Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Computers, planes, trains and automobiles keep advancing, changing and improving.
 
Last edited:
[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.]

White and black skin are simple adaptations. We see adaptations all over the place.

5 fingers and wrist bones? It is a pretty good design and used repeatedly as you correctly observe. In the whale this makes a very effective and maneuverable flipper.

See above post for eye design.
 
Last edited:
(continued)

The mythologies of the ancient cultures such as the Babylonian ones were built around their own life experiences and the natural world around them and the Israelites were well aware of them. It can be a fascinating study concerning the thinking behind the mythologies built as they were around real life experiences and the natural world around them especially if we can detect some truth in them. In conclusion, assuming God allowed the sacred writer choosing for himself the order of the fifth and sixth days, the sacred writer got it right concerning the marine animals before the land animals. And this choice may have not been just a random choice, but a reasoned one from the contemplation of nature and possibly some sort of ‘intuitive’ understanding of it as the ancients were quite attuned to nature.

Concerning the mention of fruit trees in Genesis 1 and their creation on the third day. Fruit trees mentioned here may have some ‘hidden’ significance involving other texts of the Bible. I think we can reasonably assume that fruit trees were in the garden of Eden God planted in Genesis 2: 'And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (vv. 16-17). And in Genesis 3 which recounts the Fall of our first parents, we have fruit trees mentioned again.

Again, in St. John’s vision of the new heaven and the new earth and the holy city, the new Jerusalem, it is written:
‘Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations’ (Rev. 22: 1-2).
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
  1. The assumption that a designed process contains high levels of CSI does not logically lead to the conclusion that all processes containing high levels of CSI were designed.
  2. No organisms have ever been shown to possess organs of irreducible complexity.
  3. If these two arguments are the best ID has to offer in its own support, it is refuted by its own evidence.
Richca:
A little of what you say does make sense. The Genesis account of creation, broadly interpreted to fit current evolutionist thinking, is a remarkably prescient, and a good deal more sensible than many other creation myths. If evolutionists are permitted to convert days into whatever lengths of time they derive from the evidence, and ignore incorrect chronologies as having “no significance whatever”, then I agree that Genesis 1 is perfectly correct.
But don’t fudge. I did not mention the fact that land plants came before land animals. Genesis 1 says that fruit trees came before marine animals, which isn’t true. However, if that can be ignored for the purposes of establishing the ‘truth’ of Genesis, then fine, I agree with it.

Yes, whoever thought up Genesis guessed, correctly, that marine animals came before land animals. However, he also guessed, incorrectly, that birds also came before land animals, which isn’t true. No doubt we are ‘allowed’ to dismiss this inconvenient error as insignificant.

Actually, I, and other Christian evolutionists, agree with you that properly interpreted (in terms of what we learn from observation) Genesis makes a valuable contribution to a discussion of origins and the purposes of God. However, the die-hard creationists will deny your interpretation lock, stock and barrel.
 
FCSI does.

Show me the evolutionary pathway to the ATP synthase motor step by step and why each step increased fitness. What came first the ATP syntahse motor or the energy?

Evolution is a historical science, dealing with events that can’t be observed, and cannot be verified.
 
Richca said:
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.
Click to expand...
or the sacred writer was told…
 
buffalo said:
FCSI does.
Click to expand...
What’s FCSI, and what does it do?
Show me the evolutionary pathway to the ATP synthase motor step by step and why each step increased fitness. What came first the ATP syntahse motor or the energy?
Click to expand...
No.
Evolution is a historical science, dealing with events that can’t be observed, and cannot be verified.
Click to expand...
And? So what?
buffalo said:
Hmmmmmm. Once again, you make a claim that is not empirically provable.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmm. Once again, you misunderstand the nature of Science, which does not empirically prove things at all. It demonstrates coherence.
 
And that’s the problem I, and some others, have with it. There is no credible explanation for the ATP synthase motor and its development.

Loading…

pdb101.rcsb.org

There are definitely events that can’t be observed and can’t be verified.
 
Ahh- now I see - coherence. 🤣

Here is some coherence. The fig tree is used as food for over 1000 species. God provided the fig tree for the animals.
 
Since design is the key, existing structures can more easily be adapted to other uses. On a 3D render, all one has to do is change size and modify the enclosure for these bones.
 
benjamin1973 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tapdance around what?
I am uncertain I see a problem here.
 
Baloney. ID was created by Christians who see evolution as an affront to their understanding of the Bible. They start with God as an axiom, and then look for proof of God in anything that has any level of organisation, on the basis that organisation requires requires an organizer.

“Begging the question.” Look it up.

Don’t believe me? Tell me how many non-Christians (or non-Muslims) are ID scientists?
 
Last edited:
That’s it. A lot of structures can be built using simple and a finite number of genetic code combinations.
 
Functional Specified Complex Information

RIght, because you cannot. The IR stands until you can.

Evolutionism attempts to reconstruct this history.

Intelligent Design is coherent and coherence at its best.
 
Do you think God designed tigers and lions with the intent that we could make ligers for the entertainment of zoo-goers?

Or is it perhaps possible that they have common ancestors, but have not yet drifted far apart genetically that they cannot mate?
 
I agree. When viewed from a design perspective there is actual design, not an ‘illusion of design.’ Which is a worldview that does not reflect what we see in nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top