ThievingMagpie
Active Member
- Jun 5, 2018
- 199
- 187
- 36
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
Whatever, dude. When you study life, you find that it gets no less complicated no matter how deep down the subcellular level you go. The flagellum is a full-flledged boat with a propeller, at the subcellular level. If that's not evidence that life was engineered, nothing ever will be to you.
Why?
Only to the uneducated.
And that is the problem. When one looks for the "intelligent design" one finds that it is missing. The giraffes recurrent laryngeal nerve is an excellent example of this. If you look at our "design" you find it is far from intelligent. Instead it runs on "good enough".
I see that you do not understand the scientific method at all. Why don't we start there?
A theory that explains something -- anything, really -- about biology. To be an explanation, it has to tell me why things are the way they are, rather than some other way. The way we test theories is by using them to predict data we haven't seen yet, and then collecting the data. That's why I'm asking what ID predicts. I know what evolution predicts about genomes, and I know how well the data match up with those predictions. All I'm seeing from ID is a lot of hand-waving and rhetoric.
As before, saying "things change" is not a scientific theory, it is a catchall frame of reference. The way evolution scientists are willfully ignorant about how anything is chosen, is also not science. I already explained, you need to study about how decisions are made, for making choices in life, and religion, politics. Basically everything I wrote in this post I have already said, which shows you do not listen.
The giraffe nerve thing has already been proven to be functional for the way it is, same as all ideas about vestigal organs have been disproven, as are the ideas of junk dna being disproven.
I think the crucial thing here is that you don't actually understand how choosing works, and that you don't pay dedicated attention to getting knowledge about it. If you would do that, then you would see intelligent design theory is credible, and that the fact organisms look designed is reasonable evidence that they are designed.
If intelligent design is true, you would simply expect to find the intelligent decisionmaking processes.
You aren't presenting a system that can be practically used.1. You have to study decisionmaking anyway
2. the organisms look designed
3. go look for intelligent design
4. seek and ye shall find
5. All people who pay dedicated attention to understanding how things are chosen in the universe, support some theory of inteligent design
6. Only those who have personal problems accepting choice is real altogether, do not support intelligent design
As before, saying "things change" is not a scientific theory, it is a catchall frame of reference. The way evolution scientists are willfully ignorant about how anything is chosen, is also not science. I already explained, you need to study about how decisions are made, for making choices in life, and religion, politics. Basically everything I wrote in this post I have already said, which shows you do not listen.
The giraffe nerve thing has already been proven to be functional for the way it is, same as all ideas about vestigal organs have been disproven, as are the ideas of junk dna being disproven.
I think the crucial thing here is that you don't actually understand how choosing works, and that you don't pay dedicated attention to getting knowledge about it. If you would do that, then you would see intelligent design theory is credible, and that the fact organisms look designed is reasonable evidence that they are designed.
As I said, your "theory" predicts nothing at all about genome comparisons.If intelligent design is true, you would simply expect to find the intelligent decisionmaking processes.
If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.It is very obvious to me that people have some kind of psychological barrier why they don't want to have any knowledge about how anything is chosen.
I dont know, we might have a new Semmelweis on our hands here.If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.
Only to those that lack understanding. "Looks like" is not worth much in the sciences. You need evidence. In the scientific world that means first you need to have a testable hypothesis and then see if observations support it or oppose it. If you cannot form a testable hypothesis then you do not even have evidence.The organisms look designed.
One can see that in philosophy free will is continuously regarded as a problem for centuries. So it is widely known that people have a problem with free will.
If everyone thinks your ideas are wrong, it's possible that they all have a psychological barrier to accepting your obvious wisdom. It's also possible that your ideas are wrong. History suggests that the latter is more likely.
Still no evidence I see. Only more "because I said so".If someone had excellent knowledge about people making choices, and they would not support intelligent design theory, that would be some point. But it appears you all reject knowledge about how anything is chosen in general.
What units are you measuring complexity in?Actually I meant the efficient functional complexity of organisms requires intelligent design.
What units are you measuring complexity in?
Yet more attitude.
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?