Care to share why ID is a fallacy?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why I believe God Created Life.
- Thread starter rusra02
- Start date
Care to share why ID is a fallacy?
Indoctrination is not education.
McBell
Unbound
McBell
Unbound
Never said ID was a fallacy.
Care to try defending ID without fallacies?
You forgot to address this point the first time.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
This just made me ponder: is it possible to have ID as a concept without fallacies involved?
I don't think it is.
McBell
Unbound
This just made me ponder: is it possible to have ID as a concept without fallacies involved?
I don't think it is.
ID itself is not a fallacy.
It is merely a belief.
As to the idea that ID can successfully "defended" without fallacies is yet to be seen.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I just want to see ID defined. Seeing if it can be logically defended will come later.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Rusra, if you only knew how the solar system and earth formed in the first place or even anything about evolution.
However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museum hall at the Smithsonian.
Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.
Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our Whats Hot in Human Origins section.
Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behaviorfrom ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.
3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.
Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.
Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another and of our species connection with all other organisms.
Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!
Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right
Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time
One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control lifes physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his fields remarkable discoveries through a series of booksEndless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.
It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What weve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge. At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but theyre not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. Its a blindness. I think this is a phase that well eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I dont know how many decades or centuries its going to take us.
DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our speciesand individual raceshave recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.
They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.
Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving | LiveScience
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Possible insight into the first cell formations.
Digging up' 4-billion-year-old fossil protein structures to reveal how they evolved
'Digging up' 4-billion-year-old fossil protein structures to reveal how they evolved -- ScienceDaily
Digging up' 4-billion-year-old fossil protein structures to reveal how they evolved
'Digging up' 4-billion-year-old fossil protein structures to reveal how they evolved -- ScienceDaily
Rusra, if you only knew how the solar system and earth formed in the first place or even anything about evolution.
However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
I agree, and have done so repeatedly, that YEC are wrong. The Bible does not teach the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago. I also disagree with your statement that similarities in genetic code indicates a common origin. Rather, they indicate a common Creator. Pertinent, I think, is this quote from The Origin of Life - Five Questions worth Asking: "In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
However, the established scientific consensus is that Young Earth Creationism has no scientific basis. For example, a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin
I agree, and have done so repeatedly, that YEC are wrong. The Bible does not teach the Earth was created 6 thousand years ago. I also disagree with your statement that similarities in genetic code indicates a common origin. Rather, they indicate a common Creator. Pertinent, I think, is this quote from The Origin of Life - Five Questions worth Asking: "In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.
What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”
Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
Rusra, to say that
can only be called a dellusional attitude at this point in time. You really should take a closer look at the facts.
I have no idea of whether the quotes you just presented are in some sense true, but you will want to at least post sources if you have any hope of them being taken seriously.
can only be called a dellusional attitude at this point in time. You really should take a closer look at the facts.
I have no idea of whether the quotes you just presented are in some sense true, but you will want to at least post sources if you have any hope of them being taken seriously.
The quotes are sourced in the publication cited, and it is available online.
You could have provided some links, but google is indeed our friend:
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | theguardian.com
One refutation:
The Death of the Tree of Life is Greatly Exaggerated
Let me tell you, it is tiresome to see so much energy spent so pointlessly.
Here are some thought provoking questions to consider from the same brochure, published by Jws, that convince me life has a Creator:
"FACTS AND QUESTIONS
▪ Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a feat of engineering.
Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?
▪ Fact: DNAs capacity to store information still has no equal in todays computer age.
Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?
▪ Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.
Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?
▪ Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.
Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?"
"FACTS AND QUESTIONS
▪ Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a feat of engineering.
Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?
▪ Fact: DNAs capacity to store information still has no equal in todays computer age.
Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?
▪ Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.
Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?
▪ Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.
Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?"
I do not think it pointless to examine the evidence for how and why we live. To the contrary, I consider these questions to be of paramount importance.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Skipping over the whole evolution/abiogenesis issue, these aren't the only two possibilities. "The Bible" isn't even a single possibility, as different people interpret it in very different ways, some of which don't exclude evolution or even abiogenesis. Presenting this as a binary choice is simply wrong.
Disproving evolution (or abiogenesis) wouldn't prove (your interpretation of) God just as proving evolution wouldn't disprove God. I'd suggest that this isn't you believing in God because you don't accept evolution as the title implies, it's you not accepting evolution because you believe in God, specifically an interpretation of God that leaves no room for evolution. I doubt anything anyone says here could shift you from that pre-determined conclusion.
I agree with the first part, although one would think we disagree going by what we actually perceive.
As for importance, I'm afraid Creationism has two meanings, one of which is pernicious, while the other is ultimately harmless yet irrelevant.
The title is "Why I Believe God Created Life". I think we should have reasons to believe what we believe. And there should be evidence for that belief, according to the Bible. "Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration [or, convincing evidence] of realities that are not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) I believe many persons have not had opportunity to check the facts for themselves.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the content of your OP is "Why I Don't Believe In Evolution/Abiogenesis". That isn't a valid reason to believe a specific defined God did it instead.
That's like saying someone must have been born on 23rd April 1974 because they're too young to be born in the 1950s.
Rusra02, as I'm about the only one somewhat on your side in this debate, I'm curious to hear more about what you do believe about life on earth. I'm pretty clear you are not an evolutionist but how do you think humans came to exist in our current form? Did we get created in our current form by God in a sudden event? Or what?
For example, I believe in abiogenesis and evolution fostered by Nature Spirits who are far beyond us in intelligence and abilities but not omniscient and omnipotent.