Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He was asking questions about ID and then you demanded evidence of not ID. I'm just not following why that's a logical response. I'm not trying to be rude at all. Please forgive me if it seemed that way.None of this "requires" anything. You act as if there is a set in stone set of rules here.
The OP was a bust. "Random mindless chance" is not an accurate description of evolution, and ID is not the only alternative anyway.I really wish the OP had added a video of "comfortably numb" to the original post.
No one even came close to changing the subject.
Sorry dude, you don't get to be the decider on what works and what doesn't.
Please, we all know that you're not interested in any evidence and will hand wave away anything that is presented. Do you think no one can remember last time, when you demanded the theory of evolution be explained so a five year old could understand and you promptly ran way?
The OP was a bust. "Random mindless chance" is not an accurate description of evolution
I'm asking about what ID has contributed to the sciences. Do you have anything to present? Yes or no?
Either you provide an example or you are implicitly conceding the fact that it hasn't.
1. It hasn't been determined that evolution is "mindless." While evolution proceeds by the action of natural causes, many theists believe that the process itself was created and set in action by God.Then please, explain it to us, from beginning to date.
Jimmy,. Jimmy, Jimmy....why do you lie? You forget that I have showed interest, made it a point because I've had the accusation leveled against me before. It's just not true, and those who claim it are not truthful.
Not quit the way it went, now was it, I demanded nothing, and it wasn't the theory of evolution, it was a Virus thing that was claimed to prove evolution, and I would only discuss it if the opponent explained the details. As I've said several times before, that is not my cup of tea, I don't believe it, so I don't waste my time learning it, however, I will discuss it if one wishes to explain the ins and outs of any challenge in a condensed form. The opponent chose not to explain after several opportunities so I stopped wasting my time there. Now, isn't that more like the way it went, Jimmy?
But if lying or twisting something to seem like something other than what it really was in order to discredit an opponent is how you must defend the nonsense, I understand. People sometimes get frustrated when they have no defense, and anything can happen.
After what you just did, I' didn't bother with the rest of your post...just look at it as me "running away".
And I posed a question in return, and for good reason, do you have anything to present? Yes or no?
ID made science possible
the OP says a lot to prove that
This was your claim.You might want to refresh your memory: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
Dover involved a book in the library and a reference. That is about it. There was no push to get ID into the classroom. Your claim is false. Dover was really a joke. Judge a buffoon.Remember back in the 2000's, there was a push to get ID in the classroom.
I am in public education. They have plenty of religion there. They have Muslims etc. Yours dominates. I must admit.Sure you do, if you're trying to insert religion in the science classroom.
Lying to children about their origins is not so smart also filling their heads with myths of cultists that they came from slime must be a good thing in your book? If your case was so strong then you would welcome the competition. Instead you censor it.That's a violation of something-or-other, constitutional law I believe?
Dover did not affect anything except that county. The courts are the weakest branch of government there is. Their rulings can and have been ignored. By Obama and even Jackson. They can write any law they want. It means zero unless they are enforced. Law enforcement do not have to enforce laws. So you are in la la land.The court decided otherwise.
They can do all that without knowing anything relating to Darwin. All the modern discoveries in biology had nothing to do with Darwin. Penicillian, the double helix etc. You are overstating. I would also add an overblown assertion is not the same as empirical evidence. Fact being it is your opinion.Sorry (not sorry) but this is where you're 100% wrong. Not even wrong as in opinion, but factually, empirically incorrect. Evolutionary biology has a variety of real-world application. My favorite is in comparative genomics methodologies which use phylogenetics (i.e. evolutionary relationships) as part of their analytical approach. In turn, comparative genomics itself is seeing application in everything from agriculture, medical research, conservation biology, forestry, etc.
Religion is about attending church. You associate religion with state of mind. If they ask what is your religion, it normally means what church you were brought up in. Not state of mind. What you guys do is relegate certain things to the realm of religion as it relates to subjects like origin of life so you can ignore. If you are into origin of life you are into God. Not matter or goo or chemicals absent a living source. That is naturalism 101 which attempts to explain origins with inferior explanations without one shred of evidence or precedent anywhere. Total blind faith.This has nothing to do with attending church. My point is that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone concluding ID without first ascribing to some sort of religious/theistic belief.
Garbage. It has no practical application.Modern evolutionary biology is an applied science, kiddo.
The earth...Which is more complex: the worlds fastest supercomputer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an earthworm?
Yup.Abraxos said:Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.
A lot.Abraxos said:1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?
That he's a scientist?Abraxos said:2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?
And you don't see them aborting their fetuses, do you?Except another earthworm.
No, but some einstein is working on it somewhere, isn't he?pitabread said:Are Space Shuttles, super computers and advanced robotic systems capable of self-reproduction and evolutionary change from generation to generation?
That's good!Honestly, my life has been in pursuit of truth at the expense of everything else.
1. It hasn't been determined that evolution is "mindless." While evolution proceeds by the action of natural causes, many theists believe that the process itself was created and set in action by God.
2. Evolution consists of random variation and natural selection. That is, with each generation of a species, a range of individual slight variants is produced, upon which natural selection acts. These variants are randomly distributed in the population (think "bell curve") which is why it is called random variation. So yes, variation is random to fitness but it is not random in the sense that any outcome at all is equally likely. And, of course, that is only part of the process; natural selection isn't at all random.
"Random mindless chance" is a phrase used by creationists to give the impression that evolution is chaotic, rather than being an orderly biological process.
How do creationists explain applications of common descent in modern comparative genomics?
What? When you say "ID", what are you exactly referring to? I have a feeling we may have our wires crossed.
All the OP does is suggest that a) Earthworms are complex (so what?), and b) asks rather silly leading (and loaded) question about space shuttles, super computers and robotic systems.
Well, it's there for all to see....
How did lungs, blood vessels, blood, liver, kidneys and heart evolve at the same time? Which was fi
He was asking questions about ID and then you demanded evidence of not ID. I'm just not following why that's a logical response. I'm not trying to be rude at all. Please forgive me if it seemed that way.
I challenge you to point out what was untruthful about my statement. There are indeed a number of schools of thought about how divine providence might be manifest in evolution. ID is only one of them, and the rest are not "mindless."No, I think it's more a phrase that denotes there is no ID involved. You just have a different spin on evolution where it may not apply.
The fact that you would forget there are at least these two schools of thought on it, and forget about the one that makes the mindless comment viable as an untruthful means to discredit Creationists, concerns me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?