I see you ignore my request when it pleases you.The scientific method isn't being applied to the HOW, the process, which created pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. Darwinism's claims of the process, the HOW, doesn't result in a verifiable scientific conclusion.
According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.Humans and chimpanzees are in the same family, Hominoidea. Thank you for providing supporting evidence that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor and that humans evolved from that ancestor.
According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Evolution's y-Adam might come from the jungle, but we know better.
You can ask all you want.Again, this thread is asking for evidence, not claims.
You can ask all you want.
You don't have the physical evidence, thus evolution.
Let's let our Bible break the tie, shall we?
OK. They used their, obviously limited, experience with the natural world, to draw the conclusion that "high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design". That is actually a statement of the conclusion regarding intelligent design.
Then you concur that the existence of CSI could support both Creationism and Evolution.
Therefore your evidence is not really positive evidence for Creationism.
I see you ignore my request when it pleases you.
Luke also says that Jesus had a different human paternal grandfather than Matthew says. So I don't put much stock in the accuracy of Luke's opinion regarding the earlier parts of Jesus's family tree.According to Luke, we have a common designer, not a common ancestor.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Evolution's y-Adam might come from the jungle, but we know better.
I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI. I disagree with their implication that only intelligence creates CSI. That is not an observation.Do you disagree with it?
Then your claim regarding CSI cannot be conclusive.We ain't talking about any of the forms of evolution.
I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI. I disagree with their implication that only intelligence creates CSI. That is not an observation.
Then your claim regarding CSI cannot be conclusive.
That's true, I did request that not discuss evidence in support of or attacking evolution. However, individual exceptions can be mutually agreed to. In this case, in order to fully support the claim that the existence of CSI is evidence for Creationism, we must show that CSI cannot be produced through the natural mechanisms of evolution. Since I already conclude that CSI can evolve naturally, I leave it to you to show me how my conclusion is incorrect.If you wish to discuss the HOW, the process, claimed by Darwinistic evolution and apply it to the scientific method, I'd be glad to do that. You requested that not be included in the discussion in this form though.
Let's table that one for after you finish teaching me how the article you referenced follows the scientific method.What is ill defined about it?
That's true, I did request that not discuss evidence in support of or attacking evolution. However, individual exceptions can be mutually agreed to. In this case, in order to fully support the claim that the existence of CSI is evidence for Creationism, we must show that CSI cannot be produced through the natural mechanisms of evolution. Since I already conclude that CSI can evolve naturally, I leave it to you to show me how my conclusion is incorrect.
Let's table that one for after you finish teaching me how the article you referenced follows the scientific method.
So settle the issues with step 1.That's part of step one....taking it one step at time. After we settle the issues with step 1, we can go to step two...then to step 3....etc.
So settle the issues with step 1.
I agree that they observed intelligence creates their ill-defined parameter, CSI.
If you limit the observation to "they observed that intelligence creates CSI" then I have no issue with it. I don't believe that "only intelligence creates high levels of CSI". They have not done nor referenced any experiments or theories that draw that conclusion, so they could not have observed it.I don't have an issue with it, you do.......
It is a parameter that has appears in objects in varying amounts. This is shown in the article by references to "high levels" of CSI. The method of determining what level of CSI an object has is not mentioned nor are the units of measure given. The way of recognizing that CSI exists in an object is also very vague.What's ill defined about it?
If you limit the observation to "they observed that intelligence creates CSI" then I have no issue with it. I don't believe that "only intelligence creates high levels of CSI". They have not done nor referenced any experiments or theories that draw that conclusion, so they could not have observed it.
It is a parameter that has appears in objects in varying amounts. This is shown in the article by references to "high levels" of CSI. The method of determining what level of CSI an object has is not mentioned nor are the units of measure given. The way of recognizing that CSI exists in an object is also very vague.
Hence, the parameter is ill-defined.
No. The observation stands as is: "intelligence creates CSI". It cannot be expanded to "intelligence alone creates CSI". That would require developing a hypothesis and experimenting to confirm or falsify that hypothesis. While I agree I am now talking about steps in the process beyond Step 1, I am not going to accept a conclusion or hypothesis as an observation.You're right, they did not reference any experiments, it's simply a statement which would need to be falsified in order to be dismissed. We still would agree on the statement that "intelligence creates CSI", but any contrary view that other impetuses create CSI would need to be observed and presented also in order to dismiss the exclusivity of intelligence alone creating CSI.
Define the statistics that equate with "unlikely to happen".The qualifier of "a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified)" would indicate "high levels" of CSI, and both have been observed. I see specificity instead of vagueness in that portion of step 1.
By saying that, you reveal how little you know about the material you are criticising. The geneologies are different because they are meant to be. Matthew traces Jesus's lineage back through his legal father, all the way back to King Soloman, David's son, while Luke traces Jesus's lineage back through Mary, his actual mother, all the way back to David's other son Nathan. Furthermore, Luke does not say he is giving Jesus's genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was "as was supposed" the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel, which has been called "the Gospel for women."Luke also says that Jesus had a different human paternal grandfather than Matthew says. So I don't put much stock in the accuracy of Luke's opinion regarding the earlier parts of Jesus's family tree.
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?