Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

[Spirit of Light]

Nature has a brain? Where is it kept?

I dont see a need for spirit existence to have a brain
My belief is that all physical that exists in this world is alive.
Not based on science.

 

[viole]

You try designing an efficient killing machine without using any intelligence and tell us how it goes. Perhaps you could just ask nature to have an accident that would create your biological killing machine. I would not hold my breath.

Ok, so what is so intelligent in the design of lion’s favorite prey, the gazelle?

ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

Ok, so what is so intelligent in the design of lion’s favorite prey, the gazelle?

ciao

- viole

Or the female hyena's pseudopenis?

 

[tas8831]

Lol! You can add to Darwin:

Lord of Ignorance
Master of the greatest show of Stupidity on Earth

Now compare to this: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Projecting again?

Are you the Eggman?

 

[tas8831]

You try designing an efficient killing machine without using any intelligence and tell us how it goes. Perhaps you could just ask nature to have an accident that would create your biological killing machine. I would not hold my breath.

Why did Yahweh need to design a killing machine?

Or 50?

Lots of carnivores out there.

Why?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why did Yahweh need to design a killing machine? Or 50? Lots of carnivores out there.Why?

For preservation and balance of nature needed because of man's fallen state.
Originally there was peace between man and animal and that peace will return - Hosea 2:18; Isaiah 11:6-9; Isaiah 65:25

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I am not defending anything. I took the time to read your entire paper, explained why I thought your conclusions (crushing the main root of evolution) were flawed and all you do is refuse to engage with my objections and just claim that I am wrong and you are right. If you want to be taken seriously you need to be able to defend your ideas when others have objections. You said in the OP that you want discussion, was this true?

You cannot have a valid objection to me if you do not know the topic of intelligence, since, what and where is your basis? If you do not have basis, then, where do you stand?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Maybe it is "frightening" to you, because your chosen narrative, and all you have built your hope on for providing "evidence for god" or some magical "logical argument" that someone proves that an intelligence like "god" must exist - alles that mean? Again... I have no religion. You would probably like to characterize my lack of belief in "god" as some "religion" - and I get it, you have nothing better to present, and it frustrates you - I really do get it. But don't take it out on me. I am not doing anything.

I don't even "do" science. And, apparently, neither do you, really. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Again, you cannot deny that there is change in biological world. You also cannot deny that change can either be intelligently guided or not. But since Evolution had used Natural Selection, then, your Evolution and you had chosen the non-intelligence side, which means, that, non-intelligence is your or Evolution's basis.

Thus, since non-intelligence cannot produce ALL GOODS alleles, then, there is no Evolution in biological world.

Either you deny it or you will inject or insert your atheistic religion in Science. Religion is any explanation that has no test or confirmation. STOP the religious wars in Science.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Of course you can. Since intelligence is not part of any explanation under methodological naturalism.in the same way stupidity isn’t.

Methodological naturalism denies conscious intention as an explanation of natural phenomena.

and honestly, I am not sure where you see any intelligence. What is so intelligent in designing something like, say, a lion?

ciao

- viole

Who decides what is part of nature or not? Bring them here.

Who finalized that intelligence is not part of nature? Bring them here.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

So.... You cannot address the evidence I presented, got it.

You have evidences for invented reality, but for real reality, you do not have.

 

[viole]

Who decides what is part of nature or not? Bring them here.

That is what you do not understand. Nobody decides that. It is a rule of science. Like a rule in chess. It is called methodological naturalism. No metaphysical design is accepted as an explanation. Even in the very unlikely case that there is indeed some metaphysical design (in that case, science would simply be incomplete as an epistemic tool about nature).

If you change the rules in chess, you do not play chess anymore, but something else. In the same way, if you leave naturalism you do not do science anymore, but something else. And that is why you can write as many design based articles as you like, but they will never be considered scientific. Same if you start violating the rules of chess at tournaments: you will lose. Every time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

That is what you do not understand. Nobody decides that. It is a rule of science. Like a rule in chess. It is called methodological naturalism. No metaphysical design is accepted as an explanation. Even in the very unlikely case that there is indeed some metaphysical design (in that case, science would simply be incomplete as an epistemic tool about nature).

If you change the rules in chess, you do not play chess anymore, but something else. In the same way, if you leave naturalism you do not do science anymore, but something else. And that is why you can write as many design based articles as you like, but they will never be considered scientific. Same if you start violating the rules of chess at tournaments: you will lose. Every time.

Ciao

- viole

Chess is board game, but reality is not a game. People die if scientists lie. People suffer or die if scientists think that Science is a game.

In Science, the basis and the rule of the game is reality. Anything that is not part of reality should be uprooted and replaced.

Is that rule part of reality or invented reality? Which?

 

[GardenLady]

People die if scientists lie.

People die from denying science also. Case in point: the past two years.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

People die from denying science also. Case in point: the past two years.

Agreed. That is why, do not deny the fact that "Evolutions is wrong" - an undeniable fact.

 

[viole]

Chess is board game, but reality is not a game. People die if scientists lie. People suffer or die if scientists think that Science is a game.

In Science, the basis and the rule of the game is reality. Anything that is not part of reality should be uprooted and replaced.

Is that rule part of reality or invented reality? Which?

I never said that chess is like reality. So, you are constructing a straw man.

What I said is: methodological naturalism is a rule of science, in the same way that, say, "bishops move on diagonals" is a rule of chess.
If you break the rule of methodological naturalism, you are not doing science; in the same way that if you move bishops on files you are not playing chess, but something else.

Therefore, any argument you do, that invokes metaphysical design, intelligent or stupid design, and therefore breaks a rule of science, is necessarily not scientific.

Ciao

- viole

 

[GardenLady]

Agreed. That is why, do not deny the fact that "Evolutions is wrong" - an undeniable fact.

No. It is NOT an undeniable fact. Indeed, your assertion is false.

 

[John53]

You have evidences for invented reality, but for real reality, you do not have.

For someone who claims humans coexisted with dinosaurs reality is something they cannot grasp.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

That is what you do not understand. Nobody decides that. It is a rule of science. Like a rule in chess. It is called methodological naturalism. No metaphysical design is accepted as an explanation. Even in the very unlikely case that there is indeed some metaphysical design (in that case, science would simply be incomplete as an epistemic tool about nature).

If you change the rules in chess, you do not play chess anymore, but something else. In the same way, if you leave naturalism you do not do science anymore, but something else. And that is why you can write as many design based articles as you like, but they will never be considered scientific. Same if you start violating the rules of chess at tournaments: you will lose. Every time.

Ciao

- viole

If it rules in science, then, you made that rules? Why that rules are correct?
Are those rules religious or scientific?

The rules must be based on reality, not invented reality.

 

[viole]

If it rules in science, then, you made that rules? Why that rules are correct?
Are those rules religious or scientific?

The rules must be based on reality, not invented reality.

I did not make the rules. The rules are just part of the definition of what constitutes science.
That is just the epistemic tool that science allows as valid to explain what we observe in nature. Together with other rules. That's it.

Is that tool, with those rules complete? That is, is it able to explain everything in nature? That we don't know. We just know that if you do not follow the rules you are doing something else, by definition.

If you want to create another epistemic tool, that includes design (intelligent or stupid or whatever) be my guest. And if you show that it is more powerful than science, again, be my guest. But don't call it science. Maybe you can call it spience (spiritual + science), or something else. If you succeed, you will go into history as the novel Galilei that found a much more powerful tool to explain nature.

However, and with all due respect, I am not holding my breath.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You cannot have a valid objection to me if you do not know the topic of intelligence, since, what and where is your basis? If you do not have basis, then, where do you stand?

Ahh, so you have inoculated yourself against any objections. My objections are trying to get at what you are saying. If you refuse to respond to my objections or questions how can I ever understand what you are talking about? I spent about 3 months learning about evolution. I took an online course and every time I had a question about a topic I got real answers and discussion about the topic. When I was in college, it was the same way. learning Physics and Chemistry etc. Whatever I did not understand or had objections to the teachers engaged and answered and showed me where I was getting it wrong. If you want people to understand and be convinced of your ideas you need to answer legitimate questions.