|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design explains many follies | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Damn. Modulous beat me to this. Oh well, I'll post anyway.
quote: Although this isn't what science is (it is but a small part of science), the theory of evolution does fit into this. Darwin saw certain effects: the geographical distribution of species, Malthusian population dynamics, and perhaps the Linnaean classification of species. He proposed a cause: natural selection acting on randomly occurring variations over a very, very long period of time. Now, assuming that this cause is correct we can predict new effects, like the existence of tranisitional fossils, the pattern of vestigial organs, and the pattern of atavisms that occur. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
and support your assertions with evidence.
So far you have failed to support ANY of your assertions in this thread. This is a science debate and your personal mythology has nothing to do with it.
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
If you will read my complete statement, what you said is what I was trying to say in different words.
Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where I draw the line is in applying what we can actually observe and prove today, and declare that this definitely proves what happened in the past when it comes to understanding how organic and inorganic matter came to exist. So, in other words, you abandon reasonable knowledge for unknowable, unreasonable speculation. John, when have the laws of physics ever been directly observed to change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I did read your entire statement. And what I wrote was in response to what I interpreted as what you were trying to say. Sorry if it wasn't an accurate interpretation. -
quote: No one is claiming that anything proves anything. All anyone is trying to do is develop theories that are consistent with known phenomena, and then to use the theories to predict as yet unobserved phenomema. If a theory makes a prediction and that phenomena is subsequently confirmed, then the theory is considered provisionally verified. However, some theories like common descent in biology, quantum mechanics in physics, and the periodical table in chemistry, have been verified in so many ways that it now seems silly to add the phrase "provisionally"; that is when a "theory" becomes a "fact". Common descent is a "fact" -- after 150 years, it has withstood every test thrown at it and has become stronger. It is still "provisional", it is not "proven"; it is still possible that new observations will result in its being discarded as a working theory, but after 150 years it seems very unlikely. - If by "organic matter came to exist", you mean abiogenesis (the origin of life on earth), then definitely nothing has been proven; we are only really beginning to understand what was happening on the early earth. If by "inorganic matter came to exist" you mean the origin of the universe, then nothing is even known; we don't yet have a complete enough understanding of the fundamental laws of physics to probe back to the exact beginning of time. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You write,
"The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution. What caused the change in life on earth over time?" If Evolution would state your exact words, "The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution," every time Evolution is presented, many of us who believe in ID would not object so much. Those of us who believe in ID do not believe life on earth has changed so much over time. I believe ID created new life forms to fit the new conditions on earth as the earth evolved over time. During the Cambrian peroid some 530 million years ago, fully developed life forms apperaed suddenly rather than evolved over long periods of time to get to this point. At least 5 different major extinction periods occurred after this, with new life forms again suddenly apperaing after the extinctions periods. Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
This Topic is: Intelligent Design explains many follies.
I have tried to show that those who believe in non-ID cannot show any more proof evidence that non-ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists any more than those of us who believe than ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists. I'm still waiting for the non-ID proof. When those who believe in non-ID bring up my faith first, I will defend it. I don't see you telling them to stop making fun of my faith. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Then you have been wasting your time. No one is claiming to be able show any kind of "proof", nor is it the goal of science to provide "proof" an anything. --
quote: Then you'll be waiting a long time. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians. Nothing is ever really "proved" in the sciences. Although it may be that in the future there will be a tremendous amount of evidence for some particular mode where in life first arose on earth, or a great amount of evidence that shows how the universe actually originated. But you'll have to wait until that happens before someone can show it to you. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You wrote,
"So, in other words, you abandon reasonable knowledge for unknowable, unreasonable speculation. John, when have the laws of physics ever been directly observed to change?" These are your words, not mine. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But understanding this does not tell me how matter came to exist in the first place, nor does it tell you non-ID caused matter to exist in the first place. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
I have tried to show that those who believe in non-ID cannot show any more proof evidence that non-ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists any more than those of us who believe than ID is the cause and effect of everything that exists. I'm still waiting for the non-ID proof. You misunderstand how things work. You need to provide support for YOUR position. So far you have provided NO evidence in support of your position. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
You wrote,
"You misunderstand how things work. You need to provide support for YOUR position. So far you have provided NO evidence in support of your position." I have provided plenty of support why "Intelligent Design explains many follies," but not to your satisfaction. When I explain, you say, "Give me proof evidence." Chiroptera says, "Nothing is ever really "proved" in the sciences." It seems we have reached Catch 22 where not much more can be said that will satisfy anyone. Since I am the only one who must provide proof evidence, and you are not satisfied for me to continue this dialogue, I bid you adieu. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
These are your words, not mine. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave. But understanding this does not tell me how matter came to exist in the first place, nor does it tell you non-ID caused matter to exist in the first place. I'm sorry, could you try answering my question? When have the laws of physics ever been observed to change?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
John10:10
. I have a degree in Engineering Physics and understand the laws of nuclear physics and how atoms behave Really? When an electron emits a photon where does the photon come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If Evolution would state your exact words, "The theory of Evolution is the proposed cause of the effect that is Evolution," every time Evolution is presented, many of us who believe in ID would not object so much. That is how it was presented to me, as someone who took time to read what Evolulution is actually saying - rather than the streamlined version they are forced (by time and skill set) to teach in high school and on TV Documentaries.
Those of us who believe in ID do not believe life on earth has changed so much over time. Sounds more like creationism justified through ID to me. There are plenty of IDers out there (eg Behe) who think life has changed an awful lot, but believe some aspects of life must have had intelligent intervention to get started.
I believe ID created new life forms to fit the new conditions on earth as the earth evolved over time. During the Cambrian peroid some 530 million years ago, fully developed life forms apperaed suddenly rather than evolved over long periods of time to get to this point. Are you saying that if we start at pre-Cambrian and then look at today, you don't think that life on earth has changed a great deal?
At least 5 different major extinction periods occurred after this, with new life forms again suddenly apperaing after the extinctions periods. Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years. It's fine that you think the theories are bizarre, but they are perfectly straightforward to me. If you want to engage me on this, we should take it to the Biological Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution has had to come with more and more bizarre theories to explain how fully formed creatures suddenly appeared, rather than evolve slowly over hundreds of millions/billions of years. What do you mean when you say "fully formed"? How would an organism that was alive, and not dead, not be fully-formed? If you mean to say that the vast majority of organisms in the fossil record are "fully formed" in the sense that they are not juveniles or neonates, well, it's hardly surprising that we would find so many organisms die in their adult stage. In regards to the Cambrian - the organisms (some 1500 species that we know of, compared to the 15 million species we know of that are alive today) may be "fully formed", whatever that means, but they are also certainly primitive, and don't represent even a millionth-part of the development and diversity of species we observe today.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024