Evolution requires intelligent design

[mark kennedy]

Not according to self-identified intelligent design proponents. They include physics and cosmology in their arguments.

Most of what I'm getting from Intelligent Design is strictly limited to biology. I'm aware that design arguments exist for cosmology and physics but modern ID seems focused more on evolutionary biology are specifically on the origin of life.

 

[sfs]

Most of what I'm getting from Intelligent Design is strictly limited to biology. I'm aware that design arguments exist for cosmology and physics but modern ID seems focused more on evolutionary biology are specifically on the origin of life.

Evolution gets most of the attention, but the ID folks (specifically the Discovery Institute) also promote fine-tuning and "Rare Earth" type arguments.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution gets most of the attention, but the ID folks (specifically the Discovery Institute) also promote fine-tuning and "Rare Earth" type arguments.

Well that's a tendency going all the way back to Newton, some say even Aristotle. That's the old Natural Theology but in modern times I'm seeing more of a focus on biology, most of the design arguments from cosmology and physics I've seen are a bit anecdotal to be frank.

 

[SilverBear]

Evolution might require I.D., but I.D. isn't required to produce evolution, and did not produce evolution. I.D. is a label given to explain a source of what produced what exists materially. I.D. is not a confession that the God of the Bible is that source, though He is. The material universe abounds with evidence of I.D.,

attacks on evolution and the repetition of logical fallacies is not evidence for id.

 

[SilverBear]

Mainstream ToE depends on random chance, zillions upon zillions of them through processes of mutation and adaption.

Adaptation isn't random.

 

[SilverBear]

Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution claims that one species turns or "evolves" into another entirely different species .

. No. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

to which there is zero evidence.

anyone taking an honest look at the fossil record would disagree

 

[2Timothy2:15]

. No. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.


anyone taking an honest look at the fossil record would disagree

There is no evidence of one species turning into another spontaneously in the fossil record. If so please cite it.

Adaptation is just that, the finch in Darwins theory is adaptation of the beak getting smaller. The DNA of the finch did not change but the size of it adapted because it stopped growing so it could feed...If I move to Brazil, I would become very tan, more than I am now, I would probably appear more tan constantly, this is not me evolving, this is my skin adapting to the environment.

Furthermore there has been studies showing if you dump large and small animals in with dirt and water in a huge tank, stir them up and put water over them at a rapid rate they always layer in the same pattern....kind of like the flood.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

. No. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Where can I observe that? Show me one species turning into another over time. Honestly you are just parroting the same old proven false theory. Did you know most scientist are actually distancing themselves from Darwin altogether.

 

[Jimmy D]

Did you know most scientist are actually distancing themselves from Darwin altogether.

Where did you get that information from?

 

[Tayla]

God may have created the universe and its laws but then He might have let those laws play out on their own and whatever life resulted He was fine with OR after setting up the universe He still partially or fully directed the course of life developing.

Yes. I believe you are referring to some sort of theistic evolution. I considered this view but reject it because there is no mechanism in which God can interact with the incredibly complex chemical biological mechanisms to tweak it here and there as needed. That is why I am a young earth creationist; easier to imagine that God created everything as it now is all at once.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you know most scientist are actually distancing themselves from Darwin altogether.

They're certainly getting further away in time... and Darwin has been dead a long time - I wouldn't want to get too close to him!

Perhaps it's because evolutionary theory has moved on a lot since Darwin first proposed it, and they feel that these developments should be more widely known and acknowledged.

But I don't know - do you have a citation for that? It might give some reasons.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Where can I observe that?

In any population on the planet. This is so well documented and so obvious, that rejection of it as reality should cause concern regarding mental well-being.

Show me one species turning into another over time.

This links to many examples of speciation. Feel free to ask specific questions about any of them, concerning your doubts, and I shall do my best to address them. Please do not respond with a bunch of rhetoric that simply echoes the same tired, unsubstantiated, anti-evolutionary claims.

Honestly you are just parroting the same old proven false theory.

Please provide the evidence by which the theory was falsified. Mere assertions are as convincing as dead mackerel in a Senate hearing.

Did you know most scientist are actually distancing themselves from Darwin altogether.

Interesting. You can of course retrieve some credibility by providing clear examples of this? Ideally, these should be from well regarded peer reviewed science journals.

There is little point in providing examples where scientists disagree with some detail of Darwin's views. That is not distancing. That is normal refinement of understanding and is how science works. Distancing from Darwin would be rejecting part or all of the notion that biodiversity arose through evolution from a common ancestor with natural selection playing a major role. So please, do provide evidence that most scientists have adopted this position.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Please provide the evidence by which the theory was falsified. Mere assertions are as convincing as dead mackerel in a Senate hearing.

That is not how that works, you are the one claiming evolution exists, now prove it. Provide scientific observable evidence of one species turning into another different species with new DNA added. Please provide it.

Oh, and you can keep your pseudo intellectual insults to yourself.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Where did you get that information from?

Intelligent Design – Why Scientists are Abandoning Darwin (P4101B)

Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

It is pretty much mainstream for anyone following this topic.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is not how that works, you are the one claiming evolution exists, now prove it. Provide scientific observable evidence of one species turning into another different species with new DNA added. Please provide it.

Oh, and you can keep your pseudo intellectual insults to yourself.

Lets get our facts straight.
1. Evolution is accepted globally by the majority of scientists and a large proportion, probably the majority, of Christians. You are the one making the contrary claim.
2. Science does not do proof. Science does "weight of evidence". I thiink you know this. If you do not I shall be happy to provide background information.
3. I inadvertently left off the link to a host of further links providing examples of speciation. Here it is now. My apologies for the oversight. As I noted in my previous post feel free to ask specific questions about any of them, concerning your doubts, and I shall do my best to address them. (I'm a little surprised given the text of my post that it was not immediately obvious to you I had missed giving the link. The logical action would then have been to ask for it, rather than get uppity.)

Oh, and you can keep your pseudo intellectual insults to yourself.

I've re-read my previous post and I can't find any intellectual, pseudo-intellectual, or plain old insults in it anywhere. I'm sorry if you interpreted anything I said as insulting. Such was not my intent. IF you can specify what you found offensive, either in this thread or by pm I'll be happy to explain.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Lets get our facts straight.
1. Evolution is accepted globally by the majority of scientists and a large proportion, probably the majority, of Christians. You are the one making the contrary claim.
2. Science does not do proof. Science does "weight of evidence". I thiink you know this. If you do not I shall be happy to provide background information.
3. I inadvertently left off the link to a host of further links providing examples of speciation. Here it is now. My apologies for the oversight. As I noted in my previous post feel free to ask specific questions about any of them, concerning your doubts, and I shall do my best to address them. (I'm a little surprised given the text of my post that it was not immediately obvious to you I had missed giving the link. The logical action would then have been to ask for it, rather than get uppity.)

I've re-read my previous post and I can't find any intellectual, pseudo-intellectual, or plain old insults in it anywhere. I'm sorry if you interpreted anything I said as insulting. Such was not my intent. IF you can specify what you found offensive, either in this thread or by pm I'll be happy to explain.

Gee I don't know

In any population on the planet. This is so well documented and so obvious, that rejection of it as reality should cause concern regarding mental well-being.

In any population on the planet. This is so well documented and so obvious, that rejection of it as reality should cause concern regarding mental well-being.

 

[Ophiolite]

Gee I don't know

Hold on. You are actually contesting the fact that the distribution of alleles in a population varies from generation to generation? I'm astounded. I don't know of any informed creationist who would dispute that there is "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Are you actually disputing that? My reference to "concerns over mental capcity"were a rhetorical device to emphasise what I thought we both knew, that to dispute an observed fact was just silly.

That aside, I notice you have chosen not to address any of the real issues.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Hold on. You are actually contesting the fact that the distribution of alleles in a population varies from generation to generation? I'm astounded. I don't know of any informed creationist who would dispute that there is "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Are you actually disputing that? My reference to "concerns over mental capcity"were a rhetorical device to emphasise what I thought we both knew, that to dispute an observed fact was just silly.

That aside, I notice you have chosen not to address any of the real issues.

You can go on believing what you like. I care not to take this any further as I do not see it bearing any useful fruit.

 

[Ophiolite]

You can go on believing what you like. I care not to take this any further as I do not see it bearing any useful fruit.

I shall go on accepting the evidence that is available and the current best explanation for that evidence.

I recommend you have a word with a knowledgeable creationist whom you trust. They should be able to explain to you why there is variability from generation to generation within a population. I remain astounded that neither education or common sense revealed this to you, or that you have failed to understand it is not a challenge to your beliefs.

Only today, on a thread somewhere on this forum (it may even have been this thread), a creationist wrote words to the effect "I don't know of anyone who denies the reality of microevolution, it is macroevolution we take issue with". If I find his post I'll let him know you are here.

I agree that any fruit arising from this discussion would have a disitinctly different genetic character to ones from which is was formed. Bon voyage.

 

[Strathos]

Yes. I believe you are referring to some sort of theistic evolution. I considered this view but reject it because there is no mechanism in which God can interact with the incredibly complex chemical biological mechanisms to tweak it here and there as needed. That is why I am a young earth creationist; easier to imagine that God created everything as it now is all at once.

You think that God is limited by your own imagination?