Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

Only in absence of what YOU would call scientific evidence....I never required evidence to believe my aunt Daisy in Halifax was real even though I never personally met her...especially scientific evidence
Did you have photos, phone conversations, letters, emails? Those are all scientific evidence.

No, but I know my grandmother was not a liar....

I never required scientific evidence to KNOW my children love me but they do...
You have scientific evidence that they exist which means you don't have to use faith.

But no scientific evidence that they love me...yet I do not doubt it...

 

[pshun2404]

For atheists, truth is more important than comfort. At least in my case, I would rather know the truth and feel uncomfortable than believe something that isn't true just to feel more comfortable.

Me also...

 

[Foxhole87]

Do you also think that all life shares a common ancestor that was a living organism? Or are you saying that the created kinds emerged separately from the chemical soup?

A universal common ancestor? No! But all canines have common canine ancestors, all apes have common ancestors, all humans have common ancestors...but what I see does not mean God could not have used your model for most creatures. After all, besides specifically creating some firsts, He also commanded the seas to bring forth species after their kind and then the earth to bring species after its kind...but one universal ancestor for all....no!

Did the "first" of the bunny rabbit "kind" come before or after the dinosaurs?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Ever wonder why atheists stick to evolution and dodge abiogenesis like a bat in sunlight?

It's like watching them shoot at God with an arrowless bow.

In fact, I'm quaintly reminded of King Nimrod when he sent archers to the top of the tower of Babel to wage war with Heaven- an exercise in futility.
Now you know the unadulterated version of the story, and why some are called 'nimrods'

 

[Davian]

Ever wonder why atheists stick to evolution and dodge abiogenesis

It would seem to lump them together would make as much sense as rejecting semiconductor theory because it fails to address stellar nucleosynthesis.

Do you accept semiconductor theory?

like a bat in sunlight?

It is my understanding that some bats have evolved nocturnal behaviour to take advantage of the niche left open by the daytime-only feathered predators. It has an evolutionary explanation.

It's like watching them shoot at God with an arrowless bow.

Or, ignoring something that cannot be shown to be of significance. There is nothing to shoot at, unless you would like to provide a testable definition of "God".

In fact, I'm quaintly reminded of King Nimrod when he sent archers to the top of the tower of Babel to wage war with Heaven- an exercise in futility.
Now you know the unadulterated version of the story, and why some are called 'nimrods'

Do you find that it helps the discussion to insult those that disagree with you?

 

[bhsmte]

Ever wonder why atheists stick to evolution and dodge abiogenesis like a bat in sunlight?

It's like watching them shoot at God with an arrowless bow.

In fact, I'm quaintly reminded of King Nimrod when he sent archers to the top of the tower of Babel to wage war with Heaven- an exercise in futility.
Now you know the unadulterated version of the story, and why some are called 'nimrods'

Ever wonder why biblical creationists need to lump abiogenesis together with evolution, to try and muddy the waters?

 

[Black Dog]

The Language of DNA

"Intriguing for those with a familiarity with quantitative linguistics and current work on natural language processing is how the instance of a dual-functioning code in DNA begins to make genetics seem more like a language with all the messiness that entails and less like a pure instruction set. If certain sequences have an ambiguous identity and shift modes between description and process, there is room for many errors and chaotic recursions to arise, just like in human language."
DNA As Language

I wish you creationists would make up your mind. I have seen posts by creationists claiming DNA is a programming language. This article says there is room for many errors and chaotic recursions. That does not describe a programming language. So, is it a programming language, or a human language?

 

[pshun2404]

Did the "first" of the bunny rabbit "kind" come before or after the dinosaurs?

And for you that PROVES one came from the other? Sad!!!!

 

[Foxhole87]

And for you that PROVES one came from the other? Sad!!!!

No.
It would demonstrate that certain kinds of animals did not exist when other kinds of animals existed, hence demonstrating the absurdity of the YEC account of biology.

 

[pshun2404]

It is my understanding that some bats have evolved nocturnal behaviour to take advantage of the niche left open by the daytime-only feathered predators. It has an evolutionary explanation.

I know isn't science fiction cool? but it is sad when people believe it is non-fiction and rely on it when there is no evidence

 

[pshun2404]

No.
It would demonstrate that certain kinds of animals did not exist when other kinds of animals existed, hence demonstrating the absurdity of the YEC account of biology.

Glad I am not YEC

 

[Foxhole87]

It is my understanding that some bats have evolved nocturnal behaviour to take advantage of the niche left open by the daytime-only feathered predators. It has an evolutionary explanation.

I know isn't science fiction cool? but it is sad when people believe it is non-fiction and rely on it when there is no evidence

So the model by which practically every single relevant scientist agrees on is simply a matter of science fiction?

Do you people even try anymore?

 

[pshun2404]

So the model by which practically every single relevant scientist agrees on is simply a matter of science fiction?

Do you people even try anymore?

Dude I am not a "you people" thanks for showing your stereotyping quality, real professional (can't win so resort to name calling or ad hominem)...secondly the "argumentum ad populum" approach is a logic fallacy. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE...

 

[SkyWriting]

I wish you creationists would make up your mind. I have seen posts by creationists claiming DNA is a programming language. This article says there is room for many errors and chaotic recursions. That does not describe a programming language. So, is it a programming language, or a human language?

The article is clear that no one is clear on that.
Holding others to higher standards than ones
you hold yourself to......it starts with an "H."

And to answer your question.....neither.
But it is far more clever than mud.

 

[Black Dog]

The article is clear that no one is clear on that.
Holding others to higher standards than ones
you hold yourself to......it starts with an "H."

And to answer your question.....neither.
But it is far more clever than mud.

That would be "Hercules"

As in those are the labors a skeptic takes on arguing the TOE and ID around here.

 

[Foxhole87]

Dude I am not a "you people" thanks for showing your stereotyping quality, real professional (can't win so resort to name calling or ad hominem)...secondly the "argumentum ad populum" approach is a logic fallacy. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE...

It isn't an ad homeinem because the heft of my argument exists, yet you didn't address it.

I expressed incredulity at your suggestion, as I said: "So the model by which practically every single relevant scientist agrees on is simply a matter of science fiction?"

The "you people" was pointy for a reason, and it seems to be the only part you bothered to look at; it expressed my disdain for unqualified non-experts deciding that the work of the qualified experts is all wrong and my thus my disdain for your embrace of anti-intellectualism.

You didn't address my argument but sought out something you considered to be name-calling and have discarded my objection wholesale because of it; you shouldn't bring up a criticism of an argument if you don't understand the criticisms.

You are saying that the consensus of the overwhelming number of relevant experts is bunk yet you have nothing but less-than-a-layperson's understanding of the subject at hand.

Appealing to the consensus of the relevant experts is not a fallacious argument. So much as we can say we "know" ANYTHING about the natural world, without having the forums become a classroom on evolutionary biology or gravity of physics or chemistry or anything else, we rely on the consensus of the relevant experts.

 

[SkyWriting]

No.
It would demonstrate that certain kinds of animals did not exist when other kinds of animals existed, hence demonstrating the absurdity of the YEC account of biology.

The scriptures do not detail "Kinds" other than loose categories based on
everyday observation of how baby birds come from older bird nests.
How to manipulate the breeding of offspring (human influenced changes in breed)
is actually covered in some scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

"So the model by which practically every single relevant scientist agrees on is simply a matter of science fiction?"

Is is a fictional account of past events? Then yes. Is it a documentary? Then no.

 

[SkyWriting]

Only in absence of what YOU would call scientific evidence....I never required evidence to believe my aunt Daisy in Halifax was real even though I never personally met her...especially scientific evidence
Did you have photos, phone conversations, letters, emails? Those are all scientific evidence.

No, those have nothing to do with science.
The scientific method involves me doubting your observations and recreating the event.
The REAL[URL='http://www.christianforums.com/xfa-blog-entry/cause-and-effect.79443/'] process of SCIENCE[/URL]

 

[Foxhole87]

The scriptures do not detail "Kinds" other than loose categories based on
everyday observation of how baby birds come from older bird nests.
How to manipulate the breeding of offspring (human influenced changes in breed)
is actually covered in some scripture.

Creationists have some working definition of "kinds" (even though it is notoriously rubbery and otherwise a very weak, bad, and meaningless definition) where the "kind" that is a bunny is a different "kind" that is a dinosaur. I want a Creationist to identify when the "kind" that is a bunny started up in full form, and then I want them to explain why the bunny "kind" has never, ever been found in the same time period as the dinosaur "kind".