Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter ShivanCommander
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
Can you please submit some reference to evolution being replicated in a lab?
Keep in mind the difficulties other posters have had doing so.

Specifically, the only example thus far provided of species to species transformation later turned out to be lab borne pathogen.
But also, lab conditions make it very difficult to demonstrate ‘natural selection’ as the selector in the lab is a technician.

Nevertheless, I am sure you can reference these instances. Right?
Click to expand...
It appears to me that the species transforming into a different species is old hat.
 
vz71 said:
Understood.
Evolution has flaws.

So does ID.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, the theories, when applied to specific problems such as medical or animal issues, can work. Sorry, I do not have any figures for success percentages. Remember that the theory is basically an explanation for material/physical changes.

What needs to be sincerely recognized is that the theory cannot explain human nature. From what I can tell, ID does not address human nature specifically. It may apply what it learns about cells to human nature; but dealing with the anatomy is not enough when it comes to human nature which is an unique union of the material and spiritual worlds.
If anyone knows differently, please contact me.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
vz71 said:
So it is your contention that the designer of the universe is part of the universe?
Click to expand...
Please look again at my point about the definition of “and”. Is the designer alive or not?

rossum
 
vz71 said:
The fact that you are incorrectly basing a belief of all humans based upon a study of only 2 has nothing to do with ID and everything to do with flawed logic.
Click to expand...
While you base your belief on no studies of zero humans.

Do you wonder why I am unconvinced? You produce nothing in your support and dismiss the evidence I produce.

60 million base pairs from three genomes is 180 million base pairs. Evolution has 180 million data points and more. ID has no data points. Guess which one I am going to go with.

Where is you data to show that 100 - 200 mutations per genome is incorrect?

rossum
 
grannymh said:
Just want to insert a thought. Mutations are not a simple thing especially when comparing them with other strands. Watched a professor tackle a simple comparison and he still said that we can’t tell about a particular mutation in reference to which mutation happened first. He is not using a text because of the new material since 2005. Most likely, next year someone will figure out how to deal with today’s questions about genes and the possibilities will continue to multiply.
Click to expand...
I suspect that this is the reason that the Y-chromosome was used. Since it is only inherited in the male line the researchers could be sure that both Y-chromosomes originated from the same source 13 generations ago. All changes since then must have been mutations in one line or the other. A similar exercise could be performed on mitochondrial DNA in he maternal line. Other genetic material can be inherited from either parent so it is not possible to eliminate differences between the parents.

rossum
 
kbachler said:
Actually, the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection have been proven, to a greater extent than say QED or Relativity.

NOTHING (not just scientific theories) is ever “completely” proven. All knowledge is based on a given assumption set and tacit. (See the excellent work Personal Knowledge by Polyani)

Within any normal acceptance and understanding of the word, evolution has been proven. Does it continue to need adjustments, gaps filled in, etc.? Yes, just as any modern scientific theory does.
Click to expand...
This has degenerated into a discussion of semantics. Do you have a point to make, other than splitting hairs over the meaning of the word “proven”?
 
rossum said:
I suspect that this is the reason that the Y-chromosome was used. Since it is only inherited in the male line the researchers could be sure that both Y-chromosomes originated from the same source 13 generations ago. All changes since then must have been mutations in one line or the other. A similar exercise could be performed on mitochondrial DNA in he maternal line. Other genetic material can be inherited from either parent so it is not possible to eliminate differences between the parents.

rossum
Click to expand...
It was not the Y-chromosome. Does MCM6 sound familiar? This may be the link to the data which was used.
genome.ucsc.edu/

As a guest student, I am not required to actually learn something. Also due to weather, I have had to miss a number of classes. What I find most interesting is to watch this man deal with genetics and interact with his class. He is teaching them how to approach science scientifically. What I am learning is that science is not black and white. I am also picking up the language.

I have never in my life taken good notes in any course. :o

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9
 
It is easy to lose the point by dwelling on semantics. I apologize for that. I learned that there is no partial absolute. For example, one hears people say, “very unique”, or “nearly proven”. I learned that something which is unique, is one of a kind, and cannot be “very” one of a kind. It is or it isn’t. This is similar to the Catholic Church’s position that there is an objective moral standard, only in a grammatical sense. We should all agree that the theories evolution and natural selection have many many mountains of evidence to support it which have been accumulated by thousands of researchers spending millions or billions of hours and billions or trillions of dollars. Nobody has come up with a shred of refutation. ID is simply the trashing about of those who won’t accept the evidence.
 
Peepers said:
It is easy to lose the point by dwelling on semantics. I apologize for that. I learned that there is no partial absolute. For example, one hears people say, “very unique”, or “nearly proven”. I learned that something which is unique, is one of a kind, and cannot be “very” one of a kind. It is or it isn’t. This is similar to the Catholic Church’s position that there is an objective moral standard, only in a grammatical sense. We should all agree that the theories evolution and natural selection have many many mountains of evidence to support it which have been accumulated by thousands of researchers spending millions or billions of hours and billions or trillions of dollars. Nobody has come up with a shred of refutation. ID is simply the trashing about of those who won’t accept the evidence.
Click to expand...
While I can agree with mountains of evidence regarding non-human living organisms; there are only anthills regarding human nature.
 
Peepers

**ID is simply the trashing about of those who won’t accept the evidence. **

I know a lot of people who are evolutionists and at the same time see the point of intelligent design. Why can’t one have both? Those who believe in evolution but reject intelligent design I find to be for the most part either atheists or Christians who have been snookered by the atheists.

What baffles me is how Christians can take two such contrary positions;(1) that God designed the universe and everything in it; (2) but there is no such thing as intelligent design.

Since you are a Protestant Christian, will you please explain to me the disconnect there? 🤷
 
grannymh said:
While I can agree with mountains of evidence regarding non-human living organisms; there are only anthills regarding human nature.
Click to expand...
Ahh… the ones that tower above Everest. What do you mean by that?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Peepers

**ID is simply the trashing about of those who won’t accept the evidence. **

I know a lot of people who are evolutionists and at the same time see the point of intelligent design. Why can’t one have both? Those who believe in evolution but reject intelligent design I find to be for the most part either atheists or Christians who have been snookered by the atheists.

What baffles me is how Christians can take two such contrary positions;(1) that God designed the universe and everything in it; (2) but there is no such thing as intelligent design.

Since you are a Protestant Christian, will you please explain to me the disconnect there? 🤷
Click to expand...
I believe that God created a universe which allows for evolution. My understanding of ID is that when the universe was created, then Adam was fully formed and could walk down any street and be identified as a homo sapien. As a scientist, I believe that Adam first appeared around 60,000 years ago, and was the single progenitor. Maybe I misunderstand ID.
 
Peepers
**
My understanding of ID is that when the universe was created, then Adam was fully formed and could walk down any street and be identified as a homo sapien.**

That’s not the usual definition of ID. You won’t find Michael Behe arguing what you just described, and he is one of the chief promoters of ID. Behe simply argues that life seems to have a design behind it, and that this design is shown through the process of evolution, but even farther back through the conditions that prevailed in the universe from the start and that made the Earth and life possible. Many reputable scientists acknowledge that if the conditions present at the creation of the universe had been otherwise by the smallest possible degree, life in the universe would have been impossible. Is this to be explained as mere chance, or as the product of intelligent design?

Aren’t you confusing ID with Creationism as advanced by certain Protestant sects?

Hardly any reputable Catholic thinker takes this view that evolution must be replaced by ID, but rather that both are consistent with each other.
 
Peepers said:
Ahh… the ones that tower above Everest. What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...
Referring back to your post 586, the concept of “mountains of evidence” has often been used on CAF. Mountains of evidence are there in regard to plants, birds, insects, polar bears, all non-human living organisms. But when one reads the actual research in regard to humans, there are many estimates and assumptions which may be valid or not. Factor in the amount of real data one has when going millions and millions of years backwards, the methods and materials of research are closer to the anthill size.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Peepers
**
My understanding of ID is that when the universe was created, then Adam was fully formed and could walk down any street and be identified as a homo sapien.**

That’s not the usual definition of ID. You won’t find Michael Behe arguing what you just described, and he is one of the chief promoters of ID. Behe simply argues that life seems to have a design behind it, and that this design is shown through the process of evolution, but even farther back through the conditions that prevailed in the universe from the start and that made the Earth and life possible. Many reputable scientists acknowledge that if the conditions present at the creation of the universe had been otherwise by the smallest possible degree, life in the universe would have been impossible. Is this to be explained as mere chance, or as the product of intelligent design?

Aren’t you confusing ID with Creationism as advanced by certain Protestant sects?

Hardly any reputable Catholic thinker takes this view that evolution must be replaced by ID, but rather that both are consistent with each other.
Click to expand...
How unfortunate that you mention Behe, generally discredited in scientific circles as being a quack.

In any event, I don’t see that we are that far apart. If the notion of ID is that there is a starting point of the universe which was intelligently designed by God, and that evolution brought us to the human race which originated with Adam, then all of this coincides with my views. If not, then we disagree. I don’t claim to have all the answers to the mystery of creation.
 
grannymh said:
Referring back to your post 586, the concept of “mountains of evidence” has often been used on CAF. Mountains of evidence are there in regard to plants, birds, insects, polar bears, all non-human living organisms. But when one reads the actual research in regard to humans, there are many estimates and assumptions which may be valid or not. Factor in the amount of real data one has when going millions and millions of years backwards, the methods and materials of research are closer to the anthill size.
Click to expand...
Homids date back about 3-4M. Homo Sapiens 30-60K. So I am not sure what you mean by millions and millions.
 
Peepers said:
Homids date back about 3-4M. Homo Sapiens 30-60K. So I am not sure what you mean by millions and millions.
Click to expand...
Simply that some researchers claim that some human genetics go back very, very far back.
 
Behe a quack?

Please cite your authority for this. It certainly can’t be you.

Is William Dembski also a quack?

Was Isaac Newton also a quack?

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.” Isaac Newton

Why is one a quack to see evidence that life was first intelligently designed?

Do you believe that God lacks the ability to intelligently design the universe?

I think you have not done enough reading and that you are unduly impressed either by atheist or Protestant scholars who are dismissive of Catholic scholars for reasons that ought to be self evident to you if you are aware of the secular dominance of the scientific community and the willingness of atheists everywhere to pile on to Michael Behe and others who are raising embarrassing questions for evolutionists … such as how abiogenesis happened without any evolutionary process to set it in motion.
 
Behe and Dembski are quacks.

They promote non science.

The Catholic Church has every right to say who is or is not a christian.

Science has every right to say who is a credible scientist and who is not.

The Catholic Church gets no vote in the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top