E
edwest211
Guest
The analogy sometimes used is rolling a pair of dice. Imagine rolling a pair of dice with billions of sides.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
I get what you mean .Gravity and reproduction are much more plausible to believe than Darwinism.
T
Techno2000
Guest
How do you know whats “better” when science has only scratched the surface of these things ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Can you give us some more details ?
T
Techno2000
Guest
I swallow the whole thing …hook…line… and …sinker.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I don’t know if you caught my post about the NASA twin experiment.
The person’s genome responds to experiences within the environment. These would appear to be reactions to stresses on specific organs. I don’t think they have looked into what changes might be happening to gametes. If these are adaptive changes, it would explain the variations that occur in different kinds of animals allowing them to be better suited to their environment. Again, this would be “preprogrammed” within the complex cellular “machinery” that works and changes its DNA component.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
I think this is often overlooked. An organism has preprogrammed instructions for changes in environment. Grow a vegetable in less than ideal conditions and it will grow to maturity but be smaller or contain less mineral or other content. In ideal conditions, and in better soil, it will generally be larger and/or contain a more nutritious blend of minerals and other biological material specific to its type.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
There’s no tie to break. ID is not an “interpretation of the data.” It’s a refusal to attempt to interpret the data, on the basis that the Bible has already laid out the truth.
If you can actually explain why we have blind spots, why whales have five fingers, wrist bones, and two fore-arm bones, just like land animals, why Europeans are white and Africans are black, and so on, with ID, then I’m listening.
But I don’t think ID does any of that. “Goddidit” is not an explanation. If you go to a mechanics class and ask how an engine works, “Goddidit” is true in an absolute religious sense, but is not very enlightening otherwise. If you ask “How does baking change dough into a delicious cake?” you can in some sense be confident that “Goddidit,” but it does little to satisfy a student’s mind.
If the question is ONLY “Why is there life rather than a lack of it,” or “Why is there a Universe?” then I’m perfectly happy hearing that you believe it was probably created by a Creator-- science doesn’t, and probably can’t, have a better answer. Otherwise, when I ask for more details, and your answer is basically that the details are a trick of the devil or something, then I’m out.
ID is where curiosity and an eager intellect go to die, so far as I can tell.
If you can actually explain why we have blind spots, why whales have five fingers, wrist bones, and two fore-arm bones, just like land animals, why Europeans are white and Africans are black, and so on, with ID, then I’m listening.
But I don’t think ID does any of that. “Goddidit” is not an explanation. If you go to a mechanics class and ask how an engine works, “Goddidit” is true in an absolute religious sense, but is not very enlightening otherwise. If you ask “How does baking change dough into a delicious cake?” you can in some sense be confident that “Goddidit,” but it does little to satisfy a student’s mind.
If the question is ONLY “Why is there life rather than a lack of it,” or “Why is there a Universe?” then I’m perfectly happy hearing that you believe it was probably created by a Creator-- science doesn’t, and probably can’t, have a better answer. Otherwise, when I ask for more details, and your answer is basically that the details are a trick of the devil or something, then I’m out.
ID is where curiosity and an eager intellect go to die, so far as I can tell.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
That’s not programming.
Things don’t grow well with food, because their bodies are made of the materials in the food. They aren’t cleverly responding to their environments-- they are stunted due to lack of material resources.
Things don’t grow well with food, because their bodies are made of the materials in the food. They aren’t cleverly responding to their environments-- they are stunted due to lack of material resources.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Haha! 
I love that you think something as obvious as layering will ever confound the ID imagination. Their ability to tapdance around obvious truths is far beyond your ability to state obvious facts and expect them to accept them.
They will so easily spin a yarn about how God turned the Earth upside down and inside out just to confuse evolutionists, that they’ll leave you with your head spinning!
I love that you think something as obvious as layering will ever confound the ID imagination. Their ability to tapdance around obvious truths is far beyond your ability to state obvious facts and expect them to accept them.
They will so easily spin a yarn about how God turned the Earth upside down and inside out just to confuse evolutionists, that they’ll leave you with your head spinning!
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Because that “scratch” has led to:
-computers
-planes, tranes and automobiles
-Catholic forums being possible
ID has led to exactly what being possible? Nothing but a little sand in the eyes.
-computers
-planes, tranes and automobiles
-Catholic forums being possible
ID has led to exactly what being possible? Nothing but a little sand in the eyes.
B
buffalo
Guest
Indeed. The evidence just keeps coming in.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
I want someone to explain the “intelligence” of horses and donkeys, or lions and tigers, being interbreedable. Evolution has a very clear and sensible explanation. I want to see how ID proponents tapdance around this one.
(and by the way, regarding my last few posts, when I mock ID, it’s ID as an alternative to evolution, not the idea that God has a plan and is willfully guiding how life unfolds over time)
(and by the way, regarding my last few posts, when I mock ID, it’s ID as an alternative to evolution, not the idea that God has a plan and is willfully guiding how life unfolds over time)
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
This is the definition of ID.
Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Definition of Intelligent Design
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
B
buffalo
Guest
All the above were intelligently designed.
R
Richca
Guest
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
I find it quite fascinating that the sacred writer has the marine animals created by God on the fifth day before the creation of the land animals on the sixth day which the discoveries of modern science confirms. Is this due to divine inspiration or more a matter of the ‘human element’ of the narrative. By ‘human element’ I mean God allowing the sacred writer to proceed in some degree in the creation narrative using his own reason and natural knowledge of the world that was available at the time. We obviously can’t expect the sacred writer to talk about quantum mechanics some 3400 years ago or so nor is it necessary to his overall thesis. Again, the precise order of the appearance of fruit trees before marine animals or birds before land animals is of minor detail or secondary importance for the sacred writer to the fact that God created them. So, since the fossil record appears to show that at least some land animals appeared before birds, we can see as it were the ‘human element’ side of the creation narrative and the natural knowledge of the world available to the sacred writer at the time of the writing.
Lets assume for the moment that although God knows in what order in created the various plants, marine and land animals, and the birds, he allowed the sacred writer to use his own abilities, reason, and knowledge of the natural world to put in whatever order the sacred writer would choose the work of the fifth and sixth days concerning the marine and land animals and birds, for example. Whether the sacred writer chooses the marine animals and birds before the land animals or the other way around or some other scenario, it doesn’t effect the main thesis of the narrative which is, namely, that God created them which is as it were the ‘divine element’ or the divine inspiration of the text.
Accordingly, assuming this, I find it quite fascinating that the sacred writer has the marine animals created before the land animals which is verified in the fossil record. I mean, he may have intuitively grasped this idea from the contemplation of the natural world around him and other ancient cultures may have too in their creation or beginnings of the world mythologies. The ancient people and cultures were not as ignorant of the world around them as we ‘sophisticated’ moderns may sometimes paint them out to be. They were quite attuned and cognizant to the natural world or nature around them probably quite a bit more than we are today with all the distractions of technology, city life, and our very busy lives. Even the false mythologies of ancient Israel’s neighbors contain some seed or germ of truth in them either about the natural world or simply the idea of ‘god’ or divine beings. In this sense, atheistic evolutionism is a greater myth and farther from the truth than the myths of ancient cultures.
I find it quite fascinating that the sacred writer has the marine animals created by God on the fifth day before the creation of the land animals on the sixth day which the discoveries of modern science confirms. Is this due to divine inspiration or more a matter of the ‘human element’ of the narrative. By ‘human element’ I mean God allowing the sacred writer to proceed in some degree in the creation narrative using his own reason and natural knowledge of the world that was available at the time. We obviously can’t expect the sacred writer to talk about quantum mechanics some 3400 years ago or so nor is it necessary to his overall thesis. Again, the precise order of the appearance of fruit trees before marine animals or birds before land animals is of minor detail or secondary importance for the sacred writer to the fact that God created them. So, since the fossil record appears to show that at least some land animals appeared before birds, we can see as it were the ‘human element’ side of the creation narrative and the natural knowledge of the world available to the sacred writer at the time of the writing.
Lets assume for the moment that although God knows in what order in created the various plants, marine and land animals, and the birds, he allowed the sacred writer to use his own abilities, reason, and knowledge of the natural world to put in whatever order the sacred writer would choose the work of the fifth and sixth days concerning the marine and land animals and birds, for example. Whether the sacred writer chooses the marine animals and birds before the land animals or the other way around or some other scenario, it doesn’t effect the main thesis of the narrative which is, namely, that God created them which is as it were the ‘divine element’ or the divine inspiration of the text.
Accordingly, assuming this, I find it quite fascinating that the sacred writer has the marine animals created before the land animals which is verified in the fossil record. I mean, he may have intuitively grasped this idea from the contemplation of the natural world around him and other ancient cultures may have too in their creation or beginnings of the world mythologies. The ancient people and cultures were not as ignorant of the world around them as we ‘sophisticated’ moderns may sometimes paint them out to be. They were quite attuned and cognizant to the natural world or nature around them probably quite a bit more than we are today with all the distractions of technology, city life, and our very busy lives. Even the false mythologies of ancient Israel’s neighbors contain some seed or germ of truth in them either about the natural world or simply the idea of ‘god’ or divine beings. In this sense, atheistic evolutionism is a greater myth and farther from the truth than the myths of ancient cultures.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Eye spy: U.S. scientists develop eye-shaped camera
Borrowing one of nature’s best designs, U.S. scientists have built an eye-shaped camera using standard sensor materials and say it could improve the performance of digital cameras and enhance imaging of the human body.
Borrowing one of nature’s best designs, U.S. scientists have built an eye-shaped camera using standard sensor materials and say it could improve the performance of digital cameras and enhance imaging of the human body.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
Last edited:
- Status