Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
But to dismiss intelligent design out of hand—to brand it piety masquerading as science…
Click to expand...
Ah, if only you guys hadn’t been caught out swapping all the terms for ‘creator’ to ‘Intelligent Designer’ in that book ‘Pandas and People’:

" Before publication, early drafts used cognates of “creationist”, after the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to “intelligent design”. The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.[6]"

Hey look. Mr. Behe had some (name removed by moderator)ut! Why not ask him about that while you’re asking him about his belief in macro evolution. Ask him why they did such a dumb thing and why they thought no-one would notice. Tell them Wozza is asking.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
Ah, if only you guys hadn’t been caught out swapping all the terms for ‘creator’ to ‘Intelligent Designer’ in that book ‘Pandas and People’:

" Before publication, early drafts used cognates of “creationist”, after the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to “intelligent design”. The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.[6]"

Hey look. Mr. Behe had some (name removed by moderator)ut! Why not ask him about that while you’re asking him about his belief in macro evolution. Ask him why they did such a dumb thing and why they thought no-one would notice. Tell them Wozza is asking.
Click to expand...
None of this really matters.
 
buffalo said:
Getting Beyond Darwin
Click to expand...
Yes, as I am sure you have noticed, evolution has been getting beyond Darwin since the rediscovery of Mendel’s work at the start of the 19th century. Incorporating Mendelian genetics took evolution beyond Darwin. Then the discovery of DNA and how to sequence it took evolution even further beyond Darwin. Then Kimura’s neutral theory moved it even further beyond Darwin.

Evolution has moved beyond Darwin for 120 years. Why haven’t the anti-evolutionists caught up yet? Perhaps Mr. Weigel needs an Introduction to Science course; his biography is distinctly short of science qualifications.
 
rossum said:
Evolution has moved beyond Darwin for 120 years. Why haven’t the anti-evolutionists caught up yet? Perhaps Mr. Weigel needs an Introduction to Science course; his biography is distinctly short of science qualifications.
Click to expand...
Evo has run its course and is no longer plausible as the best explanation. Design and purpose are the future.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Ah, if only you guys hadn’t been caught out swapping all the terms for ‘creator’ to ‘Intelligent Designer’ in that book ‘Pandas and People’:

" Before publication, early drafts used cognates of “creationist”, after the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to “intelligent design”. The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.[6]"

Hey look. Mr. Behe had some (name removed by moderator)ut! Why not ask him about that while you’re asking him about his belief in macro evolution. Ask him why they did such a dumb thing and why they thought no-one would notice. Tell them Wozza is asking.
Click to expand...
None of this really matters.
Click to expand...
Really. And there’s me thinking that it was a direct refutation of what you had posted:

‘…to brand ID as piety masquerading as science…’

It’s creationism wearing a false nose and a bad wig and trying to sneak into school through the back door.

Massive fail.
 
Wozza said:
Ah, if only you guys hadn’t been caught out swapping all the terms for ‘creator’ to ‘Intelligent Designer’ in that book ‘Pandas and People’:

" Before publication, early drafts used cognates of “creationist”, after the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to “intelligent design”. The second edition published in 1993 included a contribution written by Michael Behe.[6]"
Click to expand...
And in the course of altering the text of ‘Pandas and People’ the ID side created a perfect transitional fossil: cdesign proponentsists where “creationists” was incompletely replaced by “design proponents”.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
And in the course of altering the text of ‘Pandas and People’ the ID side created a perfect transitional fossil: cdesign proponentsists where “creationists” was incompletely replaced by “design proponents”.
Click to expand...
So what?
Click to expand...
So they tried to hide that the dodgy elixer they were peddling called Creationism. And did an electronic white-out on that term wherever it appeared and typed in ID.

As I said: Massive fail.
 
Wozza said:
So they tried to hide that the dodgy elixer they were peddling called Creationism. And did an electronic white-out on that term wherever it appeared and typed in ID.

As I said: Massive fail.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. The science itself is showing design to be the best explanation. Science moves on.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
So they tried to hide that the dodgy elixer they were peddling called Creationism. And did an electronic white-out on that term wherever it appeared and typed in ID.

As I said: Massive fail.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. The science itself is showing design to be the best explanation.
Click to expand...
If it was science then why did the term ID DIRECTLY replace Designer? If they aren’t one and the same then how come we have two versions of the same book, one with ID and one with Designer.

Massive fail.
 
buffalo said:
So what. Science is provisional as you always point out.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is. However, you do not have even provisional independent evidence of any non-human designer.

We both agree that life is complex. Evolution can explain complexity. Design can explain (some) complexity. They are equal in that sense.

Evolution does not need any external entity to drive it, just imperfect replicators and resource constraints, both of which have been observed.

Design requires a designer and we have no observations of any such designer. In addition ID has no explanation for the origin any inherent complexity in their designer.

Hence, in scientific terms, evolution is the current leader and is, for the moment, accepted science.

As and when ID can provide the required additional evidence then it will have a much better chance of replacing some of evolution and/or abiogenesis.
 
Design is the best answer. Right now, scientists have realized that they will make little progress until they take living cells apart, until they observe complex processes in action in real time. Like the complex, designed machines that they are. Bioinformatics is giving them the information they need. Evolution provides none.
 
edwest211 said:
Design is the best answer. Right now, scientists have realized that they will make little progress until they take living cells apart, until they observe complex processes in action in real time. Like the complex, designed machines that they are. Bioinformatics is giving them the information they need. Evolution provides none.
Click to expand...
And you wondered why you got the same ol’ responses. Que risa!
 
The information I posted is accurate. Evolution provides no guidance. By taking cells apart and studying their components, scientists are making progress. By studying cell processes in real time, scientists are making progress. When scientists/technicians study captured enemy equipment, they discover its design process. That is what Intelligent Design is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top