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.
Because Intelligent Design is an unfalsifiable proposition. Any evidence is consistent with it. but it is not a scientific alternative to evolution.Like I told Pita that exact same evidence equally supports intelligent design.
And that very same evidence equally points to intelligent design as well my friend.
Why should it be daunting? Maybe to an atheist, I suppose, but I fully embrace the idea of a creator God--and I think ID is a crock. Why do you suppose it is that the Roman Catholics and other Traditional Christian bodies have rejected ID, regardless of their stance on the theory of evolution?The implications of intelligent agency in physics and biology are extremely daunting to someone who wrote it off as 'theological error' for so long- not something I was rushing to embrace at all
The majority of papers I've seen rather suggest that the Cambrian explosion was just one of a number of rapid diversification and radiation periods around that time - and provide evolutionary explanations in terms of the phenotypic developments and the environmental circumstances - check out Google Scholar for lots of interesting material.
Not really; you can claim intelligent design for any evidence at all, but it gives you no way to test it, e.g. to predict what you should expect to see if it was the case.And that very same evidence equally points to intelligent design as well my friend.
Why should it be daunting? Maybe to an atheist, I suppose, but I fully embrace the idea of a creator God--and I think ID is a crock. Why do you suppose it is that the Roman Catholics and other Traditional Christian bodies have rejected ID, regardless of their stance on the theory of evolution?
That's true, it was certainly not the only 'explosion' of new biological forms- and this pattern has become ever more crystalized as the fossil record is filled in
generally new forms appear fairly abruptly in the record, remain in virtual stasis, sometimes for 100s of millions of years, and then either disappear or are still here. It is very difficult to find good evidence for incremental improvement, which is problematic for Darwinian mechanisms
Peer pressure from whom? Theologians who solved the problem of divine agency and natural causes centuries since? Since Aristotle, really. Christianity doesn't need ID and most Christians don't want it. Go ahead and demonstrate it if you can, but so far we have heard nothing from you about ID itself, only incredulity about the efficacy of evolution as a natural phenomenon.Why did the Catholic church reject heliocentrism? Any institutionalized consensus is prone to peer pressure review & the vagaries of academic fashion
Like I told Pita that exact same evidence equally supports intelligent design.
I guess you must have my responses on "ignore".
But I have another response for this too.
Not really. What you describe is punctuated equilibrium, but that simply means that significant changes occur over relatively short timescales (typically in response to environmental or ecosystem changes). That doesn't mean the changes aren't incremental - where a detailed fossil record is available these incremental changes can be seen, but since the relevant periods are relatively short, the fossil record around these periods is likely to be correspondingly sparse. OTOH incremental changes can more easily be seen in the fossil record over longer timescales.... generally new forms appear fairly abruptly in the record, remain in virtual stasis, sometimes for 100s of millions of years, and then either disappear or are still here. It is very difficult to find good evidence for incremental improvement, which is problematic for Darwinian mechanisms
Perhaps the designer is getting better with practiceIt is telling that you think evolution is equivalent to improvement!
but so far we have heard nothing from you about ID itself
Given his talking points all seem to be coming from Meyer, and Meyer doesn't spend much time talking about ID either, I don't think we'll hear anything in that regard.
No, it really doesn't. ID proponents haven't even figured out how to detect design, much less form any sort of cohesive ID model for species.
Without identifying a mechanism of ID (something ID proponents have never done), I don't think they'll even be able to do the above.
Lol that’s funny, so what your saying is intelligent design advocates haven’t figured out how to spot intelligent design despite their obvious observations of intelligent design? I’m trying to understand how that works.
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?