B
buffalo
Guest
If something is clearly wrong just dump it. Why wait until something better comes along.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Intelligent design is a much better explanation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Because it is wrong and the top evo’s now know it. The modern synthesis is trying to be replaced with the EES, which is basically self organization. We will spent oodles of money and time and get nowhere. But, it will keep funding going for those involved.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As I said above, a definition is not the same as a theory, Definitions are never falsifiable…o_mlly:
and we call a theory that is non-falsifiable? Nonsense…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Since you think definitions must be falsifiable, how would you “falsify” your definition of devolution?PetraG:
Look at it this way. He started with archetypes. From there devolution took place making the resultant offspring less likely to survive. Also, adaptation, by design allows life to fill the environment as it is at the time.
R
rossum
Guest
Newton was clearly wrong when the orbit of Mercury was measured more accurately than in Newton’s time. The theory was not dumped because it was still useful in many cases, and it was the best science had. Science operates with “the best we currently have”. If there are known errors then caveats are put in for those specific areas.
Newton’s theory was replaced by Einstein’s theory, which got Mercury and a few other things right, but still has problems. It cannot deal with extremely small – quantum sized – extremely massive objects. Specifically it fails at the time of the Big Bang, giving incorrect predictions. Hence scientists are working on a theory of Quantum Gravity to correct those errors.
You misunderstand how science works, buffalo. Theories are not dumped until a better theory comes along. If you want science to dump evolutionary theory then you need to come up with a better theory to explain the origin of species.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Intelligent Design cannot explain the origin of intelligence. How do you explain the origin of intelligence within Intelligent Design theory, buffalo?
rossum
B
Bradskii
Guest
But you just made that up. Literally. Your method of dealing with questions that show the risible structure of your arguments is this:PetraG:
Look at it this way. He started with archetypes. From there devolution took place making the resultant offspring less likely to survive. Also, adaptation, by design allows life to fill the environment as it is at the time.
‘Hang on. Give me a minute and I’ll think of something’.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perfect. Thanks. The Intelligence comes from outside the frame of reference.
Intelligent Design, the philosophy, certainly can explain its origin.
Intellignet Design, the science observes it. We observe and use intelligent designs every single day.
B
buffalo
Guest
I just made that up? That is longheld Catholic understanding. You certainly must know that.
B
buffalo
Guest
I disagree. No need to keep doubling down on errors.
R
rossum
Guest
Then please explain it, or give us a reference. Obviously, the Intelligent Designer possesses intelligence, so any explanation of the origin of intelligence is an explanation for the origin of the Designer.
You might also want to bear in mind ID’s claim that anything complex, such as intelligence, requires design.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
E
edwest
Guest
That’s it. Our intelligence didn’t start as chemicals that ended up as biological robots.
B
buffalo
Guest
“No effect is greater than its cause”
B
buffalo
Guest
Modern science no longer considers the formal and final causes and therefore not trustworthy.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Oh yeah.Sorry. I seem to remember something about archaetypes, devolution and adaption in the foot notes to Genesis. You should quote from them to avoid the impression that you just make stuff up.Bradskii:
I just made that up? That is longheld Catholic understanding. You certainly must know that.
R
rossum
Guest
So Usain Bolt’s parents could run faster than their son, God must have committed a greater sin than Adam and no oak tree can be bigger than an acorn.
Do you not think about your posts before you click the Reply button? Your quote here is very obviously wrong. Why do you expect us to accept such obviously incorrect statements? You are doing yourself no favours here.
rossum
O
o_mlly
Guest
All the Bolt’s possessed the faculty of locomotion. Differences in degree are not differences in kind.
Now, if Usain’s immediate ancestors were plants then you’d have a point.
R
rossum
Guest
Since buffalo did not use either of the words “degree” or “kind” then you point is not relevant to my response to buffalo’s post #1314.
rossum
- Status