If you spent just a little time to understand how evolution works, you wouldn't be wasting your and everyone else's time with statements like that.
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.
If you spent just a little time to understand how evolution works, you wouldn't be wasting your and everyone else's time with statements like that.I disagree that the solution are not made from scratch, evolution can't choose from a piece of liver and other of brain, it has to came up with them.
If you spent just a little time to understand how evolution works, you wouldn't be wasting your and everyone else's time with statements like that.
In fact it does. The distribution of variation in each generation has relatively narrow limits. It is natural selection which "chooses" from within that range.What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.
So, if God made us with evolution, should evolution be credited alone for us?
like every evolutionist does
you don't have a bit of disagrenment with evolutionists that say evolution did it all alone?
I disagree that the solution are not made from scratch
evolution can't choose from a piece of liver and other of brain, it has to came up with them.
What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.
In both evolution and simulations, each new generation of the population is derived from the previous generation with random variations. Then the most successful individuals preferentially produce the next generation, passing their variations on, so that the most successful variants accumulate in subsequent generations.What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.
Satan: More powerful than GodGod: Master of the Universe
Satan: "God" of this world.
It all makes sense.
This is a misunderstanding of the simulations and evolution, NBB.What i mean is that evolution can't choose from already determined solutions unlike those simulations.
When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything.
When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything.
Perhaps, but it is not nearly as dimwitted as proclaiming 'intelligent design (creation)' to be real or true despite the fact that advocates of such can present, literally, nothing in terms of supporting evidence for such a belief.Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted.
The whole problem with everything being evidence for design is that you have no basis for comparison. It's not a conclusion; it's just an an untestable, unfalsifiable belief.
So how does it work? How does what you call "design" get into natural objects? Science at least has an explanation, even if you don't buy it. What's yours?TO ALL
I just happened to be scanning topics and this one caught my eye. I usually try not to jump in after a thread has been running for a while but just had some quick observations here. Sorry if I repeat anything that has already been said. I didn't have the time to go through and read every page here.
Firstly this kind of argumentation against intelligent design is hilariously dimwitted. That's because one has to "assume" they know what was in the designer’s head at the time. Sometimes design requires a tradeoff. Could Samsung build a completely indestructible cell phone that could survive being dropped out of an airplane and landing on a concrete pad? Could they make it completely water proof to survive the deepest depths of the ocean? Could they build it so that it could survive the hot temps of the desert and freezing temps of the Arctic? Could Samsung also while they are at it design it to never drop a call from anywhere in the world? Well sure they could. Except that no one could carry it because it is way too heavy and bulky, and no one could afford it because it is outrageously expensive. The point is that designers have to do tradeoffs for practicality reasons all the time.
The second issue is the assumption that because something in a biological system is not currently in use that it must have no use. Or that because you don’t know somethings function must mean it has no function. I have things on my six year old car that I still have to consult the owner’s manual to figure out what it does. Also I have holes drilled in along my vehicles frame in the steel that don’t seem to serve any purpose that I can see. Does that mean my car was poorly designed?
Thirdly you also cannot forget that the biblical text tells us that a curse came upon all creation because of man’s sin. We don’t know exactly what all that entails, but it would imply that a good many things will have stopped functioning the way in which they were originally designed.
So since none of us are God we don’t know what tradeoffs He went with, there are a good many of thing we just don’t know what they are for, and there are also many things that are not functioning as originally designed. None of this is evidence that there is no intelligent designer.
I once saw a rock in my rock garden in front of my house that looked a little out of place from the others. When I picked it up I discovered it was made of plastic, had a flat back with a slide off compartment door. I realized instantly that it was an intelligently designed key hiding box made to look like a rock. Likewise we may look at something day after day and not notice design, but just picking it up and looking closer might reveal what we missed.
The question shouldn’t be “does most of this object look poorly designed?” It should be “is there even one thing that undoubtedly show it was designed? That’s really all it takes to reveal design. Just one thing. Not a list of things that don’t look designed. Just one thing that must be designed.
Design is typically detected by looking for signs that something was “engineered.” Engineering is detected when we observe that something was formed for a specific intent or purpose. Kind of like how archaeologists look for recognizable design features in objects that tell them they were engineered rather than naturally formed. Or how marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns to match up with certain behaviors would tell them they are communicating with intelligent language. Even SETI astronomers search the skies for specific narrow band radio signals coming from deep space. They tell us that if they were to ever find one it would be evidence it was engineered… meaning it had an intelligent source.
When we apply these principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does indeed display evidence of engineering in its laws of physics, its systems, and its life. That’s pretty much everything. I’ll be happy to discuss these with anyone who is interested.
Thanks
Brad
Perhaps, but it is not nearly as dimwitted as proclaiming 'intelligent design (creation)' to be real or true despite the fact that advocates of such can present, literally, nothing in terms of supporting evidence for such a belief.
Of note - I do not consider making analogies to human activity or to declaring X cannot have evolved to be evidence for IDC, and no sensible, honest, intelligent person should.
So how does it work? How does what you call "design" get into natural objects? Science at least has an explanation, even if you don't buy it. What's yours?
I believe that's the first correct thing you said. Design is unfalsifiable. It can sometimes be detected but never ruled out, and nobody tries to. The difficulty comes from those who are trying to prove the presence of design on dubious grounds in aid of promoting some religion or other.Actually there are a good deal of scientific facts that point to an engineered universe. And if you would have read my first post here you would have seen that I presented two in which human activity was not a factor. I actually did that on purpose because I've seen that nonsensical comment before. As for X evolving into anything... it might shock you to learn I fully accept evolution. Let me clarify. I fully accept evolution as defined by mainstream biologists not the definition over popularized by todays media. What is the difference you might ask? Mainstream biologists typically define evolution as "The observed small changes in a population of an organism over time." -->PERIOD<-- end of definition. Interestingly we do observe small changes happen and we observe it happen all the time. So that means by that definition, evolution is a stone cold ironclad scientific fact. However nothing about that definition conflicts with ID and or creation. NOTHING.
"Militant atheists" (and I assume you mean by that anybody who is not a biblical creationist) know the difference and don't try to fool anybody with it.All knowledgeable creationists fully accept evolution when it is defined in this way. However the other popular definition is the theory that all life has a common ancestor. But here's the funny thing about that. That's not ever really a definition for evolution. That's the definition of term scientists call Universal Common Descent. Militant atheists love to blur the lines between these two definitions. That's how they have been so successful at keeping their lies in the class room.
Biological evolution is not a random process.My point I was getting to here is that if you want to say that the DNA code found in all life "evolved" to a sophistication that warps our most advanced computer software programs by comparison (all by random processes), knock yourself out. You can believe whatever you want. But you my friend are the one who is lacking in evidence.
Evolution had nothing to do with it.And even if for the sake of argument I let you have that one, I'd love to see how evolution works to evolve non-biologic systems. How did it form all the laws of physics to be fine tuned to the exact parameters to permit life? How did evolution effect the literally hundreds of systems of our universe that all work in unison just to make life even possible? Systems that must exist at the same time, location, and specific parameters just for there to be life???
If science has no explanation, why do you trouble to discredit that which you don't think exists?Science doesn't have an explanation for design...that's the problem.
Or deny the evidence which supports it?They have an unsupported hypothesis.
Romans 1:20 says nothing one way or the other about biblical creationism. It is just as true for those of us who accept biological evolution.I have a book that tells a tale about how it happened, and when I examine creation I find it remarkably agrees with the book. And that's actually what God wants us to do. (Rom. 1:20)
To the contrary I gave three examples of how science tries to detect design and how it works quite well.
So yes there is a clear basis for making the claim that we observe design in the make up of the universe. I know that troubles you but its a scientific fact nonetheless.
The problem is that militant atheists
I believe that's the first correct thing you said. Design is unfalsifiable. It can sometimes be detected but never ruled out, and nobody tries to. The difficulty comes from those who are trying to prove the presence of design on dubious grounds in aid of promoting some religion or other.
"Militant atheists" (and I assume you mean by that anybody who is not a biblical creationist) know the difference and don't try to fool anybody with it.
Biological evolution is not a random process.
Evolution had nothing to do with it.
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?