Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
creationism, ID and the flood, (Split from "This thread is for Creationists")
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arikay" data-source="post: 14449948" data-attributes="member: 6561"><p>Yes, that is the same thing scientifically.</p><p>Many TE believe that God used an untestable way outside the universe to guide the process. They accept the theory of evolution, the same theory agnostics and atheists accept.</p><p>An example, lets say someone wins the lottery. Was it random chance? Or did God make them win? No one knows and it is impossible to test for God. All we know is that it is possible for someone to randomly win.</p><p></p><p>Theistic Evolutionists believe that the natural process of evolution, including random mutation is capable of creating the diversity of life. Reading through the post you seem to be confused. Evolution is not atheism. It is possible to believe God created using evolution, that is the belief of many theistic evolutionists.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To replicate the exact course evolution took. No, of course not.</p><p>To use the theory of evolution to create "organisms" that adapt and change to fit their environment. Yes programs can.</p><p>To use the theory of evolution to design objects such as wings or oscillating circuits to adapt to an environment. Yes programs can.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you haven't explained why these programs don't use the same mechanisms of evolution. It should be noted that none of the programs made were intended to try and repeat evolution on earth but to show that the mechanisms of evolution (Mutations, natural selection) can adapt "organisms" to an environment or to develop new designs of many made objects.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This doesn't answer the question. I asked "How does logic say intelligence is needed to formulate purposeful design?" the answer "Logic tells us that design is produced by intelligence" is a reformulation of the question.</p><p>It is the naturalistic properties of atoms that forms crystals. Whether a designer created these properties is outside the realm of science. The design of a snowflake is created by naturalistic means.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In that case, evolution creates purposeful design. Mutations provide raw material and natural selections organizes this material based on how purposeful it is. Since a beneficial mutation obviously has a purpose or else it wouldn't be beneficial. Matter of fact, evolution has been seen to throw away designs that aren't purposeful. Eyes don't have a purpose in pitch black, and thus some trilobites lost their eyes.</p><p></p><p>If evolution can create a purposeful design, then it can't be used as evidence to support an intelligent designer over evolution.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Evidence says that not all design is produce by intelligence.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Incorrect. </p><p>Scientists say that all the evidence points towards evolution, other scientific theories have been falsified and there is no other scientific explanation can be found. Thus evolution is most likely what happened.</p><p>Scientists understand that there are other possibilities, such as the possibility that God created everything to appear as if it evolved, but that isn't science.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where does it show discontinuity? </p><p>Is it enough to question the transitional fossils found?</p><p>How are they questionable?</p><p></p><p>You need to support your statements.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly what assumptions?</p><p>Exactly how obvious?</p><p>Fossilization is rare and most of the time only preserves hard parts, so not only do we miss quite a few species because they never fossilize, but we wont be able to see many of the changes in an animals soft tissue. Punk eek (which has been supported) shows that it may be even harder than we expected to find these transitional fossils, and we have obviously not found every one in existence. The idea that there should be millions of different transitional fossils is based on old and misunderstood ideas. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I thought you said Intelligent design was not based on an argument from ignorance? Saying that if evolution can't explain it, it must be ID, is exactly that.</p><p>If evolution is wrong, then I don't know. without positive evidence for ID, it isn't anymore valid than any other guess.</p><p>So far you haven't shown how logic says design does not form by naturalism.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Again, without positive evidence you are saying, "I don't know how this design came about, thus God." It's God of the gaps. You need to show that the jump from, "it looks designed" to "That means a supernatural intelligent designer" is a valid one. To do that you need to provide support that this supernatural intelligent designer exists. You also need to show that evolution can't account for the design seen.</p><p></p><p>An example of why this jump isn't valid. Lets say we aren't sure how the egyptians built the pyramids. Does that mean aliens must have done it?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I said that based on your definition of an evolutionist, creationists could also be considered evolutionists. The fact that Behe is closer to evolutionists doesn't change the definition you gave and doesn't change the fact that he is Not an evolutionist.</p><p>Ok, so now AiG is able to define what an evolutionist is, even when it contradicts what both evolutionists and IDists say. Wow, how arrogant and dishonest of AiG.</p><p></p><p>Behe himself does not accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, and thus is not an evolutionist. Even if he does not believe in YEC it doesn't make him an evolutionist, as this isn't a black and white issue. Sorry, there is no way around that, AiG was dishonest when they called him an evolutionist.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>As I have said before, I think you are confused about what an evolutionist is, vs and IDist. An evolutionist accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. A theistic evolutionists believes that God created using evolution and may have even guided it in untestable ways, as explained above. An IDist believes that the theory of evolution is incomplete, that it can't account for the diversity of life and that God must intervene in certain aspects to create what evolution could not.</p><p></p><p>So, is Denton a theistic evolutionist or an IDist.</p><p>From Denton's book, "Nature's Destiny."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><span style="color: darkgreen">"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. "</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html" target="_blank">http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html</a></p><p>Sounds like an evolutionist to me. He does believe evolution was guided but that evolution did happen. Reading quotes from his book, it does seem like some thoughts from ID have stuck with him but his statements that he fully supports evolution seem to be supported.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Some can be found on the forum, where creationists have asked for a transitional between two others and ignored the data the two transitional fossils provided. Basically it is similar to your request for a smooth fossil record. We know that we wont find one, but that what we have found can provide evidence for a transitional.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What other logical explanations are there for why a detailed look into fossils shows steps from one animal to another. When organized into date or morphology we get the same lineage.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have already explained why the fossil record shouldn't be littered with transitional creatures. Based on evolution it makes perfect sense why there are similarities between ancient fossils and animals of today, because the animals of today evolved from those ancient animals, thus retaining certain aspects of them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I thought we were going to debate the validity of the flood. Not only is there nothing more given than the link, in a debate the general idea is to write things, at least a bit more than a link to a large page.</p><p>Yes, I have read that page before, along with quite a few other AiG and general creationist papers on whale evolution.</p><p>Since I have read it before and have some of the information on hand, I'll post a response. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What evidence?</p><p>What does worse mean in this context?</p><p>Can you show me the evidence that shows DNA keeps getting worse?</p><p>If DNA is getting "worse" doesn't mean it was perfect at one point, so please show me how it was perfect. Explain exactly what "perfect" human DNA would look like.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arikay, post: 14449948, member: 6561"] Yes, that is the same thing scientifically. Many TE believe that God used an untestable way outside the universe to guide the process. They accept the theory of evolution, the same theory agnostics and atheists accept. An example, lets say someone wins the lottery. Was it random chance? Or did God make them win? No one knows and it is impossible to test for God. All we know is that it is possible for someone to randomly win. Theistic Evolutionists believe that the natural process of evolution, including random mutation is capable of creating the diversity of life. Reading through the post you seem to be confused. Evolution is not atheism. It is possible to believe God created using evolution, that is the belief of many theistic evolutionists. To replicate the exact course evolution took. No, of course not. To use the theory of evolution to create "organisms" that adapt and change to fit their environment. Yes programs can. To use the theory of evolution to design objects such as wings or oscillating circuits to adapt to an environment. Yes programs can. No, you haven't explained why these programs don't use the same mechanisms of evolution. It should be noted that none of the programs made were intended to try and repeat evolution on earth but to show that the mechanisms of evolution (Mutations, natural selection) can adapt "organisms" to an environment or to develop new designs of many made objects. This doesn't answer the question. I asked "How does logic say intelligence is needed to formulate purposeful design?" the answer "Logic tells us that design is produced by intelligence" is a reformulation of the question. It is the naturalistic properties of atoms that forms crystals. Whether a designer created these properties is outside the realm of science. The design of a snowflake is created by naturalistic means. In that case, evolution creates purposeful design. Mutations provide raw material and natural selections organizes this material based on how purposeful it is. Since a beneficial mutation obviously has a purpose or else it wouldn't be beneficial. Matter of fact, evolution has been seen to throw away designs that aren't purposeful. Eyes don't have a purpose in pitch black, and thus some trilobites lost their eyes. If evolution can create a purposeful design, then it can't be used as evidence to support an intelligent designer over evolution. Evidence says that not all design is produce by intelligence. Incorrect. Scientists say that all the evidence points towards evolution, other scientific theories have been falsified and there is no other scientific explanation can be found. Thus evolution is most likely what happened. Scientists understand that there are other possibilities, such as the possibility that God created everything to appear as if it evolved, but that isn't science. Where does it show discontinuity? Is it enough to question the transitional fossils found? How are they questionable? You need to support your statements. Exactly what assumptions? Exactly how obvious? Fossilization is rare and most of the time only preserves hard parts, so not only do we miss quite a few species because they never fossilize, but we wont be able to see many of the changes in an animals soft tissue. Punk eek (which has been supported) shows that it may be even harder than we expected to find these transitional fossils, and we have obviously not found every one in existence. The idea that there should be millions of different transitional fossils is based on old and misunderstood ideas. I thought you said Intelligent design was not based on an argument from ignorance? Saying that if evolution can't explain it, it must be ID, is exactly that. If evolution is wrong, then I don't know. without positive evidence for ID, it isn't anymore valid than any other guess. So far you haven't shown how logic says design does not form by naturalism. Again, without positive evidence you are saying, "I don't know how this design came about, thus God." It's God of the gaps. You need to show that the jump from, "it looks designed" to "That means a supernatural intelligent designer" is a valid one. To do that you need to provide support that this supernatural intelligent designer exists. You also need to show that evolution can't account for the design seen. An example of why this jump isn't valid. Lets say we aren't sure how the egyptians built the pyramids. Does that mean aliens must have done it? I said that based on your definition of an evolutionist, creationists could also be considered evolutionists. The fact that Behe is closer to evolutionists doesn't change the definition you gave and doesn't change the fact that he is Not an evolutionist. Ok, so now AiG is able to define what an evolutionist is, even when it contradicts what both evolutionists and IDists say. Wow, how arrogant and dishonest of AiG. Behe himself does not accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, and thus is not an evolutionist. Even if he does not believe in YEC it doesn't make him an evolutionist, as this isn't a black and white issue. Sorry, there is no way around that, AiG was dishonest when they called him an evolutionist. As I have said before, I think you are confused about what an evolutionist is, vs and IDist. An evolutionist accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life. A theistic evolutionists believes that God created using evolution and may have even guided it in untestable ways, as explained above. An IDist believes that the theory of evolution is incomplete, that it can't account for the diversity of life and that God must intervene in certain aspects to create what evolution could not. So, is Denton a theistic evolutionist or an IDist. From Denton's book, "Nature's Destiny." [indent][color=darkgreen]"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. "[/color] [url]http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/latest_2003/theory-in-crisis.html[/url][/indent] Sounds like an evolutionist to me. He does believe evolution was guided but that evolution did happen. Reading quotes from his book, it does seem like some thoughts from ID have stuck with him but his statements that he fully supports evolution seem to be supported. Some can be found on the forum, where creationists have asked for a transitional between two others and ignored the data the two transitional fossils provided. Basically it is similar to your request for a smooth fossil record. We know that we wont find one, but that what we have found can provide evidence for a transitional. What other logical explanations are there for why a detailed look into fossils shows steps from one animal to another. When organized into date or morphology we get the same lineage. I have already explained why the fossil record shouldn't be littered with transitional creatures. Based on evolution it makes perfect sense why there are similarities between ancient fossils and animals of today, because the animals of today evolved from those ancient animals, thus retaining certain aspects of them. I thought we were going to debate the validity of the flood. Not only is there nothing more given than the link, in a debate the general idea is to write things, at least a bit more than a link to a large page. Yes, I have read that page before, along with quite a few other AiG and general creationist papers on whale evolution. Since I have read it before and have some of the information on hand, I'll post a response. What evidence? What does worse mean in this context? Can you show me the evidence that shows DNA keeps getting worse? If DNA is getting "worse" doesn't mean it was perfect at one point, so please show me how it was perfect. Explain exactly what "perfect" human DNA would look like. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
creationism, ID and the flood, (Split from "This thread is for Creationists")
Top
Bottom