What is ID?

[Colter]

195:7.2 "Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The “scientific method” is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences." UB 1955

To approach life either strictly scientifically or religiously is limiting, it's a distortion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And? did anyone even hint biology should be replaced?

Yes. You:

One sided again. Those all cover the meaning of life from their own perspective, you don't want that yet you want to present something that many feel is unproven, that takes the place of that list, but says it's done with no meaning to life.

Weren't talking about evolution theory there?

If not, then I wonder what you were talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But, since that doesn't always work out, evolution attempts to make the truth of the bible null

That is simply dishonest and ignorant.

Evolution theory doesn't remotely mention anything biblical.
Evolution theory attempts to explain the facts of reality. And it does so extremely succesfully.

The facts of biology might disagree with your religious beliefs, just like many facts in physics, archeology, geology, germ theory of desease, plate tectonics and many other fields/theories of science, might disagree with your or other people's religious beliefs...

But you know what? That's not a problem for science. That's a problem for just your religious beliefs.

Science develops models that reflect the facts of reality.
If your religious beliefs don't reflect the facts of reality, then it isn't reality that is wrong.

 

[Colter]

Funny, I was reading this today from the book Alcoholics Anonymous, chapter "We Agnostics" 1934:

"Everybody nowadays, believes in scores of assumptions for which there is good evidence, but no perfect visual proof. And does not science demonstrate that visual proof is the weakest proof? It is being constantly revealed, as mankind studies the material world, that outward appearances are not inward reality at all. To illustrate: The prosaic steel girder is a mass of electrons whirl-ing around each other at incredible speed. These tiny bodies are governed by precise laws, and these laws hold true throughout the material world, Science tells us so. We have no reason to doubt it. When, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath the material world and life as we see it, there is an All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and we laboriously set out to convince ourselves it isn't so. We read wordy books and indulge in windy arguments, thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it. Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.

Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation, we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all. Rather vain of us, wasn't it?

We, who have traveled this dubious path, beg you to lay aside prejudice, even against organized religion. We have learned that whatever the human frailties of various faiths may be, those faiths have given purpose and direction to millions. People of faith have a logical idea of what life is all about. Actually, we used to have no reasonable conception whatever. We used to amuse ourselves by cynically dissecting spiritual beliefs and practices when we might have observed that many spiritually-minded persons of all races, colors, and creeds were demonstrating a degree of stability, happiness and usefulness which we should have sought ourselves."

 

[xianghua]

OK, so the modern horse and zebras probably evolved from Hyracatherium, and lions and tigers may have evolved from Proailurus. That's quite a lot of evolution there.

And all those fossils I showed of the horse series would then really be transitionals. That seems to indicate we agree that transitionals exist.

Why is it a big jump to go from all cats evolving from Proailurus, to saying Proailurus and Hyracotherium evolved from a common ancestor? That does not seem like such a big jump compared to the evolution that you accept.

its a big different because they are different creatures: a cat vs a horse. so we actually talking about variations in the horse family vs variations in the cat one.

No, I will not.

thanks. so the main point here is if we can prove that the designer exist. if he exists then there is no problem to accept also a creation de novo.

Actually there is one big difference. Theistic evolution is much closer to the evidence. There is no evidence that animals have been suddenly popping into existence for millions of years.

again: if we can prove that god exist then we have no problem with a de novo creation. but wait: as far as i aware about you arent blieve in a theistic evolution but in a natural one. true? if so what do you think about a natural evolution vs a speciel creation?

 

[Jimmy D]

thanks. so the main point here is if we can prove that the designer exist. if he exists then there is no problem to accept also a creation de novo.

Of course there is a problem, you have exactly zero evidence for "De novo creation", whereas there is abundant evident across many fields for evolution. If anything if you proved a "designer" existed we have to accept some form of theistic evolution.

again: if we can prove that god exist then we have no problem with a de novo creation. but wait: as far as i aware about you arent blieve in a theistic evolution but in a natural one. true? if so what do you think about a natural evolution vs a speciel creation?

What exactly is de novo creation anyway?

 

[Speedwell]

again: if we can prove that god exist then we have no problem with a de novo creation. but wait: as far as i aware about you arent blieve in a theistic evolution but in a natural one. true? if so what do you think about a natural evolution vs a speciel creation?

Yes, we know. Like other ID proponents, you don't really believe in it, you're just using it as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.

 

[Colter]

EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES OF LIFE



65:6.1 "It is impossible accurately to determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement of either inevitably involves change in the other. The same sort of a paradox confronts mortal man when he undertakes the chemical analysis of protoplasm. The chemist can elucidate the chemistry of dead protoplasm, but he cannot discern either the physical organization or the dynamic performance of living protoplasm. Ever will the scientist come nearer and nearer the secrets of life, but never will he find them and for no other reason than that he must kill protoplasm in order to analyze it. Dead protoplasm weighs the same as living protoplasm, but it is not the same.

65:6.2 There is original endowment of adaptation in living things and beings. In every living plant or animal cell, in every living organism—material or spiritual—there is an insatiable craving for the attainment of ever-increasing perfection of environmental adjustment, organismal adaptation, and augmented life realization. These interminable efforts of all living things evidence the existence within them of an innate striving for perfection." UB 1955

 

[doubtingmerle]

its a big different because they are different creatures: a cat vs a horse. so we actually talking about variations in the horse family vs variations in the cat one.

Ah, but what you forget is that the Hyracotherium is not a modern horse. It is an ancestor to the modern horse, and as such was very different from a modern horse. At 20 pounds it was the size of a small dog and had features that were no all that far from the cat ancestor. Here is a fossil.

And below is a fossil of a Proailurus, an ancestor of cats.

If you can accept that a Hyracotherium likely evolved into a zebra, then I don't see why you say the two fossils above could not have evolved from a common ancestor. So far we have only your word saying it is impossible.

thanks. so the main point here is if we can prove that the designer exist. if he exists then there is no problem to accept also a creation de novo.

Yes, as others have explained, there is a problem--the evidence. We have strong evidence for evolution. So far you have given zero evidence for your view that animals pop into existence out of nothing.

Zero.

And please don't give claimed evidence for design and claim that is evidence that the designer had to use popping into existence as his method. A designer could have used other methods, such as evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, as others have explained, there is a problem--the evidence. We have strong evidence for evolution. So far you have given zero evidence for your view that animals pop into existence out of nothing.

Zero.

Not only this, but the entire Intelligent Design/creationist argument revolves around "disproving" evolution and then claiming design as a default. I don't think I've ever seen a single positive argument for design. It's always just a negative argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not only this, but the entire Intelligent Design/creationist argument revolves around "disproving" evolution and then claiming design as a default. I don't think I've ever seen a single positive argument for design. It's always just a negative argument.

Intelligent Design is Satan's cheap imitation for Creationism.

 

[Colter]

195:8.9 But secularism is not the sole parent of all these recent gains in the enlargement of living. Behind the gains of the twentieth century are not only science and secularism but also the unrecognized and unacknowledged spiritual workings of the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

195:8.10 "Without God, without religion, scientific secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms. This secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. The chief cohesive force resisting this disintegration of antagonism is nationalism. And nationalism is the chief barrier to world peace.

195:8.11 The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. You simply cannot establish the brotherhood of men while ignoring or denying the fatherhood of God.

195:8.12 Secular social and political optimism is an illusion. Without God, neither freedom and liberty, nor property and wealth will lead to peace.


195:8.13 The complete secularization of science, education, industry, and society can lead only to disaster. During the first third of the twentieth century Urantians killed more human beings than were killed during the whole of the Christian dispensation up to that time. And this is only the beginning of the dire harvest of materialism and secularism; still more terrible destruction is yet to come." UB 1955

 

[xianghua]

Ah, but what you forget is that the Hyracotherium is not a modern horse. It is an ancestor to the modern horse, and as such was very different from a modern horse. At 20 pounds it was the size of a small dog and had features that were no all that far from the cat ancestor. Here is a fossil.

its just the skeleton. but even from looking at their reconstructions we can see how much they are different:

Proailurus‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

very cat like look. against this one:

Hyracotherium‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

so yes, they are clearly different.

Yes, as others have explained, there is a problem--the evidence. We have strong evidence for evolution. So far you have given zero evidence for your view that animals pop into existence out of nothing.

again the same point? remmember that all i need is just to show evidence for design. then as you admit- we can accept easily a speciel creation or theistic evolution if you want. but not a natural one.

 

[doubtingmerle]

remmember that all i need is just to show evidence for design. then as you admit- we can accept easily a speciel creation or theistic evolution if you want. but not a natural one.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

And let me guess, you will write back and say I just said "Yes", right?

What the heck is going on here? I can't imagine that I could have been more emphatic over dozens of posts in two threads that you had no evidence for animals popping up out of nothing, that at most evidence for design would be evidence for theistic evolution, not evidence for things popping up out of nowhere. But that does not stop you from saying that I say the exact opposite of what I say.

How can you possibly have missed what I am saying?

Goodbye.

 

[Speedwell]

again the same point? remmember that all i need is just to show evidence for design.

So show us some. So far you have given us nothing, You have not even described the process by which "design" gets from the mind of the designer into the designed object. So, not only do you have no evidence, you cannot even tell us what the evidence would look like.

 

[pitabread]

remmember that all i need is just to show evidence for design.

Yeah, good luck with that. The ID community's been promising that for decades now... still waiting.

 

[Jimmy D]

remmember that all i need is just to show evidence for design. then as you admit- we can accept easily a speciel creation or theistic evolution if you want. but not a natural one.

Then show us, you've made about 600 posts now and still you haven't shown any evidence for design. If you do manage to present some evidence which can't be refuted, it wouldn't negate the basic facts of evolution that have been established and are well evidenced.

Hopefully your secret evidence isn't in the form of an analogy about products of human manufacture or an argument from increduility about how something might have evolved.

 

[Colter]

Cell repair is an example.


65:4.3 "Many features of human life afford abundant evidence that the phenomenon of mortal existence was intelligently planned, that organic evolution is not a mere cosmic accident. When a living cell is injured, it possesses the ability to elaborate certain chemical substances which are empowered so to stimulate and activate the neighboring normal cells that they immediately begin the secretion of certain substances which facilitate healing processes in the wound; and at the same time these normal and uninjured cells begin to proliferate—they actually start to work creating new cells to replace any fellow cells which may have been destroyed by the accident.

65:4.4 This chemical action and reaction concerned in wound healing and cell reproduction represents the choice of the Life Carriers of a formula embracing over one hundred thousand phases and features of possible chemical reactions and biologic repercussions. More than half a million specific experiments were made by the Life Carriers in their laboratories before they finally settled upon this formula for the Urantia life experiment.

65:4.5 When Urantia scientists know more of these healing chemicals, they will become more efficient in the treatment of injuries, and indirectly they will know more about controlling certain serious diseases." UB 1955

 

[xianghua]

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

And let me guess, you will write back and say I just said "Yes", right?

What the heck is going on here? I can't imagine that I could have been more emphatic over dozens of posts in two threads that you had no evidence for animals popping up out of nothing, that at most evidence for design would be evidence for theistic evolution, not evidence for things popping up out of nowhere. But that does not stop you from saying that I say the exact opposite of what I say.

How can you possibly have missed what I am saying?

Goodbye.

wait a minute. you already said that you will have no problem to accept creation de-novo if we have evidence that god exist. i asked you: "so lets say for the sake of the argument that god existence is a fact. in this case you will also say that its seems impossible (creation de-novo)?" and you answer was :""No, I will not"

so i confused now from your own words. if you agree that we have a good evidence for design- then we can also accept easily creation de-novo. and then we have no real need for evolution.

you also claiming that we have a good evidence for evolution. but so far you have failed to show any real evidence that doesnt base about belief. and its seems that you also believe in an atheistic evolution and not in a theistic one. so even if i will accept evolution we cant argue for an atheistic one. so what is your position actually?

 

[xianghua]

So show us some. So far you have given us nothing, You have not even described the process by which "design" gets from the mind of the designer into the designed object. So, not only do you have no evidence, you cannot even tell us what the evidence would look like.

here is one that we may discuss about already:

Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline

the flagellum is a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not a natural process. so we know that nature was designed and not evolved by a nantural process.