|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof of evolution!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There is a hole in your logic. It should read: "If any physical construct exists, and there is a God, and if God is all knowing and all powerful, then God can create that physical construct. Therefore, if all of these are presupposed to be true any physical construct can be designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Guido...Only because YOU started this topic in an attempt to prove intelligent design by way of an intelligent designer(whom we as humans only know or dont know subjectively, and we as Christians know objectively and personally) will I take the time to deal with you here.
Guido,Gods precocious child writes: And the challenge of being able to hang in there and defend your ideas is in no way a challenge to your belief and your relationship to Jesus, Guido. I personally know the designer and his name is Jesus Christ, the son of God, and God himself.God spoke, and Jesus created. Jesus always takes the time to listen to us...and He knows each of us and our own crazy quirks and quarks..(Sorry, Ned, I could'nt resist! )
nwr, the teacher writes: See, Guido...nwr is a good teacher not because he tells you what to believe but because he is teaching you how to discipline yourself to think!
The argument isn't over whether we are designed. The argument is over whether ID is science.However your argument, the argument for this thread, is over whether we are designed, and so far you haven't provided any persuasive evidence. Guido the inquisitive writes: Oh, Oh! Lemme go check this out: OK, well close this topic because I just got a nutso crazy wac idea that I am about to post in the proposed new topics. BTW...the reason that I am including your "idea" in this conversation is so that you stay focused here. I still want you to answer Jars question above, and also to understand why nwr is challenging you to examine your thinking process.
Guido, off on a wild tangent writes: The concept of the following statements together cannot possibly be possible because it has logical errors. Which "creator/designer" is the originator of this concept?
1. There are an infinite number of universe in which each and every possible possibility has occurred. sez you. Hypothetically, it is possible unless you include the universe that we are in as one of those universes. Since we are contained within your superset of { infinite number of universes} there is no "other".
2. We can reach those other universes. If "we" means those of us communicating in this thread, than I suppose that I don't quite agree since it is you that brought up the concept, and I am not sure if I can reach the many universes contained within your imagination.
If every possibiltiy has occurred, than the possibility of someone or something destroying all the other universes from their own has occurred, and thus we cannot possibly exist. Yet within your superset,{infinite universes+infinite possibilities} there could be no such thing as {we can not possibly exist} since one of the other possibilities contained within your superset would logically be {we do exist.}
Therefore, you cannot communicate with these other universes, or they don't exist. Guido....lets focus on THIS thread, OK? Jar writes: Yes....finish your supper, and then we can go chew on some more knowledge after we deal with this thread.
You have more than enough on your plate Guido. Guido the honest seeker writes: Close it? We have just gotten started! Please answer my thread so that we can move on!
I would prefer that you don't close the topic so we could continue, but if you truly wish to close it, then o well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Guido, allow me to clear up a slight misunderstanding on your part about predictions.
Ramoss said:
ID does not make any predictions. It does not have any explanitory powers. It can not be tested. to which you answered:
Guidosoft writes: What? Are you serious? [...] There are predictions made by intellegent design. Such predictions are: Junk DNA will be found to have a purpose.Organs that seem to be useless will be found to have a purpose. You must know that when scientist speak of predictions, they do not claim to know what will happen in the future. They do not make what you might call 'prophetic' predictions, like those you find in the bible. Instead, what they mean by 'prediction' is that they want to test a theory by conducting an experiment and they want the theory to tell them beforehand what result can be expected, if the theory is correct. They also want to know what result would indicate that the theory is not correct. Let me give you an example. Suppose my theory is that the die you hold in your hand is loaded. To test my theory, we will conduct an experiment: we will throw the die six-hundred times and jot down the results. And here comes the important bit: I predict - or rather, my theory predicts - that one of the faces will come up more often than others. I am not sure which face it will be, but it might for instance be that 6 will occur more often than 1 through 5. An unloaded die would give us approximately a hundred occurrences of each face. So, if the 6 comes up a lot more than a hundred times, then your die is probably loaded and my theory is supported by evidence. But if all faces come up about a hundred times each, then your die is probably not loaded and my theory is bunk. So you see, a scientific prediction is not some kind of prophecy that we have to wait for to come true, but it is an expectation of a result, that we can start testing actively and immediately. It is the kind of prediction that would make you exclaim: "O yeah? Well, we'll see about that!" The predictions of ID you mentioned, on the other hand, are of the prophetic kind. We cannot test them other then by sitting on our bums and waiting for them to come true. Scientist are not generally known for sitting on their bums. This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 02-Dec-2005 10:41 PM "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Do you know what evolution is? What is the scientfic defintion of evolution? What you desecribed IS evolution.
If you are specifically asking for speciation events, How about the speciation of the Faroe Island Mouse, which occured within 250 years of the introduction of the mouse on the faroe island? You can read up on it i tanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
That is a faith statement. What objective evidence do you have of this?
We have objective evidence for evolution. Evolution has made predictions, and can be used in real world situations for , amoung other things, the development of antibodics and vaccines. I take it then that since you invoked 'God' and "Jesus", you are admitting that "Intelligent Design" is not science, but is a faith matter??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
You've cleared nothing up because I already knew what predictions meant and that is what I meant.
OK, let me rephrase the predictions: 1. Junk DNA serves a purpose.2. Alleged vegital organs serve a purpose. This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 12-02-2005 07:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian7 Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 628 From: n/a Joined: |
There is no hole because I used God with capital letters and that type of God means all knowing and all powerful.
But your restatement is correct, and still in favor of what I am saying so it was basically meaningless that you said anything about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
1. Junk DNA serves a purpose. 2. Alleged vegital organs serve a purpose It doesn't differ from the predictions of ToE then? Only it has less of them, and they are less specific. Reminds me of Jerry's predictions and evidences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
Guidosoft writes:
2. Alleged vegital organs serve a purpose.
But we allready know that many vestigial organs serve a purpose? Vestigial does not imply that the organ is useless, but is simply a classification pertaining to the history of the said organ. Bones in our ears are vestigial jaw bones. They have developed from the jaw of reptiles, where they had a different function - THIS functionality is now lost - but the bones now have a DIFFERENT function - helping us hear. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Guidosoft writes: OK, let me rephrase the predictions: 1. Junk DNA serves a purpose.2. Alleged vegital organs serve a purpose. Very well. But now I'd like you to clear up something for me. It's this: why are those predictions you mention predictions of ID, and not just of regular science? "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
travis1986 Inactive Member |
Wow, I must say that it is quite a brilliant idea to use a flawless analogy to prove one set of circumstances by way of another. I'm sorry, that is not what I wanted to say exactly. It is actually a horrible idea. There are no two situations that are similar enough that the evaluation of one can provide a conclusive solution of the other. Many times it appears to work that way, this is when the circumstances of each of the situations are similar enough and the derived conclusion of one set of circumstances is broad enough to cover the other. The consistencies of electronic circuits and life are not substantial enough to qualify the analogy as one of those special cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
you really want to keep.
And welcome to EvC. At the bottom of this message you'll find links to threads that will help make your stay here more enjoyable. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mckinley Inactive Member |
Although those of you who agree with intelligent design and creationism have made it clear you feel this way, you have failed to prove your point. You cannot simply look at something and say "yep, that thing right there is definately designed." Nor can you compair life to technology and say that because technology is designed life must be as well. Technology is known to be designed...we know the people who invent it and work in the factories to create it. There is no proof that life is designed. All we can witness is more life being born...biologically, not mysteriously created. There is also no proof of the creator. Show me the creator, or even good evidence that he is doing something and i'll believe you. But until then, you cannot assume that because something is complex it is designed. There is nothing to warrent your claim. Also, claiming that you know God does nothing to validate him. Give proof. The whole world will not base the origin of life on blind faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ragged Member (Idle past 3580 days) Posts: 47 From: Purgatory Joined: |
Also, claiming that you know God does nothing to validate him. Give proof. The whole world will not base the origin of life on blind faith. There is no proof. And never will be. Most religions state that faith - belief without proof or even evidence - is the most important concept in their doctrin. If there was any proof, it would undermine the test by faith. There is no proof becuase God didn't leave any evidence or clues to his excistance and involvment in our creation. Instead he asked us to have faith in him. So scientifically there is no concrete evidence or even indication of ID, but God is still behind it all. He just wiped of all his fingerprints before leaving the room.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BuckeyeChris Inactive Member |
Jesus wasn't proof, 2000 years ago? Or parting the sea, sending angels from heaven, that kind of thing? How come present day people are subject to this "test of faith" rule, while a couple thousand years ago they weren't?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024