Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

how it has any connection to ic systems? lets go with you criteria. say that we have a s elf replicating car. do you think that such a car can evolve a gps step by step?

No, things not subject to biological evolution, don't evolve.

 

[DogmaHunter]

sure. lets take a compass for instance:

(image from wiki)


a compass is very similar to a watch and share several parts with it. very similar to the case of the ttss and the flagellum. but if we want to change this compass (even by a designer that can change anything he want- like mutations) into a watch we will be unable to do that, since you will need at least several new changes at once to do that. by the way: as a general note english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general.

compasses and watches aren't living biological entities and thus don't evolve.

 

[xianghua]

No; neither gps nor car parts are living, and cannot evolve.

it doesnt have any connection to the question if they are living or not. i asking if a designer can do that. you can think even about a living car if you want (with a s elf replicating system).

 

[xianghua]

But you need fewer changes to take a finger from a compass and to move it to a watch, than you do going from nothing straight to a watch.

true. since we already have some shared parts to begin with.

But the reality is that, if you reduce say...the fingers of a watch, those fingers can still have a beneficial function for a system (they can serve as fingers in a compass

but in this case you just moved the problem to another complex sysyem- a compass. also as far as i aware even according to behe its possible that some parts of the ic system can function in other systems. but its still doesnt mean that the system can evolve stepwise. i gave you the watch-compass example. can you change a compass into a watch stepwise? if you cant then it will be impossible to ttss to evolve into a flagellum.

And thats all im going to say on this topic, at least in regards to conversation with you (i will go ahead and put you back on the ignore list)

so you basically admit that you cant falsify this argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

it doesnt have any connection to the question if they are living or not.

Indeed. And that's exactly the problem of your question. Evolution deals with living biological entities, not with non-living manufactured mechanical devices.

i asking if a designer can do that. you can think even about a living car if you want (with a s elf replicating system).

I can also think about extra dimensional pink unicorns and imagine a powerfull alien race from another universe capable of designing said pink unicorns.

But it won't have anything to do with reality either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you basically admit that you cant falsify this argument?

In reality, you don't have an argument to falsify.
You only have fantasies and hypothetical "analogies" to imaginary objects.

 

[xianghua]

No, things not subject to biological evolution, don't evolve.

but in this case they are since they can reproduce.

 

[Aman777]

t's not personal opinion, it's supportable, evidence based fact.

Good. That means that you can explain the magic necessary to place God's superior intelligence into beings which descended from Apes. You CANNOT since the only way to change one's intelligence is to INHERIT it from another Human. I challenge you to identify another way for mindless Nature to give Humans the superior intelligence we obviously have. Let's see the evidence.

I predict that you will wave your arms, tell me that I don't know anything, BUT you will not and cannot identify the process of obtaining Human intelligence APART from the sexual process. So go ahead and try. I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breath. That is NOT goading but instead, is demonstrating your willful ignorance of how and when we changed into modern Humans. Failure to reply will be evidence enough.

 

[MaudDib]

And where exactly is that happening? Certainly not in the scientific community.

Well there is certainly nothing you said thats worth replying to, except the ignorance you displayed of NeoDarwinism dying a slow death at last.
This shows you are not up to date on scientific literature, did you not see who won the Nobel prize for chemistry and why they won it?

Yeah ok ill help update you:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

excerpt:

'
My Discovery Institute colleagues and I have observed that the recent Nobel Prize in chemistry, awarded to Drs. Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter for the ingenious engineering of biomolecules, rewards research that is crucially dependent on the inference to design in biochemistry and to intelligent design as a method of science. The Nobel laureates (implicitly or explicitly) inferred design in cellular structure and function and used random genetic variation of molecules to design highly effective biomolecules. It’s beautiful bioengineering — using random variation in biomolecules to design better molecules. It’s beautiful work in intelligent design science.

Predictably, Darwinists are aghast. Professor Jerry Coyne is exasperated: “I have no words,” he says.'


Loved that.

An apriori stance of methodological naturalism is biased to a particular world view and, as such, is non scientific. For too long now, this dogmatic agenda has roadblocked advances in science.

Science needs to be allowed to take its course. Especially when it comes to ID.

When archaeologists discovered the Rosetta Stone, they didn't marvel at how the wind and erosion managed to leave complex information behind on the stone, they inferred an intelligence behind it. Anywhere you see information, you infer intelligence. not chance. Why is this difficult to comprehend? Nowhere do you see information being generated by a blind, mindless and unguided process, especially complex information.

it is difficult to comprehend only for people who are pursuing something other than science: their own agendas. The reason i know that, well they don't give ID the time of day.
if you for some reason thought that religion was antithetical to science, then all you need do is reflect on the Giants of science, they were all religious (Boyle, Newton, Kepler, Galilei, Pascal etc...). And look at all the Nobel prize winners over the last 100 years, including this year, most of them believe in the God of the Old Testament. So there is nothing to worry about, science is in good hands

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good. That means that you can explain the magic necessary to place God's superior intelligence into beings which descended from Apes. You CANNOT since the only way to change one's intelligence is to INHERIT it from another Human. I challenge you to identify another way for mindless Nature to give Humans the superior intelligence we obviously have. Let's see the evidence.

I predict that you will wave your arms, tell me that I don't know anything, BUT you will not and cannot identify the process of obtaining Human intelligence APART from the sexual process. So go ahead and try. I'm waiting, but I won't hold my breath. That is NOT goading but instead, is demonstrating your willful ignorance of how and when we changed into modern Humans. Failure to reply will be evidence enough.

Nice try moving the goal posts, so let's put them back where they came from:

Your claim: "Their kind" and "His kind" are eternal and mortal.
My claim: "Their" and "His" are not in the original Hebrew so you're making things up.

I have demonstrated my claim, with evidence. Others have backed me up. You have been refuted. You have lied amd twisted and done everything possible to deny this fact. 2 things you have never done:
1. Support your claim with anything other than personal opinion.
2. Admit you're wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but in this case they are since they can reproduce.

No, they can't.

I don't know in what kind of universe you live, but over here in this one, cars don't reproduce.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well there is certainly nothing you said thats worth replying to, except the ignorance you displayed of NeoDarwinism dying a slow death at last.
This shows you are not up to date on scientific literature, did you not see who won the Nobel prize for chemistry and why they won it?

Yeah ok ill help update you:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

excerpt:

'
My Discovery Institute colleagues and I have observed that the recent Nobel Prize in chemistry, awarded to Drs. Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter for the ingenious engineering of biomolecules, rewards research that is crucially dependent on the inference to design in biochemistry and to intelligent design as a method of science. The Nobel laureates (implicitly or explicitly) inferred design in cellular structure and function and used random genetic variation of molecules to design highly effective biomolecules. It’s beautiful bioengineering — using random variation in biomolecules to design better molecules. It’s beautiful work in intelligent design science.

Predictably, Darwinists are aghast. Professor Jerry Coyne is exasperated: “I have no words,” he says.'


Loved that.

An apriori stance of methodological naturalism is biased to a particular world view and, as such, is non scientific. For too long now, this dogmatic agenda has roadblocked advances in science.

Science needs to be allowed to take its course. Especially when it comes to ID.

When archaeologists discovered the Rosetta Stone, they didn't marvel at how the wind and erosion managed to leave complex information behind on the stone, they inferred an intelligence behind it. Anywhere you see information, you infer intelligence. not chance. Why is this difficult to comprehend? Nowhere do you see information being generated by a blind, mindless and unguided process, especially complex information.

it is difficult to comprehend only for people who are pursuing something other than science: their own agendas. The reason i know that, well they don't give ID the time of day.
if you for some reason thought that religion was antithetical to science, then all you need do is reflect on the Giants of science, they were all religious (Boyle, Newton, Kepler, Galilei, Pascal etc...). And look at all the Nobel prize winners over the last 100 years, including this year, most of them believe in the God of the Old Testament. So there is nothing to worry about, science is in good hands

Dude...; the discovery institute, evolutionnews, etc.... those aren't proper sources. That's not representative of the scientific community. They have nothing to do with science and everything with religious extremism.

I'm afraid you're just another victim of propaganda.

 

[Jimmy D]

Well there is certainly nothing you said thats worth replying to, except the ignorance you displayed of NeoDarwinism dying a slow death at last.
This shows you are not up to date on scientific literature, did you not see who won the Nobel prize for chemistry and why they won it?

Yeah ok ill help update you:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/10/behes-irreducible-complexity-validated-by-chemistry-nobel/

Maybe you could explain how the research in question in anyway validates Behe's ideas? Because I'm not seeing anything that is contributing to the "slow death of neo-darwinism" or in any way backs up ID.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with what they actually did to win the prize and get back to us, rather than pasting propaganda from some ID site.

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018

Predictably, Darwinists are aghast. Professor Jerry Coyne is exasperated: “I have no words,” he says.'


Loved that.

Is that all he had to say, did he really have no words?

........................

"I have no words. I’ll just tell you what reader Denis wrote when he sent me this link from Evolution News (an Intelligent-Design site), written by the always amusing and deeply benighted Michael Egnor. Denis’s comment:

“Have you seen this preposterous piece of dishonesty posted on Evolution News?”

Yep, here it is, as preposterous and dishonest as touted. (Click on the screenshot.)



I presume that Egnor thinks that Frances Arnold is God. Either that, or he fails to understand that humans mimicking evolution in the lab isn’t the same thing as a designer being humanlike and creating plants and animals.

And the first ID prize?

Linus Pauling’s groundbreaking work on protein structure in the early 20th century (for which he won the Nobel Prize) depended critically on his correct inference that the structure of a protein must account for the purpose the protein serves in cellular metabolism.

That all turns on the ambiguous meaning of “purpose”, and this is a prime and a rare correct example of “begging the question”. For Egnor, “purpose” presupposes a God rather than being shorthand for “what the protein does as well as the nature of the reproductive advantage conferred by evolutionary changes in that protein.”

............................


Did intelligent design "win" "another" prize?

Did it heck as like. The work of Arnold et al has zero to do with the pseudoscience of ID.

What a dishonest bunch you are.

Coyne wasn't even commenting on the work the prize was awarded for, rather on Egnor's dishonest article claiming a "win" for ID.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

it doesnt have any connection to the question if they are living or not. i asking if a designer can do that.

No, that's not what you asked. This is your post:

ok but many biological systems suppose to evolve step by step. so i bring the gps analogy. do you think that a gps can evolve by mixing existing parts in a car?

... you can think even about a living car if you want (with a s elf replicating system).

There is no such thing.

If you want to use particular examples to question how certain features of living things could evolve, use real examples from living things.

By making up examples for things that are not living and can't evolve, you give the impression that you don't have any real examples that evolution can't explain - which would also suggest that you know quite well you're flogging a dead horse, and that you're doing so dishonestly. We wouldn't want people to think that, now, would we?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... i gave you the watch-compass example. can you change a compass into a watch stepwise?

It doesn't precisely answer your question, but you might find this video instructive:

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>BUT you will not and cannot identify the process of obtaining Human intelligence APART from the sexual process. So go ahead and try.

Nice try moving the goal posts, so let's put them back where they came from:

Thanks for admitting that you cannot identify ANY process which imparts increased intelligence to animals. Thanks for not calling me names.

Your claim: "Their kind" and "His kind" are eternal and mortal.
My claim: "Their" and "His" are not in the original Hebrew so you're making things up.

Is there a difference between Elohim and YHWH? The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL Truth, Jesus says. Looks like He hasn't allowed you to understand. Don't feel bad since it's the same way with all unbelievers. 1Co 2:14 What it shows is that you have no idea what Genesis is saying.

I have demonstrated my claim, with evidence. Others have backed me up. You have been refuted. You have lied amd twisted and done everything possible to deny this fact. 2 things you have never done:
1. Support your claim with anything other than personal opinion.
2. Admit you're wrong.

Your bluster is great and terribly misplaced. Where's the evidence I asked for and you dodged while falsely accusing me of moving the goal posts? In order to refute me, you MUST also refute (prove wrong) God the Holy Spirit. Careful though since you will be judged by His Holy Word. Jhn 12:48

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Aman:>>BUT you will not and cannot identify the process of obtaining Human intelligence APART from the sexual process. So go ahead and try.



Thanks for admitting that you cannot identify ANY process which imparts increased intelligence to animals. Thanks for not calling me names.



Is there a difference between Elohim and YHWH? The Holy Spirit leads us into ALL Truth, Jesus says. Looks like He hasn't allowed you to understand. Don't feel bad since it's the same way with all unbelievers. 1Co 2:14 What it shows is that you have no idea what Genesis is saying.



Your bluster is great and terribly misplaced. Where's the evidence I asked for and you dodged while falsely accusing me of moving the goal posts? In order to refute me, you MUST also refute (prove wrong) God the Holy Spirit. Careful though since you will be judged by His Holy Word. Jhn 12:48

This childish petulance is tiresome. I'm ready when you want to have an adult, honest conversation. In the meantime I'll just leave your dishonest, dissembling, unsupported posts for all to see.

Please don't post again until you're prepared to admit you've been refuted.

/conversation

 

[Subduction Zone]

how it has any connection to ic systems? lets go with you criteria. say that we have a s elf replicating car. do you think that such a car can evolve a gps step by step?

What "ic systems"? None have been shown to exist and all of the examples that I know of cited in the past turned out not to be irreducibly complex.

You went back to an old failed argument of yours. Why you did I have no clue.

 

[durangodawood]

Still with the living cars and watches.

Why is anyone still discussing that???

 

[Aman777]

This childish petulance is tiresome.

Famous last words but not the answer to how and when did mindless nature install the superior intelligence of creation, into the descendants of Apes? No one can point to the process by which nature does this, because nature does NOT have the superior intelligence of creation. Only God and Humans (descendants of Adam) do. Genesis 3:22 It's the Achilles Heel of godless evolution.