Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Uh no. ID does not have to show the designer, just the design.
Click to expand...
There can be no design in the absence of a designer, obviously. In order to show design you have to show scientific evidence for the contemporary presence of at least a potential designer.

Absent a designer then there is no design. At best you have the appearance of design, something which evolution is capable of producing.
buffalo said:
Tell me more about this.
Click to expand...
Roundup Ready.
 
Last edited:
Where is the designer of the internet you are using? You are using the artifact of the designer. One can detect design without.
 
Roundup Ready - so now your position is if the designer has declared himself we should accept his statement?
 
buffalo said:
Where is the designer of the internet you are using? You are using the artifact of the designer. One can detect design without.
Click to expand...
The internet was designed by humans. I have independent evidence for the existence of humans at the appropriate time. I have evidence in various technical papers describing the initial design of the internet.
buffalo said:
Roundup Ready - so now your position is if the designer has declared himself we should accept his statement?
Click to expand...
As long as the claim is supported by appropriate evidence. Do you accept Amaterasu’s claim that she created the world? If not then why not? Do you accept Al Gore’s claim that he invented the internet? If not then why not?

Unsupported claims should be treated skeptically.
 
rossum said:
I have evidence in various technical papers describing the initial design of the internet.
Click to expand...
Suppose we didn’t? Would your conclusion still be design?

you - Do you accept Amaterasu’s claim that she created the world? If not then why not? - I do know who this is? If this is an equivalent to the uncaused cause then we are speaking of the same thing.

Whether Gore did it or not, the fact is the designed internet is real.

You are stuck in the materialist trap and cannot get out.
 
Last edited:

Time to ‘get over Darwin’​

Science | A Yale scientist denounces belief in Darwinian evolution​

As an example, Gelernter cited the work of German geneticists and 1995 Nobel Prize winners Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus. The scientists attempted to induce macroevolution in fruit flies by introducing every genetic mutation they could think of. But every mutation they tried turned out to be a dead end, killing the fly long before it could mate.

Evolutionists describe the origin of species as a bottom-up, undirected process in which life begins simply and then branches out into ever more complex forms.

“But, what we see in life—complex miniature machines, complex information processing systems, digital code—these are things that bear the hallmark of mind and they suggest a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach,” Meyer said. “I think we’re in a new day. … We are looking at life in light of our own high-tech digital computing technologies and realizing these systems bear all the hallmarks of design, so let’s start to look at life differently.”

wng.org

Time to ‘get over Darwin’

A Yale scientist denounces belief in Darwinian evolution
wng.org
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
You are stuck in the materialist trap and cannot get out.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. I am Buddhist, not materialist. You appear to be trapped in a failed interpretation of your scriptures that requires direct intervention by your god to keep things on track. A truly omnipotent deity would have got things exactly right first time and have no need to intervene.

A truly great pool player does not need to nudge the cue ball after he has made his shot. IDs designer is intervening here and there because his initial shot was off and he needs to correct it.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
By the Creator. Remember?
Click to expand...
That is a philosophical conclusion. Science cannot tell us who the designer is.
Click to expand...
The why swap ‘Creator’ for ‘Intelligent Designer’ in tbe book? Something of a dumb move eh?

Why do YOU think they did it?
 
buffalo said:

Time to ‘get over Darwin’​

Science | A Yale scientist denounces belief in Darwinian evolution​

As an example, Gelernter cited the work of German geneticists and 1995 Nobel Prize winners Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus. The scientists attempted to induce macroevolution in fruit flies by introducing every genetic mutation they could think of. But every mutation they tried turned out to be a dead end, killing the fly long before it could mate.

Evolutionists describe the origin of species as a bottom-up, undirected process in which life begins simply and then branches out into ever more complex forms.

“But, what we see in life—complex miniature machines, complex information processing systems, digital code—these are things that bear the hallmark of mind and they suggest a top-down rather than a bottom-up approach,” Meyer said. “I think we’re in a new day. … We are looking at life in light of our own high-tech digital computing technologies and realizing these systems bear all the hallmarks of design, so let’s start to look at life differently.”

https://world.wng.org/content/time_to_get_over_darwin#.XV9e32dCcno.twitter
Click to expand...
“Most species enter the evolutionary order fully formed and then depart unchanged,” Gelernter wrote. “The incremental development of new species is largely not there.”

But, it’s there in their imagination and artwork, and that’s all they needed to dupe the world.
 

Beyond DNA​

Until just a decade ago, the idea of epigenetic inheritance would have made Greer an object of scientific ridicule.

The prevailing evolutionary dogma has been natural selection, as put forth by Darwin: Individuals that acquire a beneficial trait through a random change in their DNA are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing the trait on to their progeny.

But before Darwin, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck posited that individuals can purposefully acquire new traits—like giraffes’ necks lengthening to reach the highest leaves—and pass them down in their genetic code.

Scientists dismissed Lamarck’s views for close to two centuries, but recent evidence suggests that he was on to something.

A 2016 study, for example, found an increased risk of diabetes and hypertension in the children and even grandchildren of people who lived through extreme famine in China, well after the famine had passed.

Greer thinks this represents a metabolic adaptation to starvation and that inherited epigenetic information helps prepare subsequent generations for the possibility that sufficient food might not be available.

“It’s pretty accepted now that there is epigenetic inheritance,” he said. “The big unknown is how it happens and what is specifically transmitted.

“Those are the questions we are trying to tackle.”

 
buffalo said:
40.png
Wozza:
Ah yes, it does.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are still clutching to it to justify your own agenda.
Click to expand...
I really don’t think that you get it. You seem to have a mental blind spot about this.

The situation is just like one of those TV investigative programmes. You have been caught discussing the difference between ID and God and the conversation has gone thus:

‘Look, we know it was God that created everything. He is the Creator as we explained in the book Of Pands And People. But we’ll never get ID into schools because it’s then obvious that it’s a religious view’.

‘True. But I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we reissue the book and change all instances of ‘creator’ to Intelligent Designer’.

‘Brilliant. And we can tell everyone that we make no claim about who the designer is!’

You cooked the books. The incontravertable evidence is there to see for all. You have been found out red handed. Guilty as charged. So what on earth are you on about when you keep talking about ‘new science’?. For you, the science is now and has been immaterial. Your agenda is there literally in black and white (with maybe a few colour plates).

You are only claiming ‘new science’ to push the same tired old barrow. To fulfill the same religious agenda. Everything you post is viewed in that light.
 
Yes. The definition was refined to meet the criteria of science.

So we have ID, the philosophy and ID, the science.
 
“Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” Dr. David Gelernter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top