|
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 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It's physical all the way down well everything has a physical aspect but is that enough to explain genetics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: It's physical all the way down well everything has a physical aspect but is that enough to explain genetics? Yes, fully and completely. What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available. Until the proponents of ID or Creationism can ever be anything more than a silly comedy they need to present evidence on the level of that presented in the OP. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution Because you say it does not make it so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Yes, fully and completely. Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be. A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars. So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a liar for Darwin’s sake? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available. Faith statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: Yes, fully and completely. Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information? Are you aware that that statement has almost no meaning and is still totally irrelevant to the issue or topic? Do you understand that the "information" is simply the chemical and physical properties? Are you aware that it is totally irrelevant whether a scientist is secular or religious? And until you present evidence that actually has something to do with the topic and at a level at least equal to the evidence presented in the OP, Creationism and Intelligent Design will simply remain the laughingstock creations of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available. Faith statement? Of course not, fact statement. Until you present evidence that actually has something to do with the topic and at a level at least equal to the evidence presented in the OP, Creationism and Intelligent Design will simply remain the laughingstock creations of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi havoc,
For future reference, just the one reply to the one message would have been sufficient. You can always edit a message if you feel you wish to add more.
Granny writes: You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution
havoc writes: Because you say it does not make it so. NO, the fact that it is so makes it so. If you would like to discuss some of the evidence for macroevolution, I would be glad to discuss it with you. The current Animals with bad design. touches upon one of the classic pieces of evidence; whale evolution. Or you might like to address the issue in the thread Dogs will be Dogs will be ???. The topic of this thread is not the evidence for macroevolution though, it is "What is evidence of design?". I was initially attempting to coax Drevmar into trying to provide with some design evidence, but apparently, he isn't interested. Or hasn't got any. Probably both.
So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? Because they are Christian. Ken Miller for instance, is a scientist, a vocal advocate of evolution and a devout Catholic. Francis Collins, another scientist and evolutionist, is an evangelical Christian. You can pretend that Catholics and Evangelicals are not Christian if you like, but it will only serve to make you look like a fool.
By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a liar for Darwin’s sake? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old. For the record, Drevmar's entire response to my post;
Drevmar writes: Yep, knew all that, thanks. That kind of reply does not qualify as either discussion or debate. Initially, Drevmar made a number of claims about his reasons for believing in God. I addressed those reasons and did so quite politely. Drevmar responded with a trite and dismissive one-liner. I regard that as extremely rude and rather pathetic. that's why he got a going over in the next post. I regard that as completely fair. If Drevmar is unwilling to address criticisms of his posts, then he should not be posting here. Further, if he knew that evidence for macroevolution existed, then he ought not tell lies by denying it. This is not a venue for drive-by proselytising. It is a debate site. If participants can't stand the heat... Now. Do you have any of that design evidence that I hear is so impressive? Or are you just going to continue whining? Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
So are you saying that the nucleotides have an affinity to each other or Condons to each other or the amino acids to each other. No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the process by which proteins are produced from DNA sequences is entirely a physical/chemical process. There is nothing special about it.
How do you explain that different condons code for the same amino acid? It's mostly explained by "wobble" in the third base. You realise there are less tRNA types than amino acids, right?
Or in other words it is the code that gives them meaning not chemical properties of the DNA. I'm very dubious of the notion that DNA has "meaning" outside of our interpretation of it. DNA certainly encodes proteins and when interacting with the correct cellular setup will produce proteins but does that mean it has "meaning"? I'm not so sure. And, if it does, that meaning is certainly not something extra on top of the physical interactions that needs explaining.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
havoc writes: So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? You cannot possibly be this obtuse. Perhaps, like me, they are Christians because despite not subscribing to your particular interpretation of Genesis, they consider Jesus Christ their personal Lord and savior and try to live according to his teachings? I agree with you that calling people liars because of their sincerely held beliefs is foolish, but apparently you're not above posting similar foolishness yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
havoc writes: Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information? Funny that in all the time I've spent studying and reading books on genetics; the only time I've come across anyone saying anything of the sort is when talking to Creationists. I assure you, while Information Theory - which is categorically not the same thing as the layman's idea of what information is - is relevant to some areas of genetics, it is not viewed by scientists as the best was to understand genetics. Or, if it is, they're doing a damn good job of hiding it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be. A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars. So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a liar for Darwin’s sake? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old. Almost all of the recognized major Christian sects have no problems with either the fact of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution. This is not a secular vs religious issue except when some (usually a minor Christian) sect make it an issue. Of course, that also is totally unrelated to the topic of this thread. We are still waiting for some supporter of Special Creation or Intelligent Design to present evidence in support of their assertions comparable to the level of evidence presented in support of the examples in the OP. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Now. Do you have any of that design evidence that I hear is so impressive? Or are you just going to continue whining? How about you backing up any of your assertions instead of whining and crying about this and that. See how sophisticated we sound. Your method of debate is most commonly found in a person who realizes there argument is week. The whole he was rude first argument is quite juvenile.Maybe the glove fits. It is funny how you lecture me about topic integrity when all I did was comment on your topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
How about you backing up any of your assertions instead of whining and crying about this and that. I've told you already; I am more than happy to discuss any problems you have with macroevolution in the proper threads.I even provided you with a couple of links. Beyond that I don't see what more there is to say. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024