Evolution is not really a theory

[Ttalkkugjil]

It seems he has too much belief tied up in intelligent design to be able to be objective about it.

No such thing as too much belief in that which's truth.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

This attitude of yours is not not very helpful towards people who are trying to help you see that saying "it looks designed" is not how science works.

Also just more attitude.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I think that may be his way of admitting that he is wrong. He uses the word "attitude" every time that he is caught making a false statement.

More attitude yet again. It is very obvious you all have psychological problems with the concept of choice, and this is why you all have such an attitude.

 

[Belk]

If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.

Create a star in a lab.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More attitude yet again. It is very obvious you all have psychological problems with the concept of choice, and this is why you all have such an attitude.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again. There is no need to do so in every post.

Do you see your mistake now? I have explained it to you more than once.

 

[Shemjaza]

The mechanism of creation is choice. Everybody does use knowledge about making choices practically in daily life. So it is the most used knowledge in the world.

And again, saying it for the third time or so in this topic, you would also support intelligent design theory if you paid dedicated attention to understanding how things are chosen in the universe. That you do not appreciate that knowledge makes you anti scientific. If all is said and done, and if you would be judged for your knowledge about how things work in the universe, and you would have no understanding about how things are chosen, then basically you get an F. Just saying you should evaluate what knowledge is important.

You probably won't see many technical inventions coming out of creation science, because technical inventions must behave in a forced way. Technical inventions must do what we want. Creation science is focused on choice as the mechanism of creation. So unless anyone wants a washingmachine with free will, or a car with free will, the car drivingbaround wherever it wants, there isn't going to be any technical use for creation science.

Can you specifically describe where choice needs to occur within the process of mutation and selection?

How about how choice fits into other physical processes of the universe: planetary orbits, the birth and death of stars, volcanoes?

Also, you have made the comment that life "looks designed". Can you give some specifics as to how it looks designed and how you tell something designed from something that isn't designed?
(If possible, can you please give an example of things that are clearly not designed using your system.)

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Speciation has been observed, as have the processes that result in speciation. What more would you have anyone see beyond this?

Reproduce macroevolution in the lab.

 

[Job 33:6]

Reproduce macroevolution in the lab.

Speciation has been observed in a lab setting as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If scientists cannot say this looks like X, then no more science.

That's not really how science is done. (Or, rather, that's not the prime component of scientific research.)

So an assessment and a prediction:

Assessment: Nando has no practical experience in doing science (research), and is probably not well educated in scientific disciplines.

Prediction: This thread is screaming down hill fast and will be moderated by the time I get home. (No, I'm not going to try to trigger moderation. That would be cheating.)

If you don't mind, I'm going to go to my office and do some science now.

 

[sfs]

If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.

Where did you get that idea? We can't replicate most things in the universe in the lab, but we still have a very good idea how lots of them work.

 

[sfs]

Reproduce macroevolution in the lab.

You don't have any background in science, do you?

 

[Job 33:6]

Where did you get that idea? We can't replicate most things in the universe in the lab, but we still have a very good idea how lots of them work.

Maybe we should try demonstrating continental drift in a lab to prove the theory of plate tectonics to young earthers as well. All we need are a couple continents stuffed into a petri dish and some magma.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

That's not really how science is done. (Or, rather, that's not the prime component of scientific research.)

So an assessment and a prediction:

Assessment: Nando has no practical experience in doing science (research), and is probably not well educated in scientific disciplines.

Prediction: This thread is screaming down hill fast and will be moderated by the time I get home. (No, I'm not going to try to trigger moderation. That would be cheating.)

If you don't mind, I'm going to go to my office and do some science now.

More atitude...

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Can you specifically describe where choice needs to occur within the process of mutation and selection?

How about how choice fits into other physical processes of the universe: planetary orbits, the birth and death of stars, volcanoes?

Also, you have made the comment that life "looks designed". Can you give some specifics as to how it looks designed and how you tell something designed from something that isn't designed?
(If possible, can you please give an example of things that are clearly not designed using your system.)

These are all childish questions. It is just more attitude.

Why don't you talk about your emotional problems with the concept of choice. Why are you triggered by the concept, so that if someone hypothesizes that organisms are intelligently designed, you get all hyper critcical.

 

[SkyWriting]

I understand that "theory" in a scientific context means a model that accounts for all the data.

That would be impossible. So no.

 

[Shemjaza]

These are all childish questions. It is just more attitude.

Then I'm not understanding you. If my questions are childish and you actually have answers it should be straightforward to explain.

I'm earnestly interested in how your world view could be applied to the real world on any level.

Why don't you talk about your emotional problems with the concept of choice. Why are you triggered by the concept, so that if someone hypothesizes that organisms are intelligently designed, you get all hyper critcical.

Personally the closest I've come to being "triggered" is the irritating and frankly, mildly offensive use of the term triggered. I would truly appreciate you not use it about me.

I'm having intellectual problems with your version of "choice", not emotional ones. I haven't yet been able to understand what you mean by the word and how it applies.


If you have any interest in actually discussing intelligent design, I'm interested, but please try to have a conversation and don't just throw childish, ill-defined insults like "attitude" and "triggered".

 

[Tinker Grey]

I relish when people show me to be wrong. That is when I get to learn

'zactly

 

[loveofourlord]

Yet more attitude. We disagree that organisms looking designed counts as evidence.

We disagree because there is a big gap between looks designed and is designed, we have programs that can create randomly very incredible looking things that would appear designed, but arn't. How do you tell the difference between something that is designed, but only looks designed through some natural process?

 

[loveofourlord]

If it was truthiful, the scientists would be able to duplicate it in the lab. Thus far, no.

if creation were true Christians could duplicate it in a lab......your level of logic

 

[loveofourlord]

More attitude. Why don't you just stop with the attitude.

only one with attitude is you here, you've been rude this entire time.