I don't think anyone here has a problem with intelligent design. But restricting ID to a specific form of evidence (say, irreducible complexity) is, I think, pretty dangerous.
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.
I don't think anyone here has a problem with intelligent design. But restricting ID to a specific form of evidence (say, irreducible complexity) is, I think, pretty dangerous.Anyone who argues against the existence of the Intelligent Designer is also arguing against the existence of God.
Yes, we discussed that elsewhere recently.
Have any of you discussed the Cambrian explosion of species and how that effects evolution theory?
No one in restricting ID to a specific form of evidence.restricting ID to a specific form of evidence (say, irreducible complexity) is, I think, pretty dangerous.
Depends on how you define evolution.Agonaces of Susa,
Do you think evolution and atheism are synonymous?
That won't cut it.He says that most mutations are deleterious, which is an outright lie. Most mutations are neutral.
That won't cut it.
According to evolution, if mutations do not confer advantage they are selected out. Only mutations with advantage survive.
Can you give a specific example please?Not true. If there is no effect there is nothing to select against. Neutral changes can pile up as long as they don't have a negative effect on the critter in question. And neutral changes can pile up and be turned into positive changes that are selected for or negative ones selected against after a while. Or they can even remain neutral.
Metherion
Can you give a specific example please?
So anyone who watches a weather report is accepting an atheist worldview? Think about it, the weather is quite random, our ability to predict it is limited and is often wrong. There is no detectable intelligent force that directly drives it. So isn't meteorology just part of the atheist agenda?If you define evolution as spontaneous and random undirected mutation then yes that is atheism.
So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?However, if you define evolution as directed by intelligent design then that is not atheism.
You missed what I was saying. He said that most mutations are deleterious, which is just plain wrong. No matter what your view on evolution and how it works, the fact of the matter is that most mutations are neutral. He was wrong, plain and simple. If you choose to subscribe to the thoughts a mathmetician who is ignorant on the subjects that he speaks out against, that is your choice. I'm just pointing out one particular place where he lied.That won't cut it.
According to evolution, if mutations do not confer advantage they are selected out. Only mutations with advantage survive.
This quote has nothing to do with an argument against the scientific theory of common decent. It's an argument against atheism. When you unbrainwash yourself from the propaganda of fundamentalist Christians and militant atheists (like Richard Dawkins) then you might start appreciating the incredible things that God does through His creation.Eye color is determined by multiple genes therefore not a random mutation.
Only an Intelligent Designer could have created them.
"If God had made colours, but had not made the faculty of seeing them, what would have been their use? None at all. On the other hand, if He had made the faculty of vision, but had not made the objects such as to fall under the faculty, what in that case also would have been the use of it? None at all. Well, suppose that He had made both, but had not made light? In that case, also, they would've been of no use. Who is it, then, who has fitted this to that and that to this? And who is it that has fitted the knife to the case and the case to the knife? Is it no one? And, indeed, from the very structure of things which have attained their completion, we are accustomed to show that the work is certainly the act of some artificer, and that it has not been constructed without purpose. Does then each of these things demonstrate the workman, and do not visible things and the faculty of seeing and light demonstrate Him? And the existence of male and female, and the desire of each for conjunction, and the power of using the parts which are constructed, do not even these declare the workman?" -- Epictetus, philosopher, Discourses, Book I, 1st century
Because philosophers tend to study the truth and scientists don't.Why do you quote so many philosophers to settle issues on science?
Why would you think that?So anyone who watches a weather report is accepting an atheist worldview?
No.Think about it, the weather is quite random, our ability to predict it is limited and is often wrong. There is no detectable intelligent force that directly drives it. So isn't meteorology just part of the atheist agenda?
Yes.So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?
Citation needed.He said that most mutations are deleterious, which is just plain wrong. No matter what your view on evolution and how it works, the fact of the matter is that most mutations are neutral. He was wrong, plain and simple. If you choose to subscribe to the thoughts a mathmetician who is ignorant on the subjects that he speaks out against, that is your choice. I'm just pointing out one particular place where he lied.
Eye color is determined by multiple genes therefore not a random mutation.
Only an Intelligent Designer could have created them.
"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" -- Genesis 1:26This quote has nothing to do with an argument against the scientific theory of common decent.
So is the myth of chance.It's an argument against atheism.
Natural selection can only happen after the DNA has already been intelligently designed.Your premises are flawed. Multiple controller genes does not mean that it could not have occurred via randomly selected mutations.
Also, most mutations that happen in junk noncoding DNA will be neutral, unless they activate/deactivate.
Or substitutions in codons that code for the same amino acid would most likely be neutral, unless different codons process into amino acids at different efficiencies.
An example would be GG*. GGT, GGC, GGA, and GGG all code for glycine. So if you start with GG(any letter) and get a substitution into GG(any other letter) there would be no effect.
Metherion
Natural selection can only happen after the DNA has already been intelligently designed.
Natural selection and random mutation do not explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms.
The curious case of dog evolution
I am almost convinced of old earth evolution, with God's hand guiding it every step of the way. Many disciplines point to this, and although it's a challenge to fit evolutionary theory with my theology I know of plenty of people who do this just fine.
In any case here's my topic. The difficulty in believing evolution for many people is that evolutionary change just happens so slowly. People are basically the same as they were thousands of years ago. And I think this goes for most living species. It's hard to see how both mouse and man could have the same common ancestor.
Watching a national geographic special on the breeding of dogs, I found this stat really fascinating. The vast majority of dog breeds have been developed over the last 120 years. While all dogs are of the same species, just think of the incredible diversity of dog breeds. From pugs, to mastiffs, to chihuahuas, to greyhounds and hundreds of other breeds have been developed over a really small period of time. Granted this is artificial selection instead of natural selection, but in terms of what is happening at the genetic level their is no difference.
Apparently, mutations due to tandom repeats allows for this amazing diversity which can take place in only a few generations of breeding (I only know what I've heard in this 1 hour TV program so don't ask me for more info). What's even cooler is that the huge amount of tandom repeats that allow for this speed of change are only found in canids (dogs, wolves, foxes, etc...) and are not found in other animals or even other mammels. That means even if someone spent the next 100 years selectively breeding cows, or sheep or cats, the degree of change would be very small relative to the changes we see between dog breeds.
To me this is utterly fascinating, and it would also be interesting to see if any young earth creationist might use this for a theory. I mean if you could theoretically go from weiner dog to mastiff in 100 years, imagine how much animals could evolve during a 10,000 year period. Could the unique genetic factor that allows dogs to evolve with amazing speed, have once been prevelent throughout the animal and plant kingdoms?
Maybe, someone else can expand on my underdeveloped thoughts.
I would rather have a conversation with you than with your misapplied quotes.Because philosophers tend to study the truth and scientists don't.
Do you have an example of a specific instance where a creationist paper was rejected from scientific publication? If so, what are the reasons?"It has been my sad observation that by mid-career there are very few professionals left truly working for the advancement of science, as opposed to the advancement of self. And given enough people with strong enough interests, professional peer pressure takes over from there. Peer pressure in science, as elsewhere in society, consists of alternately attacking and ignoring the people who advocate a contrary idea, and discrediting their motives and/or competence, in order to achieve conformity." -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
Your comments about evolution lead me to believe that you think if something runs on natural mechanisms that it means God has nothing to do with it. God made the laws of physics that govern the weather, even though it has purely naturalistic causes. God also made the laws that make evolution happen. It's not an atheist science.Why would you think that?
So does this mean that modern medicine is part of the atheist agenda? I guess this will be put to the test if you get seriously injured.Yes.So any field of science that doesn't claim there is an intelligent force behind it is atheist?
The 22 second mark to the 24 second mark. (give or take a second)Citation needed.
Is the dust of the ground in God's image?"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'" -- Genesis 1:26
Bacteria are not in God's image.
So is the myth of chance.
Oh really?DNA does not have to be intelligently designed. Neither does RNA.
Exactly. Only Intelligent Design can explain the origin of life.Natural selection and random mutation do not need to explain the origin of the first self-replicating organisms, they occur after life exists.
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?