Theistic Evolution vs Intelligent Design?

[Sapiens]

We already went through this on another post:

The mechanism you claim has not been replicated and is still just one of may theories including transpemia through intelligent design.

Natural selection has indeed been demonstrated and replicated.

Natural evolution is not sufficient as it has never produced a living organism from inorganic materials. Evolution has never addressed the origins of that life and Darwin steered away from the origins for that reason.

Abiogensis and evolution are entirely different topics. Their only crossover is that there are bible fables for both of them.

Science is not scientists that do have an agenda to fund their experiments, write books, and keep their tenure.

You clearly have no experience i the science community, you simply do not know how it works.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no alteration of the law of physics and no magic entity needed unless you believe life only formed on this planet?

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Intelligent Design does not exclude evolution but the basis of that evolution may not have started on this planet which explains why the large gaps in fossil records and the rate at which evolution seems to have happened after the Cambrian explosion.

You've got Dawkins' quite wrong, as I indicated in your other thread.

 

[Dante Writer]

Natural selection has indeed been demonstrated and replicated.
Abiogensis and evolution are entirely different topics. Their only crossover is that there are bible fables for both of them.
You clearly have no experience i the science community, you simply do not know how it works.

\
No- natural selection to create an organic organism from inorganic materials has never been replicated.

Religion is not the discussion here. Intelligent Design is not creationism.

You clearly repeat the same nonsense of all evolutionist.

Which theory of evolution are you promoting- take your pick?

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

 

[Dante Writer]

You've got Dawkins' quite wrong, as I indicated in your other thread.

OR you just don't like it that Dawkin's said ID is possible because that interferes with your theory.

 

[Dante Writer]

The lack of intelligence demonstrated in the designs argues against it.

OR maybe you are just not seeing that certain steps had to be done before other steps were possible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

\
No- natural selection to create an organic organism from inorganic materials has never been replicated.

Natural selection doesn't do that. Natural selection is the process by which living populations are selected for or against depending on environmental attrition and other factors which naturally influence reproduction rates. Something has to be already living in order for it to be naturally selected for or against. What you are addressing is abiogenesis.

Religion is not the discussion here. Intelligent Design is not creationism.

They are exactly the same. They are both attempts to insert unfalsifiable theological concepts into science.

Which theory of evolution are you promoting- take your pick?

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

As has already been explained, most of these are not "competing" theories, but are simply various aspects of the theory as understood today. A couple of them are hypotheses which have little to no support. I also find it ironic that you accuse others of repeating yourself when you have repeated this lie ad nauseum.

 

[Dante Writer]

Natural selection doesn't do that. Natural selection is the process by which living populations are selected for or against depending on environmental attrition and other factors which naturally influence reproduction rates. Something has to be already living in order for it to be naturally selected for or against. What you are addressing is abiogenesis.


They are exactly the same. They are both attempts to insert unfalsifiable theological concepts into science.


As has already been explained, most of these are not "competing" theories, but are simply various aspects of the theory as understood today. A couple of them are hypotheses which have little to no support. I also find it ironic that you accuse others of repeating yourself when you have repeated this lie ad nauseum.

Natural selection is just one of many theories of evolution.

Intelligent Design is not abiogenisis and Dawkin's made it clear it is possible.

Your opinion of Intelligent design and creationism is immature unless you want to claim Dawkin's was promoting creationism and God.

As has already been explained to you your opinion is not fact. They are all evolutionary theories and natural selection is just one of many theories.

I also find it ironic that a paying member does nothing to add to the discussion and seems intent on badgering and trolling other members.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Natural selection is just one of many theories of evolution.

Wrong. Natural selection is one of the processes, as described in Darwin's original hypothesis, which drives evolution.

Intelligent Design is not abiogenisis and Dawkin's made it clear it is possible.

Of course it's "possible". The question is whether or not we have a good reason to accept it as true.

Your opinion of Intelligent design and creationism is immature unless you want to claim Dawkin's was promoting creationism and God.

This has nothing to do with what I've said. I didn't even mention Dawkins in this post.

As has already been explained to you your opinion is not fact.

Neither is yours, so why are you claiming it? The difference is that your opinion can actually be demonstrated to be misinformed.

They are all evolutionary theories and natural selection is just one of many theories.

Again, wrong. Repeating a lie does not make it true. They are all either different aspects of the theory or competing hypotheses which have garnered little to no credibility. They are not "competing theories".

I also find it ironic that a paying member does nothing to add to the discussion and seems intent on badgering and trolling other members.

Ad hominems don't swing in this forum.

 

[Dante Writer]

Wrong. Natural selection is one of the processes, as described in Darwin's original hypothesis, which drives evolution.


Of course it's "possible". The question is whether or not we have a good reason to accept it as true.


This has nothing to do with what I've said. I didn't even mention Dawkins in this post.


Neither is yours, so why are you claiming it? The difference is that your opinion can actually be demonstrated to be misinformed.


Again, wrong. Repeating a lie does not make it true. They are all either different aspects of the theory or competing hypotheses which have garnered little to no credibility. They are not "competing theories".


Ad hominems don't swing in this forum.

"Of course it's "possible"

Thanks and if it is possible it does not require a God and is not magical.

"This has nothing to do with what I've said. I didn't even mention Dawkins in this post."

You interjected yourself into a discussion between two members where Dawkin's was used as evidence.
Next time read the entire thread and you won't make that mistake.

"The difference is that your opinion can actually be demonstrated to be misinformed."

Then by all means demonstrate it but your opinion has no weight.

"Ad hominems don't swing in this forum."

Then why do you use them in every single one of your posts?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Of course it's "possible"

Thanks and if it is possible it does not require a God and is not magical.

What?

You interjected yourself into a discussion between two members where Dawkin's was used as evidence.

But I never mentioned Dawkins and only responded to the inaccurate comments and claims made by you.

Next time read the entire thread and you won't make that mistake.

Don't patronize me.

Then by all means demonstrate it but your opinion has no weight.

It has more weight than yours, considering mine is supported by facts.

Then why do you use them in every single one of your posts?

Please quote a single example of an ad hominem committed by me.

 

[Dante Writer]

What?


But I never mentioned Dawkins and only responded to the inaccurate comments and claims made by you.


Don't patronize me.


It has more weight than yours, considering mine is supported by facts.


Please quote a single example of an ad hominem committed by me.

You interjected yourself into another conversation and tried to hijack it to your own agenda.

Your opinion has no weight and your opinion is not facts. What is your science degree and background in and where are your published research papers that are peer reviewed?

Do not claim experience you do not have or the accomplishments of others as your own.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You interjected yourself into another conversation and tried to hijack it to your own agenda.

This is forum, not a private conversation in a pub. Anybody on these forums can interject their response or opinion to anything anyone else has written.

Your opinion has no weight and your opinion is not facts.

Right back at'cha. What carries weight ARE the facts. In this case, the facts that you don't have.

What is your science degree and background in and where are your published research papers that are peer reviewed?

I've never claimed to be a scientist. You don't have to have a doctorate to point out when someone is saying something that is untrue. You don't have to be a mathematician to correct someone when they say that the square root of 25 is 37.

Do not claim experience you do not have or the accomplishments of others as your own.

I never have.

 

[Dante Writer]

This is forum, not a private conversation in a pub. Anybody on these forums can interject their response or opinion to anything anyone else has written.


Right back at'cha. What carries weight ARE the facts. In this case, the facts that you don't have.


I've never claimed to be a scientist. You don't have to have a doctorate to point out when someone is saying something that is untrue. You don't have to be a mathematician to correct someone when they say that the square root of 25 is 37.


I never have.

Yes this is a forum and the next time you interject please take the time to read the entire thread so you do not make that mistake again.

I posted the quotes from Dawkin's that substantiated my position. Where are your links or quotes from experts in the field?

"I've never claimed to be a scientist."

Then please stop thinking your opinions have any weight or are any more factual than any other person. If you do not back up your claims with quotes, links and articles it is just your uneducated and unverified non scientific opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I posted the quotes from Dawkin's that substantiated my position. Where are your links or quotes from experts in the field?

I don't have to present any, because all I addressed was your quotation of Dawkins. For that, all I need is Dawkins' own words, which I did quote.

"I've never claimed to be a scientist."

Then please stop thinking your opinions have any weight or are any more factual than any other person.

Are you a scientist? If not, should I just dismiss everything you write, then?

If you do not back up your claims with quotes, links and articles it is just your uneducated and unverified non scientific opinion.

I have, repeatedly. Where are yours?

 

[Dante Writer]

I don't have to present any, because all I addressed was your quotation of Dawkins. For that, all I need is Dawkins' own words, which I did quote.


Are you a scientist? If not, should I just dismiss everything you write, then?


I have, repeatedly. Where are yours?

No you tried and failed to claim added words somehow undermined my premise. It did not and you failed at that agenda.

I am a professional educator and science is one of many subjects I have taught. I am fluent enough in science to hold my own and I do back up my opinions with quotes from experts in the field, links and even math when I feel it is necessary.

You will find those links and quotes all through my posts!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No you tried and failed to claim added words somehow undermined my premise. It did not and you failed at that agenda.

Why is it that anyone having an opposing opinion to yours must have an "agenda"? I'm not interested in such hyperbole.

And yes, the inclusion of the line DOES undermine your premise, since it clearly shows that Dawkins believes that directed panspermia being the source of life on earth still ultimately doesn't address the issue of abiogensis vs. creationism.

I am a professional educator and science is one of many subjects I have taught. I am fluent enough in science to hold my own and I do back up my opinions with quotes from experts in the field, links and even math when I feel it is necessary.

I'll believe you when I see you present some actual knowledge and understanding of the subject. Thus far, you have even misunderstood the basic definition of evolution.

 

[Dante Writer]

Why is it that anyone having an opposing opinion to yours must have an "agenda"? I'm not interested in such hyperbole.

And yes, the inclusion of the line DOES undermine your premise, since it clearly shows that Dawkins believes that directed panspermia being the source of life on earth still ultimately doesn't address the issue of abiogensis vs. creationism.


I'll believe you when I see you present some actual knowledge and understanding of the subject. Thus far, you have even misunderstood the basic definition of evolution.

1- You made your agenda very clear.

2- nowhere does Dawkin's mention panspermia. Do not interject your lack of evolution theories onto other people please.

3- There is no definition of evolution that encompasses all the theories of evolution. You apparently do not grasp the basic fact that the science of evolution is many evolutionary theories.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1- You made your agenda very clear.

You're right. I'm an alien. I'm trying to cover up our existence. Don't tell anyone!

2- nowhere does Dawkin's mention panspermia. Do not interject your lack of evolution theories onto other people please.

Directed panspermia is when life is seeded on other planets by intelligent aliens. That's exactly what he was talking about.

3- There is no definition of evolution that encompasses all the theories of evolution. You apparently do not grasp the basic fact that the science of evolution is many evolutionary theories.

You apparently do not grasp what the theory of evolution actually is. The things you listed as "many theories" are, by and large, just "part" of the theory of evolution. Evolution ITSELF is distinct from the THEORY that explains it. Evolution is defined as the process by which populations of living organisms diversify over time. The THEORY of evolution is the EXPLANATION of how this process occurs.

 

[Dante Writer]

You're right. I'm an alien. I'm trying to cover up our existence. Don't tell anyone!


Directed panspermia is when life is seeded on other planets by intelligent aliens. That's exactly what he was talking about.


You apparently do not grasp what the theory of evolution actually is. The things you listed as "many theories" are, by and large, just "part" of the theory of evolution. Evolution ITSELF is distinct from the THEORY that explains it. Evolution is defined as the process by which populations of living organisms diversify over time. The THEORY of evolution is the EXPLANATION of how this process occurs.

"That's exactly what he was talking about."

1- No that is you OPINION of what he was talking about and as we have already determined you have no science background and just an agenda so your opinion is highly biased.

2- There is no theory of evolution that encompasses all theories,. That is called the science of evolution. There is a theory of evolution through natural selection and various other mechanisms all of which make up that science. Those are the "processes" that you are quoting. Unless you understand all the theories you are just repeating what you learned in school which is a very very limited view of the science of evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1- No that is you OPINION of what he was talking about and as we have already determined you have no science background and just an agenda so your opinion is highly biased.

It is categorically not my opinion that he said the following (emphasis Sapiens'):

"Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point."

This is not a simple matter of opinion. His words are there. Do you deny them?

2- There is no theory of evolution that encompasses all theories,. That is called the science of evolution. There is a theory of evolution through natural selection and various other mechanisms all of which make up that science. Those are the "processes" that you are quoting. Unless you understand all the theories you are just repeating what you learned in school which is a very very limited view of the science of evolution.

Again, you're spouting nonsense. There is a singular THEORY of evolution which encompasses the variable explanations and mechanisms that are proposed to explain evolution. All of the things you quoted are various mechanisms and subjects WITHIN evolutionary theory - except for a couple, which were competing hypotheses. The theory of evolution is a broad explanatory framework encompassing a variety of fields of study, competing hypotheses and explanations. This is not difficult to understand.