Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[Oncedeceived]

What parts of the material do you think warrants discussion?

Well How about the Read-Write Genome?

 

[bhsmte]

Well How about the Read-Write Genome?

What about it?

And, does this now mean you have changed your mind and you do have a problem with the TOE?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well How about the Read-Write Genome?

What about it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What about it?

And, does this now mean you have changed your mind and you do have a problem with the TOE?

Perhaps I need to once again clarify my position since you seem to be having a really hard time understanding it.

I believe that life forms evolve. I believe that the processes of evolution are not from a purely naturalistic process that is devoid of God. The only problem I have with evolution is from a purely naturalistic worldview that claims that the process is devoid of God and that only natural occurring phenomena are at work in the evolution of life on the planet. I have a problem with the idea that non-intelligent matter brought forth intelligence.

So to put it bluntly I believe in the processes we label evolution, I do not believe the view that evolution stands alone as the creative force of life on earth.

Now, does that make it clearer as to my position?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps I need to once again clarify my position since you seem to be having a really hard time understanding it.

I believe that life forms evolve. I believe that the processes of evolution are not from a purely naturalistic process that is devoid of God.

Are you saying that the naturalistic processes described by the theory of evolution are not sufficient for producing the biodiversity we see today? If you are saying that they are not sufficient, then you don't accept evolution.

So to put it bluntly I believe in the processes we label evolution, I do not believe the view that evolution stands alone as the creative force of life on earth.

Then you don't believe in the process of evolution. The theory of evolution states that the natural processes are responsible for ALL the biodiversity we see. Not some of it. Not 90% of it. ALL of it.

Perhaps you mean to say that God acts through nature?

Also, why do you want to discuss the Read/Write genome?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What about it?

It means that cell-mediated processes making changes to DNA counters undirected, unguided randomness thought of ToE.

 

[Loudmouth]

It means that cell-mediated processes making changes to DNA counters undirected, unguided randomness thought of ToE.

How so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying that the naturalistic processes described by the theory of evolution are not sufficient for producing the biodiversity we see today? If you are saying that they are not sufficient, then you don't accept evolution.

So are you claiming that Theistic evolution is wrong?

Then you don't believe in the process of evolution. The theory of evolution states that the natural processes are responsible for ALL the biodiversity we see. Not some of it. Not 90% of it. ALL of it.

Really? Natural processes by unguided, random chance?

Perhaps you mean to say that God acts through nature?

Please provide evidence that shows that all biodiversity is a product of unguided processes without Intelligent Design. It seems that you talk out of both sides of mouth when it suits you. For the theists here that are evolutionists its ok for them to believe God might have something to do with it yet here you are claiming to believe in evolution at all you must admit that only natural processes devoid of God are responsible for life on earth.

Also, why do you want to discuss the Read/Write genome?[/quote]

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps I need to once again clarify my position since you seem to be having a really hard time understanding it.

I believe that life forms evolve. I believe that the processes of evolution are not from a purely naturalistic process that is devoid of God. The only problem I have with evolution is from a purely naturalistic worldview that claims that the process is devoid of God and that only natural occurring phenomena are at work in the evolution of life on the planet. I have a problem with the idea that non-intelligent matter brought forth intelligence.

So to put it bluntly I believe in the processes we label evolution, I do not believe the view that evolution stands alone as the creative force of life on earth.

Now, does that make it clearer as to my position?

Once, the TOE and what it states is there for all to see and it is not hiding.

You either agree with the TOE or you do not. If you think the TOE is incomplete, or you have problems with portions of the evidence, then you are NOT OK with the TOE and disagree with what it states.

 

[Dizredux]

Once, the TOE and what it states is there for all to see and it is not hiding.

You either agree with the TOE or you do not. If you think the TOE is incomplete, or you have problems with portions of the evidence, then you are NOT OK with the TOE and disagree with what it states.

I very much think the evidence is incomplete. That incompleteness is the meat and potatoes of science.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

So are you claiming that Theistic evolution is wrong?

Theistic evolutionists accept that evolution is sufficient for describing the biodiveristy we see today.

Really? Natural processes by unguided, random chance?

Are you saying that God can not act through natural processes?

Please provide evidence that shows that all biodiversity is a product of unguided processes without Intelligent Design.

This is like justlookinla all over again.

The theory of evolution does not state anything about processes being guided or unguided.

It seems that you talk out of both sides of mouth when it suits you.

Physician, heal thyself. You are the one saying that you accept evolution, and then reject it the very next second.

For the theists here that are evolutionists its ok for them to believe God might have something to do with it yet here you are claiming to believe in evolution at all you must admit that only natural processes devoid of God are responsible for life on earth.

No theory states that God is involved or not involved.

Also, why do you want to discuss the Read/Write genome?

Why do YOU want to discuss it? You are the one who brought it up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, the TOE and what it states is there for all to see and it is not hiding.

You either agree with the TOE or you do not. If you think the TOE is incomplete, or you have problems with portions of the evidence, then you are NOT OK with the TOE and disagree with what it states.

OHHH, so to believe in evolution one must adhere to the theology of naturalism that life is due to only natural causes and never never question any part of the beliefs therein. To uphold that naturalism is the only true belief and any and others must be dismissed. Is that it?

 

[Loudmouth]

OHHH, so to believe in evolution one must adhere to the theology of naturalism that life is due to only natural causes and never never question any part of the beliefs therein.

If you are claiming that there are mechanisms outside of evolution, then you need to evidence them. That is what we require.

To uphold that naturalism is the only true belief and any and others must be dismissed. Is that it?

You are the one dismissing God from natural processes, not us.

 

[bhsmte]

I very much think the evidence is incomplete. That incompleteness is the meat and potatoes of science.

Dizredux

Have you observed once's posts that challenge the evidence in the TOE? No theory is ever 100% complete, but what is there needs to work.

How one can say, "I have no problem with the TOE" and then post the comments she does, is beyond me. She wants it both ways; she doesn't want to deny such strong evidence, because it would look foolish, but she also wants to criticize the theory whenever the chance arrives and not back up the criticism.

 

[bhsmte]

OHHH, so to believe in evolution one must adhere to the theology of naturalism that life is due to only natural causes and never never question any part of the beliefs therein. To uphold that naturalism is the only true belief and any and others must be dismissed. Is that it?

It's easy, you either agree with what the TOE states or you don't once, it isn't that tough.

If you don't agree with parts of it, then you obviously, are not ok with the TOE.

If you want to add a God to the TOE for your own personal satisfaction you are free to do so, but that does not change what the TOE actually states and you either agree with what it states, or you have problems with what it states and don't agree with it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's easy, you either agree with what the TOE states or you don't once, it isn't that tough.

If you don't agree with parts of it, then you obviously, are not ok with the TOE.

If you want to add a God to the TOE for your own personal satisfaction you are free to do so, but that does not change what the TOE actually states and you either agree with what it states, or you have problems with what it states and don't agree with it.

-_- there are components of the TOE I feel need improvement. Am I suddenly not ok with the TOE in your opinion then?

 

[Dizredux]

Please provide evidence that shows that all biodiversity is a product of unguided processes without Intelligent Design.

Once, we have been through this *many* times with Just. You cannot provide evidence that intelligent design is not a factor, you cannot provide evidence that an intelligent design is a factor. Currently, ID is a religious belief and not a matter of science as there is no empirical evidence for ID.

The other thing, and what we had to try to explain to Just with no success, is that science does not propose this. As has been asked so many times, show any scientific paper or publication that makes the claim the an intelligent designer does not exist. There are some individuals pushing this but it their private opinion just as the assertion that an intelligent designer is involved is a personal opinion.

ID as it is presented by the Discovery Institute is primarily a religious issue and not an empirical one. The same for your idea that the appearance of design implies the fact of design, it doesn't. The appearance of design may imply the possibility of design but it could also simply be how an observer who is hardwired to detect pattern and design perceives the phenomenon and as such many things can look designed but are not.

In otherwords, the appearance of design means the appearance of design to an observer and nothing more.

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

-_- there are components of the TOE I feel need improvement. Am I suddenly not ok with the TOE in your opinion then?

Let me make this simple.

All theories typically improve over time, as more evidence comes in, as DNA has also done for the TOE to confirm the concept.

At the end of the day, one either decides the theory works and is highly likely to be accurate, or, they have enough problems with it, to where they do not feel it explains the evidence accurately. Would you agree with this?

Once states, she is ok with the TOE. In observing the posts of once in regards to the TOE and ID, would you conclude, she "is ok with what the TOE states"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let me make this simple.

All theories typically improve over time, as more evidence comes in, as DNA has also done for the TOE to confirm the concept.

At the end of the day, one either decides the theory works and is highly likely to be accurate, or, they have enough problems with it, to where they do not feel it explains the evidence accurately. Would you agree with this?

Once states, she is ok with the TOE. In observing the posts of once in regards to the TOE and ID, would you conclude, she "is ok with what the TOE states"?

Honestly, I think she is relatively ok with the TOE. All she does is add a "guiding force" component.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly, I think she is relatively ok with the TOE. All she does is add a "guiding force" component.

Maybe I am wrong, but I see many posts in a different light, than simply adding a super natural component to the TOE.