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.
To be honest, I can't be bothered engaging with you. You have struggled to put sentences together, and because of this, I cannot be bothered engaging with you. But if another person asks on your behalf, I will answer. But as of now, your questions will remain unanswered. Have funLet’s start with the rate of morphological change. What about it’s rate is question posing for TOE? Is it too fast, too slow?
On fine-tuning: yes, the full picture is complex and ongoing research continues. But that doesn’t erase the fact that many key constants fall within narrow ranges essential for life as we know it. It’s not a closed case, but it’s a significant scientific observation that raises important questions.
On DNA as information: calling it a “code” is indeed an analogy, but a very precise and useful one. The digital, specified nature of genetic sequences is well established and critical to how biology functions. It’s not meant to reduce biology to simple code, but to highlight that the sequences carry complex, functional instructions, something fundamentally different from random chemicals.
On the Cambrian explosion: yes, fossilisation bias exists, and the timing debates continue. But the relatively rapid emergence of diverse animal body plans without clear gradual precursors is still a key puzzle in evolutionary biology. Whether 3-4 million or 13-25 million years, it’s short geologically and raises questions about the mechanisms involved.
To be honest, I can't be bothered engaging with you. You have struggled to put sentences together, and because of this, I cannot be bothered engaging with you. But if another person asks on your behalf, I will answer. But as of now, your questions will remain unanswered. Have fun
None of these points alone “prove” design, but they represent meaningful scientific observations that challenge purely undirected explanations.
A bit of a White Elephant? A Pandora's Box? Moral Hazard?It is my perception that some (many?) theists are very uncomfortable with the thought that they have to decide on the purpose of life. They would prefer that responsibility lay elsewhere. That seems odd to me: if there were a God,then giving products of its creation the opportunity to determine their own purpose would surely be a magnificent gift.
I wasn’t “unnecessarily rude.” Larniavc had repeatedly demanded “evidence please” without showing genuine engagement, tossed out condescending questions with minimal effort, and added nothing to the discussion but baiting tactics. If someone can’t even construct a proper sentence or act respectfully, I’m not obligated to treat them like a serious participant.Since you had to be unnecessarily rude to larniavc for asking a very pertinent and important question about your claims about the Cambrian Explosion: even at its lowest end of 3,000,000 years, that's still a massive time frame and more than long enough for live to evolve in, so why is it a problem for the Theory of Evolution?
I wasn’t “unnecessarily rude.” Larniavc had repeatedly demanded “evidence please” without showing genuine engagement, tossed out condescending questions with minimal effort, and added nothing to the discussion but baiting tactics. If someone can’t even construct a proper sentence or act respectfully, I’m not obligated to treat them like a serious participant.
Now, to your question: Yes, 3 million years is a long time in human terms, but in geological terms, it’s short, especially when discussing the sudden appearance of most major animal body plans (phyla) with no clear gradual transitions in the fossil record. That’s the issue. The rate of morphological innovation during the Cambrian far outpaces what’s typically observed in evolutionary processes, and the lack of abundant precursors adds to the puzzle. Even some evolutionary biologists acknowledge this as a significant challenge and have proposed alternative mechanisms like punctuated equilibrium, evo-devo, or niche-filling bursts to explain it, precisely because standard gradualism doesn't easily account for it. So yes, it poses real questions for the Theory of Evolution.
Dismissing it with “3 million years is plenty” oversimplifies the problem.
I never asserted that non-natural causes should be dismissed outright. If a claim about a non-natural cause is falsifiable, then it should be tested accordingly. Otherwise, if no quantity or quality of evidence will everything function to increase or decrease an unfalsifiable claim's probability of being false, then what do propose should be done with it?You’re right that science welcomes revision and updates. Its strength is in testing and refining ideas. But when a theory has significant unexplained gaps, like the origin of complex information, it’s fair to consider alternative explanations, even if they aren’t fully testable by current methods.
Science deals best with the natural world, but that doesn’t mean non-natural causes can be dismissed outright if they explain what naturalism struggles with. Sometimes, recognising the limits of a method points to the need for broader perspectives, not just strict falsifiability.
You are in no position to correct the theology of any other Christian--especially in a forum where that is off-topic.It's called correcting and loving my brother.
And that proves, of course, that all Christians must believe the Discovery Institute's politically motivated fairy story about "intelligent design" which you don't even understand well enough to defend.God has left His fingerprint everywhere. So, on the day of judgement, no one will have an excuse. Romans 1:20 says "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse"
"The origin of specified, functional systems with interdependent parts" is making a claim about something different than "functional biological information is about specific sequences that produce meaningful outcomes, like building proteins", which was the subject of your earlier claim. Do you think that random variation and selection can produce functional proteins or not?No, I haven’t changed my position; I’ve clarified it. There’s a big difference between random variation and the origin of specified, functional systems with interdependent parts. That’s been my point all along. Shannon information and functional information are not the same and bringing that up isn’t backpedalling, it’s adding necessary detail to a complex discussion. If you're reading that as a contradiction, you may be conflating different levels of argument.
Then I suggest if you think the scientists who are researching the origin of the first self-replicators are going about it all wrong, you start your own program and show everyone how it's better.I’m not talking about ordinary chemistry, I’m talking about the leap from non-living chemicals to a self-replicating, information-bearing system like DNA. That’s not just mixing the right ingredients; it’s about the origin of functionally specified information, something we’ve only ever seen come from intelligence.
If you think the inferences drawn by evolutionary biologists are wrong, are based on an inaccurate framework, and are fundamentally flawed, you should start your own research program and show how your way of doing things and the inferences you make are better.Inference is part of science, of course, but not all inferences are equally strong.
No, the fact that you thought the argument put forth in the OP "destroys evolution in 5 minutes" even though it was based on fundamental errors any undergrad would quickly spot is a good indication of your level of understanding of the science.Ah yes, the classic fallback, “You just don’t understand science.” That’s usually code for “I don’t want to address the actual point.”
So this isn't about evolution, it's about the origin of the first self-replicators. You should have said that from the start.As for your question: “from scratch” means from non-living matter, no DNA, no proteins, no cellular machinery, just basic chemicals. You know, the very thing abiogenesis is trying (and failing) to explain.
That wasn't my point at all. I said I don't believe God "guides" evolution because that would mean God guides the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Do you believe God does that?And regarding God guiding evolution, if you think resistance to antibiotics somehow disproves design, you might want to consider that adaptation within limits is not the same as explaining the origin of entirely new systems. Your logic assumes that because we see minor tweaks, that explains the whole show. That’s not science, that’s storytelling.
Earlier @1Tonne agreed it was functional genetic sequences, which has been seen to evolve countless times. So now he's talking about the origin of the very first genetic sequences.I'm still curious how ID Creationists measure their special versions of "Information".
“You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. You’re a weedy pigeon Blackadder, and you can call me Susan if it isn’t so!”Earlier @1Tonne agreed it was functional genetic sequences, which has been seen to evolve countless times. So now he's talking about the origin of the very first genetic sequences.
“You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing. You’re a weedy pigeon Blackadder, and you can call me Susan if it isn’t so!”
C'mon, guys.
Evolution was pwned in the OP about a week ago.
Let's not beat a dead horse.
But it WASN'T 'pwned' though. Which is what everyone has been saying.
Oh, that's right!
Suddenly academia is against number crunching and sliding decimal places!
Sounds like someone has confused interesting things with the boredom that is bookkeeping.'Academia' is against 'number crunching and sliding decimal places' when it's flat out wrong and especially when it's disingenuously used.
Sounds like someone has confused interesting thing with the boredom that is bookkeeping.
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?