ID or ToE?

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I like #5:

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”
In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

pepsi_rebranding_2.jpg


Not surprised, I'm sure you would.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I like that, i never realized they were so different!

Its as opposite as one person starts at one end of a banana, and someone else will start from the other end! And then they meet in the middle!

Proof enough that creationism / ID are both equally correct.

I know!

It's not like they took a previous idea and then changed it for no apparent reason.
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Unfortunately, molecular biology, is a "gap" in astronomy.

You need to work on your communication skills. When you say things that make people go "Huh? What on earth is he on about?" you haven't achieved anything, other than making your position look vacuous. Additionally, your response doesn't address what I said. Don't quote something I said and pretend like you're responding to it, when you really just write something random that has little to nothing to do with what I said.


Except when "it has been falsified."

It hasn't. It has been shown to be propaganda though, perpetrated by people without intellectual honesty (look up "Kitzmiller v. Dover"), and it uses the same arguments that creationists have been using for hundreds of years. That doesn't falsify it though, but it seriously calls it into doubt.


The very core tenets of Darwinism have even refuted.

The very "scientific knowledge" upon which Darwinism is based has been refuted.

So you keep repeating like a mantra. You know, saying something again and again doesn't actually make things true. And again, neither of those statements address what I said.


Nope, just Science.

Something untestable can't be science. Religiously based philosophy is more accurate.


Actually, ID does not recognize the designer (in secret).

All people who promote ID "know" exactly who the designer is. they just keep it to themselves, due to propaganda purposes.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟10,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
before i even attemt to join this conversation, I want those supporters of evolution, to unite their mind, using one and the same definition of evolution... As for now - all supporters of evolution use contrary claims of what it is!

Projection much? :p

But really, you should probably read a book in your native language about it since going by your posts thus far I feel you are unable to comphrehend written english which would hinder any attempt of explaining to you why you are mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
before i even attemt to join this conversation, I want those supporters of evolution, to unite their mind, using one and the same definition of evolution... As for now - all supporters of evolution use contrary claims of what it is!

As for now your ability to join is is on the level of a grade school kid trying to join an international math conference. Seriously.

You'd be in the position of the kid seeing strange squiggles on the chalk board and concluding its all fake, coz, everyone knows math uses numbers! And there are no numbers!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
before i even attemt to join this conversation, I want those supporters of evolution, to unite their mind, using one and the same definition of evolution... As for now - all supporters of evolution use contrary claims of what it is!

I think it's more likely that you're confused by the definitions used.

The most common definition of evolution is -> Changes in allelle frequencies in a population over time.

The definition of the theory of evolution is -> The scientific theory that seeks to explain evolution using various mechanisms (natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, genetic drift, gene flow etc.).

People often use the word "evolution" when they're actually talking about the "theory of evolution", which of course can lead to confusion.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I like #5:

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”
In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

I like it too. It's very funny.

Peter ^_^
 
Upvote 0
L

Lillen

Guest
And i overheard a supporter of evolution, saying that it is about those better fit gets to carry on their genes to the next generation!!

We agree, i am confused about it! Because using that definition, many have argued that i am confused about it! And dont understand it!

To add, i know the clock, that it is the inner circle, circulating the number 666! And even knowing this did not make me afraid of my naiboir driving a dobbermann pincher!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
And i overheard a supporter of evolution, saying that it is about those better fit gets to carry on their genes to the next generation!!

We agree, i am confused about it! Because using that definition, many have argued that i am confused about it! And dont understand it!

That is natural selection he tried to explain. It's the most important mechanism used in the theory of evolution to explain why evolution occurs.

Notice that my definitions are very concise. The person you talk about tried to explain it to you in more detail. That doesn't mean he used another definition, he was just trying to explain the logic behind a central mechanism of the theory.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0
L

Lillen

Guest
That is natural selection he tried to explain. It's the most important mechanism used in the theory of evolution to explain why evolution occurs.

Notice that my definitions are very concise. The person you talk about tried to explain it to you in more detail. That doesn't mean he used another definition, he was just trying to explain the logic behind a central mechanism of the theory.

Peter :)

But when I mentioned it, many argued that I was ignorant in my understanding of evolution!

As for frequency in allelle change, as long as science cannot prove that there are benifitial mutations I go for my own intepretation of the facts in contrast of what evolution claim, that we all go extinct and that it is a repetative set of genes within any specie! It i just a goround of genes... Two beaks of two birds and africans cannot drink milk did not prove that mutations were benifital! they are still alive. But looking at the facts,Downs like my self is nuttered and cannot carry the genes to the next generation..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
But when I mentioned it, many argued that I was ignorant in my understanding of evolution!

Try to quote exactly what you said. Perhaps you made a mistake. In science very specific language is required and it can be easy to say something false if you're not careful with your wording.


As for frequency in allelle change, as long as science cannot prove that there are benifitial mutations I go for my own intepretation of the facts in contrast of what evolution claim, that we all go extinct if it is not a repetative set of genes within any specie!

Then how do you respond to an example like this?

In any case it's very easy to show that beneficial mutations occur. All you have to accept is the fact that harmful mutations occur and that back mutations occur. A back mutation is a mutation that reverses an initial mutation.

This is an example of a substitution:
AGGCTAA
AGGTTAA

A back mutation is if we later have a new mutation that restores the initial sequence. Like this->
AGGTTAA
AGGCTAA

So if the first substition was harmful, the back mutation must be beneficial by logical necessity since it reverses any phenotypical effect the mutation might have had.

Of course at this point creationists will argue that no new information has been added, and they would be right, but in doing so they've shifted their goalposts to an argument about information instead of whether mutations can be beneficial or not. If you accept harmful mutations and back mutations you also have to accept beneficial mutations.

I recommend that you read about the different types of mutations here. The article also mentions a couple of beneficial mutations.

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But when I mentioned it, many argued that I was ignorant in my understanding of evolution!

As for frequency in allelle change,
Change in allele frequency in population doesn't really say anything upfront. The alleles are already there.
as long as science cannot prove that there are benifitial mutations I go for my own intepretation of the facts in contrast of what evolution claim,

Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like #5:

5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”
In fact, the two theories are radically different. Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

:thumbsup:

With the texts you could call that force God (as there's no reason to reinvent the wheel). Without the texts you might have called that newly discovered force "Godus Intelligencia." It works either way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums