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.
Are you some kind of russian troll bot whose sole purpose is to annoy people with stupid arguments?
Because if that's the case then it's definitely working!
The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless. It cannot be used for further research, it does not lead to further paths of research, it does not lead to increasing our knowledge, it is not based on observation of empirical evidence and deductive reasoning, it does not in any way explain what has been found, it does not in any way invalidate evolution, and, most importantly, it makes no testable predictions of what will be found in the future. In other words, it has none of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. Yes, common design works just as well, but so does aliens breeding us as slave labour, for which there is also no evidence.We don't need it because it is irrelevant to the things you mentioned. Common design works just as well. I'm advocating we don't need evolution from a common ancestor to further scientific inquiry.
We can say there is a common design in life and it works just as well. Because we can use that common design to make all the discoveries we want. And creation works just as well for the biodeversity because the Bible tells us God created with great biodeversity in the beginning.
The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless.
, it does not in any way explain what has been found, it does not in any way invalidate evolution
Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?
I can make watches out of wood, iron, or even gold. As a designer, I am not limited to making all of the things I design out of the same material. Other designers also wouldn't be limited to avoiding using the same materials as myself. Thus, shared basic materials between designed objects would NOT be evidence for a common designer (and that's even assuming that the items in question are designed to begin with).Ah yes we do have DNA. Evidence of common design.
In your first part of this post, you said "ah yes, we have DNA". You admitted that humans and bacteria are not completely different, because of this shared quality. On a genetic scale, humans are far more similar to chimps than not.Bacteria are not human. Neither are chimpanzies. We are different from beetles and spiders. I always have to specify completely different cause if I don't evolutionists always say things like "what about this kind of beetle, it changed into the color of beetle".
-_- we are the ones that define what a beetle is to begin with. Why demonstrate a transition between labels that have always been arbitrary? Also, you have no consistency in your demands whatsoever. First, you demand "bacteria becoming "not bacteria"", which would be a domain level transition, and now you demand "beetles becoming "not beetles"", which is an order level transition.I mean show me a beetle that changes into something that is not a beetle. That's completely different.
Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research?
-_- as if every useful thing contributes to medicine, and we have had this conversation. Flu vaccines require knowledge of evolutionary patterns in viruses to produce.actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines.
Evolution has led to many discoveries and new knowledge, has led to new paths of research, and it makes testable predictions as to what will be discovered in the future. These are some of the attributes of a valid scientific theory. ID, on the other hand, has led to no discoveries or added to our knowledge, suggests no other paths of research, and it's proponents attempt to prove it, a sure sign of a pseudoscience, while science attempts to invalidate theories.actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines. scientists will still be able to produce medicines without evolution at all. they just need their...intelligent design.
Evolution has led to many discoveries and new knowledge,has led to new paths of research, and it makes testable predictions as to what will be discovered in the future.
ID is based on the belief that Genesis is historically and scientifically valid,
It is totally based on religious beliefs, which are not shared by all.
Someone please explain to me, if evolution is invalid, and therefore also scientifically useless, why would scientists continue to insist it is valid, and continue to use it for research? A conspiracy must have a goal. What is the goal of a conspiracy of evolutionary science?
The idea of common design, such as ID, is scientifically useless.
so you agree that those stalactites are young according to those calculations?
the Common ancestor is the creator....He used the same module to create them all...
he used the same formula and apparatus...you claim the earth is billion years old but you don't known where the materials came from..and you don't take into consideration how old the materials were before it was used
And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.
I think you are flat wrong friend and here's why. In cosmology and physics ID encourages scientists to investigate and discover more instances of fine-tuning of the laws of physics and properties of our universe that uniquely allow for the existence of advanced forms of life. In biochemistry ID explains and predicts the presence of high levels of complex and specified information in proteins and DNA. In Genetics ID predicts and explains function for so-called "junk" DNA while neo-Darwinism stifles such research. In paleontology ID's prediction of irreducibly complexity in biological systems explains paleontological patterns such as the abrupt appearance of biological life forms, punctuated change, and stasis throughout the history of life. In systematics ID explains why there are similarities between living species, including examples of extreme genetic "convergence" that severely conflict with conventional evolutionary phylogenies. ID encourages scientists to understand where intelligent causes are superior to natural causes in producing certain types of information in the field of information theory. In cellular biology ID explains why the cell resembles "designed structures" rather than accidental by-products of neo-Darwinian evolution, allowing scientists to better understand the workings of molecular machines. In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology. In the field of systems biology ID encourages biologists to look at various biological systems as integrated components of larger systems that are designed to work together in a top-down, coordinated fashion, which is what biologists are finding to be the cases. And in general biology ID predicts function for allegedly "vestigial" organs, structures, or systems whereas evolution has made many faulty predictions in this area.
In the field of bioinformatics ID explains the presence of new layers of information and functional language embedded in the genetic codes, as well as other codes within biology.
Because if that's the case then it's definitely working!
That never happened. From the time they were formally proposed, vestigial has never meant useless. It has always meant reduced or changed from earlier form or function.
actually evolution is scientifically useless, since we dont need to involve evolution to produce medicines. scientists will still be able to produce medicines without evolution at all. they just need their...intelligent design.
actually only id can explain the existance of motors like the atp synthase or flagellum or any other complex system we found in nature. evolution cant:
(image from Molecular motors: What makes ATP synthase spin?)
see those cases:
Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change
Biologist: I Lost My Job Because I Don't Believe in Evolution
University sued after firing creationist fossil hunter
i dont think that it's a conspiracy, but im sure that something wrong is going here.
That never happened. From the time they were formally proposed, vestigial has never meant useless.
are you sure? so what this suppose to be?:
Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones
"Due to their highly reduced state, cetacean pelvic bones are sometimes thought of as “useless vestiges” of their land-dwelling ancestry (Curtis and Barnes 1989)."
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?