|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nuggin, ID is not a religious theory, simply that Toe's missing links is the scientific evidence that validates ID. The scientists that have or are turning to ID realize the missing transitional fossils only supports the ID premise.
If missing transitionals were not missing, then Toe would be validated. ID being not a religious theory but based on sound scientific evidence has no reason to go to the age of the fossil because the missing links would still be missing. The fossil record simply does not lie. To an ID scientist the only missing link not missing is Intelligent Design. ID does not care if the earth is old (or not) or the fossils young (or not). These are scientists who simply care about what is and not what (is not). There is no reason for scientists to go and argue on behalf of the evolutionists because even if the fossils are young (or not) the missing links are still missing. ID has no reason to argue on behalf of the creationists earth old (or not)because they have a theory based on the missing scientific evidences that "only" supports ID. To an ID'er the missing links have been proven missing due to the diligent efforts of reputable scientists not reputable theologians. Its by scientists like the Paleontologists, Geologists through whose combined efforts have given us the massive fossil record is that which validates ID. A massive fossil record would require a massive transitional evidence to invalidate the ID movement. This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-04-2005 10:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Thank-you, Scientists realize the creations that go down the tube (extinctions) are the opposite of missing links. Scientists express irreducible genetic complexities simply doesn't bridge claudistics.
With creations going down the tube (extinctions) and no evidence of new species spontaneously being generated in the natural. Scientists are in agreement with Natural selection (including mutations) are happening in the natural supporting (Grand Plan), (Competence). Scientific claudistics without the necessary linking evidence in the fossil record "only" shows a (fully formed) emergence (origin). It will take massive transitional evidence that simply is not evident in the fossil record. The scientific evidence for ID is simply in agreement with the Paleontologist massive fossil evidences. There is no reason for the scientist to go to the age of the fossil. Transitionals would of supported Toe, instead the lack thereof "only" supports ID. Scientists have been hoaxed with frauds of a few fossils, it will take massive transitional fossils to derail ID. Scientists care about what is (not what is not) Its this scientific evidence thats turning Evolutionists into ID'ers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nighttrain, I'd agree with Ned & Randman that the evidence is more than just the sudden emergence of the fossil evidences. Scientists are simply flipping a 180 based on the totality of the scientific evidences (this includes the fossil record).
Professor Antony Flew turned a 180 based on the evidence (scientific complexities issues). Flew has not yet given a name to this Intelligence but based only on the evidence, he has recanted. Professor Flew told the Associated Press if his admirers are upset with his about-face, then thats too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato;s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads. http://www.ca/...-to-creation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
nwr, Flew believes the scientific complexities (evidences) is the work of Intelligence. Origin of the Species is the issue, Professor Antony Flew is now supportive of ID not TOE.
Mr. Flew's change was consistent with his career-long principle of following the evidence where it led him. And his newfound theism is the product neither of a Damascus road experience nor of fresh philosophical arguments, but by his sustained analysis of scientific data. Flew said :"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together." "The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence." http://www.bible.ca/...eation-antony-flew-former-atheist.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Asgara, Nuggins in the opening statement begged the question. What is ID theory? Nuggins wanted to know what supporters of ID believed. What mechanics should be taught in public schools if ID was the only theory.
Flew being a supporter of ID answered Nuggins question what is ID. I thought this qualified it to be on topic. Its not about the evidence of theology (religion) but the enormity of the scientific evidences supporting the mechanics of ID that should be taught in the public schools. Theological evidence is not scientific evidence and because of separation issues left to the church. nuff said...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
ID movement is about a scientific loophole not a theological loophole. Perhaps the problem is scientists are not willfully ignorant of the sciences and the evolutionist is. This means the evolutionist too understand the sciences. Knowing this fear ID because its based on the scientific evidence and not theology.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-09-2005 12:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nuggin, I'm evolving more into a YEC and believing the evidence more supports YECisms than ID. I agree ID has been proven by the lack of transitionals, but so is YECisms. I'd rather see YEC taught alongside of ID. Evolution if taught should have a disclaimer that its just a theory.
So, perhaps you'd like to step up to bat and give it a shot I'll Pass for the Now. Maybe later. Like how ID evolved from the TOE. This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 02:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Nuggin,
The fact that you are giving up on ID when confronted with a question about how it works and turning to YEC simply reveals that you have been a YEC all along, wanting to cram your personal religious beliefs down the throats of people who are more educated than yourself. The speed of light has been broken, are we seeing the entire visible universe in near present time. Energy = the speed of light squared. The scientific evidence is causing scientist to re-evaluate cherished beliefs. TOE has too many problems that are answered by ID, but the breaking of lights speed supports the YECists. ------------------------------------------------- Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered. This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US. The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light. Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl. It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time. Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/841690.stm This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 01:25 PM This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-22-2005 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Theodoric, TOE says the universe is old cause of their beliefs that lights speed could not be violated.
IDists are staying out of the TOE / YEC debate of the age of the universe, age of the earth. Its only the YECist that have been saying all along that the universe's light is young. P.S. I'm getting dragged quite literally from my computer. Have a Merry Christmas
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024