Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 30, 2014, 11:30:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial  (Read 17383 times)
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #75 on: November 22, 2007, 07:07:57 AM »

Scientific speculation about the origins of reality is happening.  Does that disprove Evolution as a useful scientific theory?

No.

Why?  B/c we can analyze our origins in mathematical concepts without resorting to a catch-all--God did it.

Evolution is handy for medicine, biology, epidemiology, molecular biology and I'm sure more.

What is ID handy for again?

Your repeated questioning of evolution does nothing to show me that ID is not a fraud.

I'll ask you again, what does ID contribute to any field of science?

Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.

To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.

Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.

If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake  Grin .
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #76 on: November 22, 2007, 08:32:13 AM »

Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.

To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.

Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.

If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake  Grin .

So you believe the vast majority (almost all) respectable science departments at universities are simply engaged in massive self-deception? What have they got wrong? Do you honestly believe that careful, objective analysis and observation of scientific data should lead a scientist to believe that the basic doctrines of Christianity are true and that the bible is the inerrant word of god?
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #77 on: November 22, 2007, 09:20:29 AM »

So you believe the vast majority (almost all) respectable science departments at universities are simply engaged in massive self-deception? What have they got wrong?

Spontaneous generation, for starters.

Do you honestly believe that careful, objective analysis and observation of scientific data should lead a scientist to believe that the basic doctrines of Christianity are true and that the bible is the inerrant word of god?


It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).

Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #78 on: November 22, 2007, 06:53:20 PM »

Spontaneous generation, for starters.

It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).



Right. Scientists are led to believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god and the there is a 'holy trinity' consisting of a father, a son and a spirit and the son ha magic powers and died and came to life again, all based on careful observation of scientific data...well what happens when they see that the bible claims that insects have four feet? Not so inerrant after all...
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #79 on: November 23, 2007, 09:24:39 AM »

Apparently, you missed my post earlier. Again, I make reference to one Louis Pasteur. His studies in BIOLOGY helped develop vaccines to cure some of the deadliest diseases on the planet and his works help make dairy products safe to consume. And, for some strange reason, he didn't need evolution to get that done. Go figure.

To top it all off, his scientific work basically flattened the very premise of evolution itself, spontaneous generation.

Pasteur believed in Creation, not evolution. And, his studies confirmed what common sense would tell us all along: Life only comes from life.

If you've seen the aforemtioned quotes from evolutionists, admitting that they believe in evolution DESPITE OF (not because of) scientific evidence (because the only other option would be to admit that Creation occured and, thus, there is a God), you can thank Pasteur for their laments. Think about that the next time you down some moo juice of have a swig of whey (and/or casein) protein shake  Grin .
Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.

His studies do not confirm life comes from life.  His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such.  Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?

Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"

You can't do it.

Here's why.  ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged.  What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.

No.

ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god.  That's wholly irrational.  It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #80 on: November 23, 2007, 09:32:27 AM »

Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.

His studies do not confirm life comes from life.  His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such.  Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?

Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"

You can't do it.

Here's why.  ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged.  What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.

No.

ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god.  That's wholly irrational.  It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.

Ma guy.... Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2007, 06:46:07 AM »

Just b/c Louis believed in god and did not use an evolutionary model for the development of pasteurization speaks nothing about the validity of evolution and, in this case, the applicability of ID.

You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.


His studies do not confirm life comes from life.  His studies confirm that boiling liquids kills harmful viruses and such.  Boiling liquids does not seem to require any info from the theory of evolution, does it?

That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.

Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.


Again, I will ask, "name one scientific application of ID that advances our knowledge!"

You can't do it.

Here's why.  ID is the old "god of gaps" argument repackaged.  What! you say, there are gaps in the evolutionary theory, then god must have done it and evolution is nonsense.

I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).

Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.

What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.

No.

ID is nothing more than a false conclusion drawn from an unprovable set of premises, one of which is god.  That's wholly irrational.  It may be true ultimately, but it is not scientifically verifiable.

That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.

Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2007, 06:54:20 AM »

You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.

That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.

Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.

I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).

Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.

What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.

That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.



Evolutionist: Chimps share 99% of the same DNA as human being because both species evolved from a common ancestor; Orangutans 97%, Gorillas 98%.

Creationist: Chimps share 99% of the same DNA as human being because god just made them that way (who can understand the will of god?)

Using Occam's Razor, which is the clearer, simpler and more rational explanation....?
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2007, 11:07:17 AM »

You claimed that evolution was "handy" (read necessary) for advances in biology. Pasteur's work is simply one of many examples that show such to be false. Scientific advancement (from the operational standpoint) requires no belief in evolution to make such possible.
You are right, scientific advancement requires no belief in evolution to make it possible.  It depends on whether you are studying Pasteurization or biology.  Evolution is handy (read NOT necessary, read HANDY) for advancing the historical sciences like astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology.  In that respect, evolution is a fact.
Quote
That's funny!! The evolutionists mentioned earlier would disagree with you. They blamed/credited Pasteur's work with dismantling the tenet of spontaneous generation, which based on scientific research, was shown to be impossible. Those are their words, not mine. Plus, it wasn't just the pasteurization process. I also mentioned his works with vaccines. Again, you cited belief in evolution as a biological necessity. That has been shown to be false.

Either life can spontaneously generate or it can't, pure and simple. Pasteur's work showed scientifically that it can't and, to this day, no one has refuted his work or shown that such can occur.
Again, I am not sure what you are saying.  If spontaneous generation was proven, that would falsify evolution, game over.  So, I guess Pasteur’s work did support evolutionary theory. 

Just b/c the origin of life is still unknown to us does nothing to falsify evolution.  Even if life was found to be created in the beginning, that would not change the fact that evolution has been confirmed in many micro and macro-evolutionary studies.

Where does ID and ‘irreducible complexity’ fit into all this?  That's right....Right alongside astrology.


Quote
I've mentioned nothing about "gaps". Try addressing the arguments I've made, not the ones I haven't made. The scientific method requires, as Beach Bum stated, observation and repeatability. There has been no observation or repeatability when it comes to the claims of certain creatures "evolving" into different ones, completely unlike themselves (i.e. you have never seen or replicated a reptile evolving into a bird, as the theory of evolution claims happened).

Creation states that creatures reproduce after their own kind, which would tie into genetics. I expect dogs to reproduce and begats dogs, not cats, birds, or sheep. Those dogs, due to numerous factors, may differ in size, shape, color, and reproductive capability; but, they'll still be dogs.

What advances our knowledge is the study of nature (which, in its simplest form, is all science really is). You can do such with one of two paradigms: One, stating that there's a supernatural source for life on Earth; and the other that states that there is not. That's why and how you can have biologists with Ph.Ds who are creationists and those who are evolutionists.
I like the nomenclature you use.  You sound like Kent Hovind.  I’ve attended his lectures and have met the man.  He’s a very nice guy—in prison for tax evasion, but a nice guy nonetheless.  He’s also certifiable.

“No observation where creatures evolve into other creatures” Wrong.  Recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

I’m sure there are creationists who fancy themselves scientists.  That’s fine.  God may have created everything.  But we can’t show that under the scientific method.  God is not quantifiable and ‘irreducible complexity’ is on par with astrology therefore Creationism is not science.


Quote
That would apply to evolution. Again, if birds evolved from reptiles, has anyone replicated the circumstances that supposedly made that possible or observed such in a lab or natural setting? NO!!! Evolution derived from that a priori assumption (or perhaps, desire) to develop a godless explanation for life on this planet, as has been demonstrated by evolutionists, past and present.
You actually expect a scientist to reproduce millions of years of evolution in the laboratory?  That’s not how science, in this case, works.  Observation, inference, and math play their roles in scientific analysis.  Do you think that Physicists use some giant magnifying glass to observe subatomic particles?  No, math and inference are at work here. 

Would you explain, in a nutshell, what Intelligent Design is and why I should consider it a scientific theory that is at least the rival of the theory of evolution?

Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2007, 09:47:40 PM »

Spontaneous generation, for starters.

It leds scientists to that conclusion before (and it still does so today, given the number of scientists who believe in Creation that, at one time, believed in evolution).



so does ID have a conclusion already? i beleive it does, that god did it. and it looks for supporting evidence. that alone makes it pseudoscience. science has no conclusions and goes where the evidence leads.

i will agree that the belief that sentience can only create sentience resonates with me, but its not a fact, only a geuss or philosophy. its not even a theory as it has really no testable tenets, as we dont have billions of years to sit around and watch. just because abiogenesis is a work in progress doesnt mean god did it. dont you think thats a premature scientific conclusion?

i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.

matter is neither created nor destroyed, remember that one?
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2007, 06:16:45 AM »

i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.

I just want to mention that in the Old Testament, God tells people not to be afraid of these natural processes and not to worship the multitude of gods created to explain those natural processes.  That was thousands of years ago. 

For thousands of years, the Biblical God has not been pushed back by believers as we have gained knowledge.  Look at all the scientists who believed and all the scientists who still believe in the Biblical God.  No, I don't believe that God will "continue to recede" as He has not receded at all.  I believe people will continue to believe in and worship the Biblical God thousands of years from now.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2007, 04:15:26 PM »

I just want to mention that in the Old Testament, God tells people not to be afraid of these natural processes and not to worship the multitude of gods created to explain those natural processes.  That was thousands of years ago. 

For thousands of years, the Biblical God has not been pushed back by believers as we have gained knowledge.  Look at all the scientists who believed and all the scientists who still believe in the Biblical God.  No, I don't believe that God will "continue to recede" as He has not receded at all.  I believe people will continue to believe in and worship the Biblical God thousands of years from now.

sorry YOUR god. just every other god. and the god of intelligent design. it states that god fills in the "gaps" of evolution. that god created each species, not evolution, that he was involved in creation of life billions of years after the birth of the universe. once these gaps are filled, as they always are god will be pushed back.

tell me, where is your god then. what role did he have in creation?

so your saying your god has nothing to do with life as we know it, no involvement, which is quite obvious according to science. but he created everything then left it? is this your beleif?
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #87 on: November 30, 2007, 03:26:02 PM »

sorry YOUR god. just every other god. and the god of intelligent design. it states that god fills in the "gaps" of evolution. that god created each species, not evolution, that he was involved in creation of life billions of years after the birth of the universe. once these gaps are filled, as they always are god will be pushed back.

tell me, where is your god then. what role did he have in creation?

so your saying your god has nothing to do with life as we know it, no involvement, which is quite obvious according to science. but he created everything then left it? is this your beleif?

I think you know my answer to your questions.  I am a "Bible thumping fundy" after all.    Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #88 on: December 01, 2007, 06:17:24 AM »

so does ID have a conclusion already? i beleive it does, that god did it. and it looks for supporting evidence. that alone makes it pseudoscience. science has no conclusions and goes where the evidence leads.

i will agree that the belief that sentience can only create sentience resonates with me, but its not a fact, only a geuss or philosophy. its not even a theory as it has really no testable tenets, as we dont have billions of years to sit around and watch. just because abiogenesis is a work in progress doesnt mean god did it. dont you think thats a premature scientific conclusion?

i mean, look at life. does anything that we have explained require god? does rain require god? well it doesnt now but before there was a multitude of gods for many natural processes. is god needed for childbirth? not now, but it was before we understood it. apply this logic to all of our knowledge, the knowledge we have gained, and observe how god is being pushed back. as a rational person wouldnt you agree that its more likely that god will continue to receed after millions of experiments and truths found? or that he will be there in the end? one seems much more logical and statistically probable.

matter is neither created nor destroyed, remember that one?

Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter.

As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! Grin ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary.

If already having a conclusion invalidates Creation, then it would invalidate evolution as well, for its conclusion is “There is no God!” Why do you think evolution hold such appeal to atheists? It’s a way for them to explain (or attempt to explain) life on Earth, without those pesky words, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth .


No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded.

BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #89 on: December 01, 2007, 06:52:18 AM »

You are right, scientific advancement requires no belief in evolution to make it possible.  It depends on whether you are studying Pasteurization or biology.  Evolution is handy (read NOT necessary, read HANDY) for advancing the historical sciences like astronomy, geology, archaeology, and evolutionary biology.  In that respect, evolution is a fact.Again, I am not sure what you are saying.  If spontaneous generation was proven, that would falsify evolution, game over.  So, I guess Pasteur’s work did support evolutionary theory. 

I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?

His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.



Just b/c the origin of life is still unknown to us does nothing to falsify evolution.  Even if life was found to be created in the beginning, that would not change the fact that evolution has been confirmed in many micro and macro-evolutionary studies.

Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.


Where does ID and ‘irreducible complexity’ fit into all this?  That's right....Right alongside astrology.

I like the nomenclature you use.  You sound like Kent Hovind.  I’ve attended his lectures and have met the man.  He’s a very nice guy—in prison for tax evasion, but a nice guy nonetheless.  He’s also certifiable.

“No observation where creatures evolve into other creatures” Wrong.  Recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community.William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.

35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.


I’m sure there are creationists who fancy themselves scientists.  That’s fine.  God may have created everything.  But we can’t show that under the scientific method.  God is not quantifiable and ‘irreducible complexity’ is on par with astrology therefore Creationism is not science.

You actually expect a scientist to reproduce millions of years of evolution in the laboratory?  That’s not how science, in this case, works.  Observation, inference, and math play their roles in scientific analysis.  Do you think that Physicists use some giant magnifying glass to observe subatomic particles?  No, math and inference are at work here. 

That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!


Would you explain, in a nutshell, what Intelligent Design is and why I should consider it a scientific theory that is at least the rival of the theory of evolution?


As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #90 on: December 01, 2007, 09:25:58 AM »

I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?

His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.


Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.

Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.

35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.

That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!

As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.

I think you are the quintessential fundy on this site, in fact you win the prize. Congratulations! Shocked
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #91 on: December 01, 2007, 11:57:09 AM »

Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter.

As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! Grin ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary.

If already having a conclusion invalidates Creation, then it would invalidate evolution as well, for its conclusion is “There is no God!” Why do you think evolution hold such appeal to atheists? It’s a way for them to explain (or attempt to explain) life on Earth, without those pesky words, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth .


No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded.

BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?


"Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter."

observe this everyone, its called the argument from ignorance. for one you are making this up, you have no evidence this is the case, are changing science to fit your views and frankly are acting extremely ignorant. i dont mean that in a malicious manner, its just that your making an argument that cannot be falsified, has no evidence, yet has every bit of evidence against it. this is rhetoric, and unintelligent rhetoric at that.


"As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! Grin ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary."

for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?


"No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded. "

i can see science is not your specialty. no one in science, or at least anyone reputable starts with the conclusion, god is responsible or not responsible. no one is trying to answer that question, they are just looking for truth, and verifiable evidence. if in the end any good scientist found evidence for god they would have that conclusion. no one in science is trying to disprove god, that has nothign to do with science, and no one disregards evidence to the contrary becuase that is anti-science.

"BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?"

another ridiculous statement. matter can neither be created nor destroyed, do to bootstrapping it avoids entropy. you tell me what is an easier concept to digest. first, that matter is eternal, neither created nor destroyed which goes along with science, and has a simple explanation. OR, that there is a infinitely complex being who magically creates matter(but no one knows how) and knows everything, is everywhere, and is loving(all without explanation). the second scenario is way more complex, and complicates the question far more then need be. your adding complexity, yet using it to explain a less complex thing. this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. see occams razor for why this is a ridiculous argument.


so its highly plausible, even obvious due to thermodynamics that matter always existed, yet you choose to beleive that a highly complex BEING insted created everything, and you beleive this despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. faith is not rational, trying to ratinalize it is ignorant in my opinion.


Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #92 on: December 01, 2007, 12:02:37 PM »

I think you are the quintessential fundy on this site, in fact you win the prize. Congratulations! Shocked

he appeals to ignorance as proof of god.


"the origin of life is unknown"

mcway

"wrong god did it, i dont know how, he is magical i dont need to know how. my book says he did it"

"but how did he do it, what mechanism"

mcway

"you expect to know how god created earth, no one knows, only god. so just accept that he did it, with no evidence why or how."

person
"matter can neither be created nor destroyed"

mcway

"correction, man can neither create nor destroy matter. i dont have anyproff for what im saying, i just beleive in this, and accept it as fact in the face of ignorance. laws in science are meaningless, my ignorance is immune to all reason. god can do as he pleases, there is your answer"

Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #93 on: December 01, 2007, 12:06:24 PM »

McWay sure would make Augustine proud. He's immersed himself in all the BS arguments for god: the argument from ignorance, the argument from feigned (or real?)  stupidity, the argument from stringing words together to lose the reader, the argument from "It is written," the argument from "complexity,"...

Report to moderator   Logged
Spoony Luv
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1388

FROM UP ABOVE!!!


« Reply #94 on: December 01, 2007, 12:26:33 PM »

Do any of you guys find it interesting that the worlds governments are really trying to suppress information about psychedelics? Considering they are such a part of our history...And that the double helix structure was discovered by Francis Crick who admitted to using LSD some 50 years ago when he saw the structure before his eyes...I know that DMT is getting a lot of online press from spiritual seekers and scientist alike...

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #95 on: December 01, 2007, 01:20:37 PM »

Do any of you guys find it interesting that the worlds governments are really trying to suppress information about psychedelics? Considering they are such a part of our history...And that the double helix structure was discovered by Francis Crick who admitted to using LSD some 50 years ago when he saw the structure before his eyes...I know that DMT is getting a lot of online press from spiritual seekers and scientist alike...

 

dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.

but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Master
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 13816



« Reply #96 on: December 01, 2007, 01:24:06 PM »

dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.

but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.

You seem like a bright guy. Hallucinogens = teh good shit.
Report to moderator   Logged
Spoony Luv
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1388

FROM UP ABOVE!!!


« Reply #97 on: December 01, 2007, 03:22:52 PM »

dmt is powerful shit. i dont think psychodelics are showing us anything that isnt there, they just lower our fliters or remove them per se. people who arent told to look for specific things often dont even know they exist and they can be right in front of you. i love the use of psychodelics, the hallucinations, or even truths observed could be do to a number of things. particularly neuronal growth, increased MAO inhibition, COMT inhibition, decreased reuptake all which would increase experience.

but if your thinking they are bannign it because they dont want people knowing the truth then i think thats way off base. a simpler explanation is that people being wacked on lsd all the time would cause havoc, increase in crime, lower production in the work place. i cant think of really one good reason why they should be legal.

I'm certainly not saying they should be legal but they certainly aren't addicting or is something that tons of people are actually doing...In fact most people who aren't ready for such things usually scare themselves shitless doing them...And leave them alone...

I haven't tried DMT yet and haven't done any other types in over a decade...DMT is something that looks very interesting and something that someday when i'm ready, will give it a shot...
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8523


« Reply #98 on: December 01, 2007, 05:36:51 PM »

I'm certainly not saying they should be legal but they certainly aren't addicting or is something that tons of people are actually doing...In fact most people who aren't ready for such things usually scare themselves shitless doing them...And leave them alone...

I haven't tried DMT yet and haven't done any other types in over a decade...DMT is something that looks very interesting and something that someday when i'm ready, will give it a shot...

i would be careful with it, the people who i know who have tried it have nothing good to say about it. in the amazon the shamens have a drink called ayuascha which is dmt and harmaline(a maoi). the drink is only done under supervision as you can get pretty far out, and from people i know, they have all said it was the most ridiculous, and worst experience they have went though. but people that do the ritual often have positive experiences because of the guidance. id just make sure you have  few people around who know there shit.

you need to take a MAOI with it or MAO will just break it down in teh gut.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #99 on: December 02, 2007, 06:36:46 AM »

"Correction: Man cannot destroy nor create matter."

observe this everyone, its called the argument from ignorance. for one you are making this up, you have no evidence this is the case, are changing science to fit your views and frankly are acting extremely ignorant. i dont mean that in a malicious manner, its just that your making an argument that cannot be falsified, has no evidence, yet has every bit of evidence against it. this is rhetoric, and unintelligent rhetoric at that.

Can man create or destroy matter? Either he can or he can't. If you have an example that he can and has, please share it with us.


"As for your other questions, none of what you’ve stated dictates the absence of God. If God created the heavens and earth, then He developed and controls the process that makes it rain. If He created man and gave the charge to be fruitful and multiply, then He designed the reproductive process (one which I happen to enjoy very much….THANK YOU, LORD!! Grin ). Our recent understanding how such processes work doesn't mean that God wasn't responsible for such occuring "in the beginning" To the contrary, the complexity of such processess would indicate that design on a supernatural scale is necessary."

for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?

These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do.

"No one started with the aspect of having absolutely no idea how life began on Earth. Either you believe life came from a supernatural source or you don’t, period. All the studies, regarding life and its origin, are anchored on one of those two beliefs. That would explain why the concept of abiogenesis is, as you put it "a work in progress". Those who don't believe in God are looking for THAT specific answer: That life came from non-life, thus there is no God. And any evidence that states to the contrary will be disregarded. "

i can see science is not your specialty. no one in science, or at least anyone reputable starts with the conclusion, god is responsible or not responsible. no one is trying to answer that question, they are just looking for truth, and verifiable evidence. if in the end any good scientist found evidence for god they would have that conclusion. no one in science is trying to disprove god, that has nothign to do with science, and no one disregards evidence to the contrary becuase that is anti-science.

Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself.


"BTW, am I the only one who finds it strange that skeptics have no problem believing that “matter” has always existed, but they do have a problem when Christians state that God has always existed (“From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God”)?"

another ridiculous statement. matter can neither be created nor destroyed, do to bootstrapping it avoids entropy. you tell me what is an easier concept to digest. first, that matter is eternal, neither created nor destroyed which goes along with science, and has a simple explanation. OR, that there is a infinitely complex being who magically creates matter(but no one knows how) and knows everything, is everywhere, and is loving(all without explanation). the second scenario is way more complex, and complicates the question far more then need be. your adding complexity, yet using it to explain a less complex thing. this doesnt make any sense whatsoever. see occams razor for why this is a ridiculous argument.

so its highly plausible, even obvious due to thermodynamics that matter always existed, yet you choose to beleive that a highly complex BEING insted created everything, and you beleive this despite the overwhelming lack of evidence. faith is not rational, trying to ratinalize it is ignorant in my opinion.


The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural".

It all goes back to philosophical and/or religious belief. Again, either you belief that life has a supernatural source or you don't.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!