Intelligent Design / Evolution

idscience · Apr 21, 2012

Jazer said:
So there is a difference between TE and ID? Some consider them the same.

Theistic Evolution | EVOLUTION - NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED

idscience · Apr 21, 2012

DaneaFL said:
Ok so you have proof that evolution by common descent is wrong? well tell me about it after you receive your Nobel prize, ok?

Why so bitter? I just answered your question. Do you cop attitude with everyone who takes an opposite position to yours?

I didn't say I have proof. I propose that the evidence supporting it is very weak, to unsupportive.

idscience · Apr 22, 2012

DaneaFL said:
Ok so you have proof that evolution by common descent is wrong? well tell me about it after you receive your Nobel prize, ok?

I was wrong about CERN. It's a billion dollars a year.
"Does the Higgs boson exist?"

"Its no idle query: The underpinnings of particle physics, and our assumptions of how all matter interacts, rely on the particles not-quite-proven existence. The 47-year search for that proof now costs a billion dollars a year. And esoteric as their goal seems, scientists argue its well worth the effort. "

Hobz · Apr 22, 2012

Dennis, buddy, an onion has 200 times more DNA than us.

You're off the mark by at least an order of magnitude, which is impressive given ID's track history.

idscience · Apr 22, 2012

Hobz said:
You're off the mark by at least an order of magnitude, which is impressive given ID's track history.

That's why peer review is so important, thank M8.
I was thinking amoeba dubia and smelling lunch.

I stand corrected. Onion is 12 times, dubia 200 times. No need to pass up a dig though when one comes available, eh Hobz!.

NailsII · Apr 22, 2012

idscience said:
Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.

That is broadly true.
But although you have claimed several times that evolution is false, you still havn't backed up this claim with evidence.

idscience said:
Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.

Regardless of evolution, you need to prove ID is correct.
If anyone could do this, it would make your claim more respectable.

idscience · Apr 22, 2012

NailsII said:
That is broadly true.
But although you have claimed several times that evolution is false, you still havn't backed up this claim with evidence.

Falure of Support for Evolution

Transitional Whales, 261,295,296

29 evidences for macro-evolution, 508,
Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,
Speciation, 65,467,
List of problems, 171,428,
Overwhelming Evidence Myth, 360,
Anti-biotic resistance, 321,679
Evolution and Medicine Myth, 96,97
Consensus Myth, 97
Abiogenesis, 15
Drug Resistance not due to evolution, 680

ID/Evolution blog for up to date commentary on the controversy

Ooops! Never Mind.

IDA, Human Missing link, 695,
ARDI, Human Missing link, 710,
Antibiotic Resistance, 679

Jazer · Apr 22, 2012

DaneaFL said:
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.

That is a fair question, but first I would like to know if you have evidence that we exist. How can we know for sure that the world or the universe is the way we think it is? After all the multiverse theory says that there are many different universes. So according to that theory then at least one of those universes has an Intelligent Designer.

Lion Hearted Man · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
Anti-biotic resistance, 321,679
Evolution and Medicine Myth, 96,97
Drug Resistance not due to evolution, 680

Absolutely not. You have been shown to be wrong on these. If you want to start a thread on antibiotics and medicine as they related to evolution I would gladly post in it, but at this point this thread is far too cluttered. You cannot point at the clutter and declare victory.

Split Rock · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
Falure of Support for Evolution

Transitional Whales, 261,295,296

29 evidences for macro-evolution, 508,
Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,
Speciation, 65,467,
List of problems, 171,428,
Overwhelming Evidence Myth, 360,
Anti-biotic resistance, 321,679
Evolution and Medicine Myth, 96,97
Consensus Myth, 97
Abiogenesis, 15
Drug Resistance not due to evolution, 680

ID/Evolution blog for up to date commentary on the controversy

Ooops! Never Mind.
IDA, Human Missing link, 695,
ARDI, Human Missing link, 710,
Antibiotic Resistance, 679

Its so cute the way you just link your previous posts and ignore all the responses that refuted your posts.. as if they never existed! Glad to see you are so much more "open-minded" and scientific than us.

Sophrosyne · Apr 23, 2012

The proof of intelligent design is in man himself, an intelligent designer.

Split Rock · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
modification of pre-existing function isn't additive information. It is already there.

I missed this post.

According to the theory of evolution, ALL the information in DNA of a species today represents a modification of pre-existing function. Therefore, according to your definition of "additive information," evolution does not make any claim that it is necessary at all.

idscience · Apr 23, 2012

Lion Hearted Man said:
Absolutely not. You have been shown to be wrong on these. If you want to start a thread on antibiotics and medicine as they related to evolution I would gladly post in it, but at this point this thread is far too cluttered. You cannot point at the clutter and declare victory.

As usual empty promises with no back up. Where have I been shown to be wrong? Other than someone like you just saying, you are wrong that is.

Anti-biotic resistance has nothing to do with common descent
common descent has nothing to do with medicine. Mendel figured out genetics before Darwin and apart from Darwinian propaganda. Mutations and variations would have continued to be investigated regardless

The conflation of evolution and common descent is the only way to legitimize it. That is the big evolution shell game played on the public.

The only reason evolutionists have combined evolution theory and evolution hypothesis is because only one has any evidence. Much easier just to say they are both the same thing. That way the lack of evidence isn't an issue for them anymore.

What your trying to pass of as evolution is simply genetics. Maybe you could point to some evidence where medicine relates to common descent?

Lion Hearted Man · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
As usual empty promises with no back up. Where have I been shown to be wrong? Other than someone like you just saying, you are wrong that is.

Anti-biotic resistance has nothing to do with common descent
common descent has nothing to do with medicine. Mendel figured out genetics before Darwin and apart from Darwinian propaganda. Mutations and variations would have continued to be investigated regardless

The conflation of evolution and common descent is the only way to legitimize it. That is the big evolution shell game played on the public.

The only reason evolutionists have combined evolution theory and evolution hypothesis is because only one has any evidence. Much easier just to say they are both the same thing. That way the lack of evidence isn't an issue for them anymore.

What your trying to pass of as evolution is simply genetics. Maybe you could point to some evidence where medicine relates to common descent?

If you want to talk about how evolution impacts medicine, I would love to partake, but you'll have to start a new thread because this one is far too cluttered and posts would get buried.

I'm in medical school by the way, so I can guarantee I have a more informed opinion on the overlap of medicine and evolution than you do.

idscience · Apr 23, 2012

Split Rock said:
Its so cute the way you just link your previous posts and ignore all the responses that refuted your posts.. as if they never existed! Glad to see you are so much more "open-minded" and scientific than us.

It is typical of an evolutionist to deminise and accuse as replying with real answers doesn't seem to work.

Actually, if I wished to do as you accuse, I would just post my replies in quote form. By linking to the post itself everyone can read beyond it and see just how bad evolutionary arguments are.

Split Rock said:
I missed this post.

According to the theory of evolution, ALL the information in DNA of a species today represents a modification of pre-existing function. Therefore, according to your definition of "additive information," evolution does not make any claim that it is necessary at all.

All you have to do is ignore common descent I guess. Sometime between our so called common ancestor and today, plenty of information has been added to the genome. According to evolution hypothesis.

idscience · Apr 23, 2012

moved

Zaius137 · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
It is typical of an evolutionist to deminise and accuse as replying with real answers doesn't seem to work.

Actually, if I wished to do as you accuse, I would just post my replies in quote form. By linking to the post itself everyone can read beyond it and see just how bad evolutionary arguments are.

All you have to do is ignore common descent I guess. Sometime between our so called common ancestor and today, plenty of information has been added to the genome. According to evolution hypothesis.

You might add that new scientific findings make common descent untenable for a chimp human divergence less than 30 million years. Calculated mathematically with empirical mutation rates and increased numbers of noted mutations in Autosomal Pseudogenes between the species, this only adds to the evolution quandary.

Split Rock · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
It is typical of an evolutionist to deminise and accuse as replying with real answers doesn't seem to work.

Actually, if I wished to do as you accuse, I would just post my replies in quote form. By linking to the post itself everyone can read beyond it and see just how bad evolutionary arguments are.

As long as you can continue to ignore the refutations of your arguments so you can continue to assert how "bad" evolutionary arguments are. Is that how science is done? You tell us.

idscience said:
All you have to do is ignore common descent I guess. Sometime between our so called common ancestor and today, plenty of information has been added to the genome. According to evolution hypothesis.

But all that information is modified from preexisting information.

idscience · Apr 23, 2012

Ever heard it said, if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth? Or, in journalistic terms, if you have to choose between printing the truth or the legend, print the legend?

“If you tell a lie big enough (common descent is a fact) and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State (Atheistism) to use all of its powers to repress dissent (Evidence & ID), for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie(common descent), and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State (Atheism).”(Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels)

Hmmm, I see a parallel here to evolution and global warming... Ok, Ok, just having a little fun.

THEORY:

In science a theory is as close to a fact scientists can get. Gravity is a theory, though we can be sure that if we drop our peanut buttered toast one hundred times it is going to fall onto the floor. And, if you are like me, it will land peanut butter side down every time. A theory is supported by evidence and repeated testing but can still be refuted if evidence surfaces that does so. The word theory is tossed around in science conversations loosely at times when what they really mean is hypothesis.
When it is said evolution is a fact, the evolutionist usually tries to apply this blanket statement to both variation, and adaptive changes within species, as well as to Universal Common Ancestry (UCA), also known as Descent with Modification. To the evolutionist, the small changes that are seen in nature, will over billions of years give rise to completely different organisms, which is the essence of UCA. This would include whales evolving from 4 legged land mammals. Adaptive evolution and transformative evolution are two different animals. Adaptive evolution is a theory well supported by evidence and repeated testing. Adaptive evolution is non controversial and is accepted by all scientists. When you read about the overwhelming evidence for evolution, this is the type of evolution being talked about. The evidence for variations and adaptations is well supported and undisputed.The evolution lobby will criticize ID supporters by trying to promote to the public they deny evolution occurs when clearly it does. This is a misdirect. No one opposes evolution.Common descent on the other hand, has no such body of evidence and is well disputed.

EVOLUTION (variation, adaptation, minor changes)
all occur. This gives species reproductive advantages that leads to successful reproductive proliferation. For example; bacteria mutate enabling them to survive anti-biotic attacks. This is an a benefit. However, if a beneficial mutation does not randomly occur that is beneficial, the bacterial will die out. If the beneficial mutation does occur, then only the mutated bacteria survive and continue to multiply. Mutations are random rolls of the dice. It is only because of the high rate of reproduction and high rate of mutation that enables more opportunities for beneficial mutations to be passed on to new generations of bacteria. This is simply because they have not been killed off. So you could say, they have not been selected to die. The term selection suggests some intelligence involved and there is not. Natural selection simply means traits that promote reproduction are passed on because they are the ones reproducing. The others are dying off. The result is a population with the new trait or traits. Another example may the peppered moth. Generally a light colored moth some may have mutated and turned dark, almost black which helped to hide them from birds during the industrial revolution back in the late 1700's. Some scientists believe this helped them to avoid being eaten by birds as opposed to their light colored cousins who were easily scene in the soot covered trees. There was a rise in dark colored moth populations. If this is true it would be another example of mutational variation. This is still controversial.

HYPOTHESIS:
"A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

EVOLUTION (Transformative, major changes resulting in new body plans)
This is where Universal Common Ancestry comes in, or as Darwin put it, descent with modification. This hypothesis proposes that every living thing on earth can be traced back to a single, single celled organism. It is based on limited inferred evidence. For example, similarity of features of different species, ie; a bats wing and a human arm have very similar mechanical physiology. The inference is a common ancestor. For an other scientists it suggests a common design feature. Similarities in DNA in living things causes evolution scientists to infer a common ancestor. Though, the more DNA is dissimilar the evolutionist will use as proof of distance from a common ancestor. For example, chimps and humans are between 75% and 95% similar in DNA depending on who you listen to. The inference here is we are close on the evolutionary tree of life. Other scientists infer a common design in programming as we are somewhat similar in physiology. Where there is far less similarity, that evidence is interpreted as a greater evolutionary separation. So in a way evolutionists have found a way to count less evidence as proof of their claim of UCA. More inference is made from fossil evidence though there are great gaps in the record and a lack of transitional forms. Instead the fossil record shows sudden appearances of organisms followed by stasis, which is no changes. There simply is no gradualism in the fossil record that Darwin wrote must be there for his "theory" to be valid.
The problems with the evidence that is supposed to support this hypothesis have been answered, so lets look at a couple.
Stasis in the fossil record has been explained by something called "stabilizing selection". Unprovable outside the hypothesis itself. Untestable because who has a millions of years to test it. Another answer to stasis is that the record is just incomplete so gradualism isn't observed. (is this testable?) Another is that the transitional forms just were not preserved. Another is evolution occurred too quickly so the transitions were not preserved. Science news articles are filled with stories of "rapid evolution" Do you see the problem here? Outside the hypothesis, nothing is testable. These are ad hoc explanations to try and uphold the hypothesis.

FACT:

We read all the time evolution is a fact but is it? A fact can be defined as something that has been verified repeatedly by testing. It is petty much a fact that if you throw a ball into the air and nothing interferes with it, it will fall back to to earth. This is considered a fact because it has been observed many times and has never been refuted. Gravity is a theory that explains this fact. Theories and Hypotheses explain or interpret facts. Here are some more facts;

You can't use the word evolution as a general term to cover both variation and transformation. Evidence supports one and not the other
If you point this out to an evolutionist, you will be insulted.
When you are insulted, you know they don't have an answer.
Atheists have a large stake in UCA.
Buttered toast always lands upside down.
Science magazines are one of the sales and marketing arms of evolution.

Lets look at one paper in Nature. One of the countless marketing evolution. This one flat out states the debate is over, Common Ancestry is now fact!

Study proves Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry: "A large scale, quantitative test has proved Darwin's theory of universal common ancestry (UCA), linking all forms of life by a shared genetic heritage from single-celled microorganisms to humans, as correct." and how did it do that?

"Recent molecular evidence indicates... may have undergone... In that case, some scientists argue,... Let's say...If so... could have... Either way, ... Harnessing powerful computational tools and applying Bayesian statistics,..."

Not exactly the language of certainty and fact is it. "powerful computational tools... statistics", code for evolutionary program written to find evolutionary connections. There are no facts here, and certainly no proof for anything. This article along with countless others is just another evolution marketing pitch. One which like all the rest affirms Darwin's supremacy and expresses common ancestry as a proven fact.

Sophrosyne · Apr 23, 2012

idscience said:
Ever heard it said, if you tell a lie long enough it will become truth? Or, in journalistic terms, if you have to choose between printing the truth or the legend, print the legend?

Personally I think if you make the lie complex enough that nobody can understand it and then when it is questioned make it obscure enough that nobody can question it then it must be true.

Intelligent Design / Evolution

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Ponderer of Things

Regular Member

Life-long student of biological science

Regular Member

Jazer

Guest

Eternal Newbie

Conflation of Blathers

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Conflation of Blathers

Regular Member

Eternal Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Real science and faith are compatible.

Conflation of Blathers

Regular Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency