proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Almost there]

What is your evidence to show ID is the best explanation? Do you have a falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, ID is the best explanation, so far.

So we keep hearing.

Funny then that those who parrot that line - on here, certainly - then have to rely on repetitious mantras, assertions, co-opting of evidence for evolution, bible verses, implicit threats of damnation, doctored quotes, plagiarism to apparently try to make others see them as smart, etc. - yet in all of that, never any actual evidence.

A lot of us just haven't met the designer yet.

A lot of us need to see proof of purchase, not mere platitudes an anecdotes.

So how about bagging the quips and certainty-laced assertions and lay it on us, bro?

 

[tas8831]

Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.

LOL!

I knew it...

 

[xianghua]

Right. Because we observe designers of cars, we don’t need to theorize in how they came to exist. Since we can’t say the same for flagella, evolution remains the best explanation for their existence. See how that works?

you dont answered my question. again: can you as a designer able to make a car stepwise? yes or no?

 

[tas8831]

Guilt by association. I'm not Ken Ham. I disagree with him.

The bible is true, but our interpretations need a lot of work.

Guilt by association, yet you then, in essence, agree with him.

The thing is - that presupposition (the bible is true) is far from being valid.

 

[bhsmte]

Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.

You didnt happen to read any of the transcripts from the dover trial did you? You know, the in which ID's star witness dr behe, had to admit if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. Behe didnt do well under cross examination when asked what evidence existed to include ID in science class. In fact, a conservative christian judge, scolded the ID folks, for pretending ID was science, when it was really, biblical creationism with lip stick on.

 

[bhsmte]

Look through a telescope. Look through a microscope. Look with the unaided eye. The evidence is all around you.

LOL

 

[DogmaHunter]

Prove it.

Don't ask me to do your homework. YOU're the one that's claiming things like complexity etc are indicators of artificial design, not me.

Meet your own burden of proof.

As for things like complexity having natural origins...
Would you say, for example, that a tornado is complex?

I sure would. It takes an insane amount of variables / parameters to describe the formation and development of a tornado.

So, do you think there is a "tornado factory" somewhere?
Or would you rather agree that tornado's form and develop quite naturally due to environmental circumstances?

 

[gaara4158]

you dont answered my question. again: can you as a designer able to make a car stepwise? yes or no?

Oh, I thought that was a rhetorical question. Personally no I can’t, I don’t know anything about automotive engineering. But your question is a complete non-sequitur for the reasons I stated in my response. Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a car can evolve stepwise too? prove it.

I never claimed it could, so I wouldn't know why you are asking me to prove such.

 

[pitabread]

Two sides in this case, for illustrative purposes. And my point is about both sides. One sees a certain attribute and sees proof of evolution. The other sees the exact same attribute and sees proof of a designer.

Except that in the latter case, often times evidence is irrelevant. The ICR and AiG have that built right into their statements of faith where they explicitly reject anything that doesn't agree with their beliefs. In those cases it's not about looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion. It's about forming a conclusion regardless of the evidence.

In broader ID circles, beliefs are a bit more varied. Including people who accepted evidence of shared ancestry of species, but still believe that a designer somewhere and somehow did some tinkering along the way. In those cases, they aren't really rejecting evidence of common descent, they just have additional overlay of other beliefs.

 

[Almost there]

So we keep hearing.

Funny then that those who parrot that line - on here, certainly - then have to rely on repetitious mantras, assertions, co-opting of evidence for evolution, bible verses, implicit threats of damnation, doctored quotes, plagiarism to apparently try to make others see them as smart, etc. - yet in all of that, never any actual evidence.


A lot of us need to see proof of purchase, not mere platitudes an anecdotes.

So how about bagging the quips and certainty-laced assertions and lay it on us, bro?

Hey, I get it. Thomas needed to put his hands on Jesus to believe He had been resurrected. And I need evidence myself, and got it. It's interesting that once one is willing to believe that it was all designed, a lot of things suddenly make a great deal of sense. And a lot of understanding of how it works comes from believing it is designed.

But opinions vary, for sure. We both have a lot of "powerful" authorities on our side. It's not an intelligence issue. It's a faith issue. On both sides.

 

[xianghua]

Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.

and again: it doesnt relevant to the question of ic systems. if you agree that there is a stepwise way to design a car then why do you think that such a way exist in biological systems? and again: this question doesnt have any connection to self replication, since we are talking about designer that can change anything he want, like mutations.

 

[Almost there]

You didnt happen to read any of the transcripts from the dover trial did you? You know, the in which ID's star witness dr behe, had to admit if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. Behe didnt do well under cross examination when asked what evidence existed to include ID in science class. In fact, a conservative christian judge, scolded the ID folks, for pretending ID was science, when it was really, biblical creationism with lip stick on.

I'm not Behe. ID is not about science and science is not about ID.

If you did not know who created that rusting chevy in a field, yet believed it was designed, how would you endeavor to prove it through science? Does that mean it wasn't designed?

Science is like bowling. It is something humans do for fun and profit, and because it's really interesting stuff. It is not at the same level as Christianity. It's a bit of an insult to Christianity to speak of both within the same breath.

But don't get me wrong, I enjoy science. I was a member of the high school "science" club back in the very early 70's and the Boeing astronomy club back in the early 80's. I had a natural aptitude for chemistry in college to the point that I was the unofficial classroom helper. i.e. a lot of my peer students came to me for help. But I know what science is and what it isn't. At the end of the day, the day to day practice of REAL science is actually kind of boring, though the occasional moment of discovery can be downright orgazmic.

 

[Almost there]

Don't ask me to do your homework. YOU're the one that's claiming things like complexity etc are indicators of artificial design, not me.

Meet your own burden of proof.

They have eyes but do not see...

 

[Almost there]

Except that in the latter case, often times evidence is irrelevant. The ICR and AiG have that built right into their statements of faith where they explicitly reject anything that doesn't agree with their beliefs. In those cases it's not about looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion. It's about forming a conclusion regardless of the evidence.

In broader ID circles, beliefs are a bit more varied. Including people who accepted evidence of shared ancestry of species, but still believe that a designer somewhere and somehow did some tinkering along the way. In those cases, they aren't really rejecting evidence of common descent, they just have additional overlay of other beliefs.

There is a lot there I agree with.

However, I've put it this way for well over two decades:

"Both sides are religious, but only one admits it."

And all that that implies.

 

[Almost there]

In broader ID circles, beliefs are a bit more varied. Including people who accepted evidence of shared ancestry of species, but still believe that a designer somewhere and somehow did some tinkering along the way. In those cases, they aren't really rejecting evidence of common descent, they just have additional overlay of other beliefs.

This speaks to my Chrysler analogy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

since you dont even try to explain why im wrong here- im quite sure you are the one who have no clue about this topic.

Do your own homework.

You're the one that's just asserting that it violates hierarchies. And to "prove it", you're linking to papers that say the exact opposite.

What do you want me to tell you?

 

[pitabread]

However, I've put it this way for well over two decades:

"Both sides are religious, but only one admits it."

And all that that implies.

That's a cute bumper sticker slogan, but not truly reflective of 'both sides' currently.

I will admit there is a certain passion involved in defending science and science education. But when you start to unpack the true scope of the side of science (particularly relation to industry), the implication that it's all some sort of fervent ideological agenda starts to fall apart.

In a nutshell, what this really boils down to is pseudoscience vs real science.

 

[Almost there]

Again: cars and flagella come to exist by completely different processes.

I find that biological machines and man made machines tend to function differently. Biological machines fly by moving their wings. Man made machines fly with fixed wings and use propellers, jets or rockets to propel themselves.

Though at first man attempted to mimic the natural world.
Same with submarines vs fish.