above the chromosome indicate the human orthologous chromosome, and numbers to the left of the chromosome refer to the chromosome of the compared organism. Regions orthologous to human chromosome 12 are shown in green. The rodent comparisons to human were performed using Pash28, and the ancestral mammal and chicken are adapted from GRIMM (Genome Rearrangements In Man and Mouse)-Synteny computations presented in ref. 30. On the basis of cytogenetic evidence, a double reciprocal translocation of human chromosomes 12 and 22 occurred after the divergence of prosimian primates, and is present in all anthropoid primates.

Figure*2 : The finished DNA sequence of human chromosome 12 : Nature

 

[gnostic]

I don't know why people respond to ttechsan's threads. He never stay to reply to anyone. Just start a new topic, then he just vanishes, to start another equally ignorant new topic.

 

[Bob Dixon]

I don't know why people respond to ttechsan's threads. He never stay to reply to anyone. Just start a new topic, then he just vanishes, to start another equally ignorant new topic.

OK, well, since he isn't reading this...
Next time he makes a thread, let's go in and pretend to agree, just to mess with his head.

 

[painted wolf]

OK, well, since he isn't reading this...
Next time he makes a thread, let's go in and pretend to agree, just to mess with his head.

LoL... that'd be a trip. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

OK, well, since he isn't reading this...
Next time he makes a thread, let's go in and pretend to agree, just to mess with his head.

I'm game. :woohoo:

 

[s2a]

I don't know why people respond to ttechsan's threads. He never stay to reply to anyone. Just start a new topic, then he just vanishes, to start another equally ignorant new topic.

Well, I know that....



...now.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs. In the last few hundred years it is taking place about every 60 yrs. If you start with only the story of Noah and the flood and 8 people survived, which by the way this story in some shape or form is in many many civilizations and very far from one another. To the present day, doubling like earlier discussed, there would be 30 times or around 3000 to 4500 yrs if you use every 150 yr avg for doubling. Ironically that gives us the world's present population of around 7 billion people.

Actually the global population remained fairly stable with a slight increase until the Industrial Revolution, in which the global population began to skyrocket. Also Homo Sapien only appeared about 200,000 years ago.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

Just stop there until you learn the basics about DNA, and there are plenty of university and text-book websites that explain things quite nicely.
Also learn about probabilities and statistics. It really helps when attempting to comprehend genetics.

So your proof of evolution is that the evolutionists believe in the theory? But, really, that is a good question. And the partial answer is: many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they "have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." In other words, ID doesn't fit into their biased world-view. As Richard Lewontin, an avowed evolutionist wrote: "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Add to that the gigantic propaganda campaign waged over the last 150 plus years, and it is not hard to see why the scientific community accepts such unscientific bluster.

It's not just because "people believe in it" but more that it's observable in observing changes over multiple generations, it best explains the fossil record, it best explains why our DNA is well over 90% similar to chimpanzees and bonobos, and similarities of lesser degrees to other organisms including daffodils. It also explains why certain facial expressions are universally recognized by members of any given culture. It also explains why the Bubonic plague outbreaks have not been nearly as devastating as the Black Death of 1347. And when you look at the fossil record, evolution puts all the pieces into place.

 

[rusra02]

Please describe a valid test for intelligent design. If it really is true that an intelligent designer intervened in the history of life, what things should we expect to see?

Also, just as importantly, what should we expect to see if an intelligent designer *never* intervened in the history of life?

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning. The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question that lies at the foundation of the ToE. No human has duplicated the creation of life, and it is not likely to happen in the future. Without an an intelligent Designer, I believe we should expect to see no life. If, as I believe, God created life, we should expect to see life in great abundance and beauty. The reality of things unseen can be discerned by their effects that are seen; gravity, for example. As Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." The things produced are evidence of their Producer.

​

​

 

[rusra02]

Oh rusra, you scamp, you're doing your favourite misrepresentation trick again, aren't you? You know very well that in the post you responded to Bob Dixon was countering the assertion that evolution is baseless by pointing out that it is so well evidence-based that virtually all working biologists accept it. That is not what you have declared above, as I'm sure you well know.
No, I think I've just demonstrated it is a baseless (right word this time) question.
It's been explained to you many times that this "commitment to materialism" is not something scientists adopt as a bias or an add-on to their science, it is inherent to science. Anyone who starts factoring unobservable, untestable, non-repeatable phenomena into their explanations of the world is not doing science - it's that simple.

And the 'not allowing a Divine Foot in the door' part? I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working. The ToE inquisitors would see to that. (see Expelled documentary) I think you know that very well.
A man approaches a large, multi-storied building. "Since I did not observe this building being made, and since I cannot personally build such a building, I conclude that it built itself." Surely the building itself proves something? No? (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[camanintx]

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning.

And if life arose through natural processes, wouldn't it have a beginning too?

The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question that lies at the foundation of the ToE.

The Theory of Gravity has no explanation for how the fundamental forces appeared. Atomic Theory has no explanation for how matter first appeared. Germ Theory has no explanation for how germs first appeared. Does that make these theories baseless as well?

No human has duplicated the creation of life, and it is not likely to happen in the future.

A hundred years ago they said humans wouldn't fly. Fifty years ago they said humans wouldn't walk on the moon. People have a habit of underestimating what humans are capable of.

Without an an intelligent Designer, I believe we should expect to see no life.

Of course you would. Fortunately, the universe is not limited by your beliefs.

If, as I believe, God created life, we should expect to see life in great abundance and beauty.

The Theory of Evolution also says we should see life in great abundance and beauty, so what's your point?

The reality of things unseen can be discerned by their effects that are seen; gravity, for example.

And yet there's no need to suggest a supernatural source for gravity. So why should the effects you attribute to God be any different?

 

[camanintx]

I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working. The ToE inquisitors would see to that. (see Expelled documentary) I think you know that very well.

So what are all those people at the Discovery Institute, the Biologic Institute, Institute for Creation Research, and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab doing?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And the 'not allowing a Divine Foot in the door' part? I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working. The ToE inquisitors would see to that. (see Expelled documentary) I think you know that very well.
A man approaches a large, multi-storied building. "Since I did not observe this building being made, and since I cannot personally build such a building, I conclude that it built itself." Surely the building itself proves something? No? (Hebrews 3:4)

I could cite a documentary about dragons and still be more accurate than Expelled.

Your analogy fails because buildings are not inherently self-replicating.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning. The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question that lies at the foundation of the ToE.

The ToE doesn't deal with how life began, so why would we expect it to answer that question? The subject you're speaking of is called abiogenesis. The ToE still stands, no matter how the first life-form appeared, even if it was God, or aliens creating it.

No human has duplicated the creation of life, and it is not likely to happen in the future.

No human has created gravity from scratch either. I do believe humanity will be able to create life, but it will probably take a while. Abiogenesis is a complicated subject that has yet to be studied enough.

Without an an intelligent Designer, I believe we should expect to see no life. If, as I believe, God created life, we should expect to see life in great abundance and beauty.

I, and a majority of all biologists, agree that life would indeed exist even without a God. Evolution well explains why we have huge variety of life forms.

And the 'not allowing a Divine Foot in the door' part? I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working.

They would no longer be using scientific method, but they're allowed to have the opinions and still work in science. As long as they aren't biased and dishonest in their research. Many, if not a majority, of all scientists believe in God.

A man approaches a large, multi-storied building. "Since I did not observe this building being made, and since I cannot personally build such a building, I conclude that it built itself." Surely the building itself proves something? No?

Building are built by man and we know this. There is nothing about animals that suggests design, and they're self-replicating (as mentioned by Gjallarhorn), which buildings are not. I don't look at the sun and say "oh, someone must have built that thing".

 

[fantome profane]

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning. The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question

Creationism has no explanation for how life appeared an so dodges the question by saying "goddidit". Which is not at all an explanation for how. Science however has made and is continuing to make progress in understanding how this occurred. Creationism makes no progress and only wallows in ignorance. Creationism strives to promote ignorance.

 

[johnhanks]

And the 'not allowing a Divine Foot in the door' part?

Did you read my post to the end? The last section addressed that very issue.

I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working. The ToE inquisitors would see to that. (see Expelled documentary) I think you know that very well.

No, but I know a paranoid conspiracy theory when I see it. Who are these dreaded "ToE inquisitors"? How are they recruited? What motivates them? Whatever it is must be far more potent than the fame and fortune they would accrue by blowing the whistle on the whole scam.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning. The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question that lies at the foundation of the ToE. No human has duplicated the creation of life, and it is not likely to happen in the future. Without an an intelligent Designer, I believe we should expect to see no life. If, as I believe, God created life, we should expect to see life in great abundance and beauty. The reality of things unseen can be discerned by their effects that are seen; gravity, for example. As Psalm 104:24 declares: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." The things produced are evidence of their Producer.

​

​

Arrgh.

By the way you responded, I don't think you know what I meant by "intelligent design" OR "test". Let's try this again:

- "intelligent design" is not just the idea that life was created according to some design. It's two claims together: first, that the mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to create the history and diversity of life we have; and second, that these points where evolution by natural selection isn't sufficient to explain what happened, an intelligent designer is the best (or only?) possible explanation.

- by "test" I mean something that we can look at that will be one way if intelligent design is correct and another way if it isn't.

So... with all that in mind, let's try again: can you describe a valid test for intelligent design? And tell us what the expected result is if ID is correct and the expected result if ID is false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Creationism has no explanation for how life appeared an so dodges the question by saying "goddidit". Which is not at all an explanation for how. Science however has made and is continuing to make progress in understanding how this occurred. Creationism makes no progress and only wallows in ignorance. Creationism strives to promote ignorance.

Ohm's Law says nothing about how electrons were created, therefore "it's magic" is a valid explanation for how electrical devices work.

Makes just about as much sense, IMO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The history of life in eath, given an intelligent Designer, should have a beginning. The ToE has no explanation for how life appeared, and so dodges the question that lies at the foundation of the ToE.

There are many biology theories that do not cover how life on earth began. And evolution does not mention it, because it is designed to explain how life came to be in it's current form. But then again, plate tectonic theory does not explain how these massive plates came into being or why they behave the way they do. Germ theory does not explain the origins of germs. And the theory of gravity does not explain anything beyond the effects of gravity and how it effects objects.

And the 'not allowing a Divine Foot in the door' part? I think you know that "virtually all working biologists accept [the ToE]" because if they dared to state otherwise, they would no longer be working.

Practically every biologist accepts evolution because it's a part of life. The characteristics of life even include that living organisms have an evolutionary past. Evolution we can test and predict. A god hypothesis we simply cannot, especially considering the track record of research involving prayer.

A man approaches a large, multi-storied building. "Since I did not observe this building being made, and since I cannot personally build such a building, I conclude that it built itself." Surely the building itself proves something? No?

That isn't how it's theorized to work. It is widely believed that a combination of a very primitive earth's atmosphere, combined with substances carried to earth via comets, is what helped to get life started on this planet. And guess what? This formula has been demonstrated time and time again in the lab to create the essential acids and other substances required for life. And cells go through a self-replication and reproduction. Buildings do not.

The ToE inquisitors would see to that. (see Expelled documentary)

If I am going to watch something in regards to biology, why would I watch a documentary that is hosted by an economist when I could watch one that is hosted by a biologist? It would be like choosing a historical documentary hosted by a cosmologist rather than a historian.

No human has duplicated the creation of life, and it is not likely to happen in the future.

We have built robots, sailed across the seas, settled every continent on this planet, see further into the universe than ever thought possible, we can communicate instantly across the globe, we can fly, clone, go to the moon, we have a space station in orbit around the earth, and I could go on about things that were impossible that we have accomplished.

But how do proponents of ID propose we test for a designer? And why are there so many things that seem very unintelligent, such as testicles being external organs and the rabbits digestive system?

 

[jasonwill2]

the original post hurt my brain... humans appeared a billion years ago?!??! I dont even think life really was very far along then if at all...

also given all those mass extinctions and population baby booms and everything, as well as other envriormental factors, there is NO WAY pop growth would be static.