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.
Actually the fact that they do appear in nature shows that a designer is not required.we know that gears and motors are the product of design even if they are made from organic components or have the abillity to reproduce.
His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary big bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularly the theory of time and philosophy of God,
When he posted the "evidence" it was a so called book in the form of a PDF and I was on my tablet that does not handle PDF's rather well. It takes me out of the browser which drives me nuts. Now I have been scanning it and all that I see are abuses of science. And even terminology that tells us that even if the writer has studied the philosophy of science for some odd reason he does not understand the concept of science when his religion is involved. For example one of arguments is titled "The e Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof". He should have said "Evidence" but his argument is so weak that he appeared to need to bolster it with a false title. He tries to use that the universe as we know it had a beginning as some sort of "proof" of an intelligent creator. He does not realize that all that that theorem does is to show that the universe as we know it had a beginning. He also misapplies quotes of Einstein and other false appeals to authority. The whole book appears to be as bad as what one would expect from a college freshman that had a smattering of physics and logic and a heavy Christian bias. Nothing very impressive there. It is pretty much just hand waving and special pleading throughout the whole book as far as I can see.Oh great, another philosopher abusing physics (in this case relativity) to create new "philosophy.
When he posted the "evidence" it was a so called book in the form of a PDF and I was on my tablet that does not handle PDF's rather well. It takes me out of the browser which drives me nuts. Now I have been scanning it and all that I see are abuses of science. And even terminology that tells us that even if the writer has studied the philosophy of science for some odd reason he does not understand the concept of science when his religion is involved. For example one of arguments is titled "The e Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof". He should have said "Evidence" but his argument is so weak that he appeared to need to bolster it with a false title. He tries to use that the universe as we know it had a beginning as some sort of "proof" of an intelligent creator. He does not realize that all that that theorem does is to show that the universe as we know it had a beginning. He also misapplies quotes of Einstein and other false appeals to authority. The whole book appears to be as bad as what one would expect from a college freshman that had a smattering of physics and logic and a heavy Christian bias. Nothing very impressive there. It is pretty much just hand waving and special pleading throughout the whole book as far as I can see.
If you want a laugh or two here is a link to the PDF:
https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-LB1.pdf
The condescension is on your part. When one is snarky and demonstrably wrong one loses the ability to comment on supposed condescension. Tell me, why do you refuse to learn even the basics of science? It looks as if you know that if you learn that you will realize your errors.Another condescending atheist. How boringly predictable.
I have. And we have had this conversation before.Tell me, why do you refuse to learn even the basics of science? It looks as if you know that if you learn that you will realize your errors.
Learn how science is done and what is and what is not evidence and you will be a better debater.
No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.Actually the fact that they do appear in nature shows that a designer is not required.
Way to self own.
I doubt that you understand the basics. Someone that did would have no problem taking me up on my offer. Here are a couple of simple questions for you:I have. And we have had this conversation before.
How about you just try not to reply to my posts if they bother you so much.
Keep it simple?I wana discuss with atheists how this universe came into existence. Please keep it simple and easy to understand as i wana see the atheistic perspective. Maybe i got it wrong and maybe you are right. I want to keep it as honest, rational and easy as possible. I personally think God is the best explanation for this organised universe not a random process. Now how is evolution or some other explanation more logical?
No, the fact they appear in nature shows that someone designed the natural world. Chance cannot create the computer in front of you and it certainly can't create the endless complexity found in this world.
Depends what you mean by evolution.
Organisms are designed to adapt to their environments, and that is what I see massive scientific evidence for.
How about we instead show how many scientists confirm design?Let's see those peer reviewed papers from a well respected scientific journal that support your claims.
This is the sort of statement that tells me that you do not understand the basics of science, or even of logic for that matter.
If you want to claim design you put a burden of proof upon yourself. What is the evidence for design? No hand waving allowed. Why can't complexity arise naturally? Let's see those peer reviewed papers from a well respected scientific journal that support your claims.
Nice Gish Gallop, buy your whole list fails if even one fails when you present "evidence" this way. Are you sure that you want to do this?How about we instead show how many scientists confirm design?
Recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.
But here are a few:
: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
Category 1: Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in PeerReviewed Scientific Journals, Conference Proceedings, or Academic Anthologies
Selected Publications from this Category
Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic
categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239
(2004) (HTML).
Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First
Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27
(December 2010).
Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional
Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein
features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the
Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational
Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
Mariclair A. Reeves, Ann K. Gauger, and Douglas D. Axe, “Enzyme Families-Shared
Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (4).
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme
Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1).
Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive
Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,”
BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2).
Dustin J. Van Hofwegen, Carolyn J. Hovde, and Scott A. Minnich, “Rapid Evolution of
Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA,” Journal
of Bacteriology, Vol. 198 (7): 1022-1034 (April, 2016).
David W. Snoke, Jeffrey Cox, and Donald Petcher, “Suboptimality and Complexity in
Evolution,” Complexity, Vol. 21(1): 322-327 (September/October, 2015).
Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design 14
Douglas D. Axe and Ann K. Gauger, “Model and Laboratory Demonstrations That
Evolutionary Optimization Works Well Only If Preceded by Invention-Selection Itself Is
Not Inventive,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2015 (2).
Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial
genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings,
Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Measuring meaningful
information in images: algorithmic specified complexity,” IET Computer Vision, Vol. 9 (6):
884-894 (December, 2015).
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of
Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary
Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional
Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the
functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling,
Vol. 4:47 (2007).
David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin
models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol.
2(2): 141-148 (2003).
Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic
Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,”
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).
Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol.
55(10):884-888 (October 1987).
Granville Sewell, “On ‘compensating’ entropy decreases,” Physics Essays, Vol. 30:1
(2017).
Bibliographic and Annotated List of Peer-Reviewed Publications Supporting Intelligent Design 15
Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN
(New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International
Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational
Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and
Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).
Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on
Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).
William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small
Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Annotated Bibliography of Publications in this Category
Lol, lots of evidence has been presented. But, there's some kind of stigma involved in acknowledging that we did not drag ourselves out of the primordial goop, apparently.That statement is worthless without evidence. I can say with just as much authority that a magical green goblin is needed.
The only "evidence" for design is evidence for an incompetent designer. Hand waving is not evidence. The reason that scientists as a whole do not accept ID is because no one has ever presented any evidence for it.
A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International
Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).
No, you have yet to present any evidence. Do you want to lost by default?Lol, lots of evidence has been presented. But, there's some kind of stigma involved in acknowledging that we did not drag ourselves out of the primordial goop, apparently.
"Tour signed Discovery’s Dissent List on Darwinian theory years ago when the National Center for Science Education asserted that only a handful of scientists doubt Darwin’s theory. Our list of dissenters started at 100, then grew to 800. At that point we stopped inviting people to sign it because their names on the list were used by Darwinists to persecute them professionally. Some lost their jobs."
It's a dangerous thing for a biologist especially to publically question evolution theory.
I find it hilarious that the DI keeps pushing this paper, since it doesn't demonstrate any evidence of design for anything.
You have it backward. If Darwinism is the dominant view, all one has to do it cast doubt on it being the only option possible from the evidence provided.No, you have yet to present any evidence. Do you want to lost by default?
And you do know that the list that Tour signed has been largely refuted as well don't you? Please, all you have is fail.
You presented a Gish Gallop. That is an improper posting of falsehoods and half truths with the knowledge that it would take to long to refute all of them. As a result if the poster does not choose a source any one source will refute the list.
Do you have any evidence? I am waiting.
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?