PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 22:34:54
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12
Author Topic: The Reality of Evolution?  (Read 4357 times)

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
False. All processes prove evolution.
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution



Ha Ha Ha

Thanks for the laughs.  What a great example of circular reasoning.  And not one single piece of real science in the whole article.  Just a bunch of misguided attempts to make reality fit a false belief system.


Here is a part the basic premise of the article:

What’s so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions:

    Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related?
    Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography?
    Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations?

Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.


Let's look at the 3 claims.

Of course there are similarities between species.  Just like all vehicles that travel down the road have some type of wheels then it only stands to reason that living creatures would have similar features.  We all have to breath so we have lungs.  We all have to eat so we have mouths.  We all have a lot of the same features and characteristics because we were designed by the same creator.  DUH!  That argument proves creation more than it proves evolution.

The second one is even more foolish for an evolutionist to claim.  If change over time created all the different creatures then why have there NEVER been found any missing links or transitional fossils been found?  Not one single fossil that is an example of an animal that is somewhere between one species and another.   With all the millions of fossils that have been found there are still no missing link fossils.   Even Darwin said this was a problem with his theory.  He was hoping they would someday be found.  But they haven't been.

The last statement is simply wishful thinking.  Trying to claim some species have remnants from the past is wild conjecture.  We don't know enough about so much in this world that we don't know why some species have unusual traits.  The duck-billed platypus is a good example of a strange animal.  Evolution can't explain such an animal any better than creation can.

Respectfully,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
Seems everything i have posted has fallen on death ears.

I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than a myth.

I am truly amazed at just how blind those that have faith are.
It go's far beyond the limit i expected.


Brad

Ya know Brad, I had never intended on bringing it up, but since you choose to make little of Einsteins intelligence with the bird tipper, what about your grammar? Just to correct you on that, the word is 'deaf' not death.  Grammar should be so much simpler than the physics of the tipping bird, but after many others have tried to correct you on that in the past with your use of dose instead of does, you still dont get it.   So think first before you use that sort of argument in your losing debate here.

Mags
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Seems everything i have posted has fallen on death ears.

I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than a myth.

I am truly amazed at just how blind those that have faith are.
It go's far beyond the limit i expected.

Brad


Just to keep it simple... when you start a project it starts with an idea, right? Then you maybe draw it out to check the fit dimensions, then you build it.

Then and only then does evolution kick in, Mark 1/2/3 or version 1/2/3 etc.

That is the problem with "evolution", who thought up the original model???

Ron
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613


Ha Ha Ha

Thanks for the laughs.  What a great example of circular reasoning.  And not one single piece of real science in the whole article.
...

Certainly not. Your remarks are as inconsistent about rhetoric as in science.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
Thats a lot of water from just 1 cloud. ^-^  Imagine 40 days and 40 night of that. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaDBoH9JnJk

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Ya know Brad, I had never intended on bringing it up, but since you choose to make little of Einsteins intelligence with the bird tipper, what about your grammar? Just to correct you on that, the word is 'deaf' not death.  Grammar should be so much simpler than the physics of the tipping bird, but after many others have tried to correct you on that in the past with your use of dose instead of does, you still dont get it.   So think first before you use that sort of argument in your losing debate here.

Mags

1st off mags,i have never claimed to be an expert in anything,and grammar means very little to me.
But-2nd. The word i wrote is correct !death! ears.
If you did not understand the meaning behind that statement,then i guess it must be an Aussie thing,and not known around the world.

I will try and keep it to a level we both get from now on  O0
However,it is great thay you can still read my terribly written posts without any trouble.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Thats a lot of water from just 1 cloud. ^-^  Imagine 40 days and 40 night of that. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaDBoH9JnJk

Mags

Oddly enough,the amount of water that cloud dropped was the exact amount of water the ocean gave to it in the first place.

So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water.

Total gain in sea level =0.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Certainly not. Your remarks are as inconsistent about rhetoric as in science.

I think we're flogging a dead horse F6FLT.

But to be expected.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 613
I think we're flogging a dead horse F6FLT.

But to be expected.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Thank you for the idiom. Expressions are what I need most to express myself in English. To say the same about the uselessness of an action, French is more vulgar, it's "you might as well pee in a violin". But sometimes it is a relief.  ;).



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 386
Hi Brad,

Thank you for the idiom. Expressions are what I need most to express myself in English. To say the same about the uselessness of an action, French is more vulgar, it's "you might as well pee in a violin". But sometimes it is a relief.  ;).

Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.

However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.

Ron
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 140
Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.

However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.

Ron

Right on:

"You're all just pissing' in the wind. You don't know it but you are. And there ain't nothing' like a friend who can tell you you're just pissing' in the wind." - Ambulance Blues --Neil Young.

take care, peace
lost_bro
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2150


Buy me a cigar
Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.

However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.

Ron

One way of " getting your own back "   ;)


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
1st off mags,i have never claimed to be an expert in anything,and grammar means very little to me.
But-2nd. The word i wrote is correct !death! ears.
If you did not understand the meaning behind that statement,then i guess it must be an Aussie thing,and not known around the world.

I will try and keep it to a level we both get from now on  O0
However,it is great thay you can still read my terribly written posts without any trouble.

Brad


I suppose you just dont get it.   ???

You claim that science proves evolution. I bring up quotes from famous scientists like Einstein, and you rebuttal is that he couldnt figure out the tipping bird as an example that 'oh, well he is just stupid' or whatever you meant by it.

So what now? Because of your statement about Einstien, we should just ignore anything he has ever said?

Well then why is it that we shouldnt judge you for your shortcomings and just say 'well, I dont know if Brad has it all together, so why should we take anything else he says seriously?' especially when it comes to this subject??

Just saying, if that is your argument against Einstein, then maybe you should be put under the same scrutiny for things that are just as frivolous as the tipping bird.

It goes both ways.

When I was a kid, my grandfather had the tipping bird. I didnt knopw how it worked at the time either, and it wasnt explained to me as maybe my grandfather didnt know either.

And since you stated it about the 'death ears', I did some searching. Cant find a lick about it being a common aussie saying. I even found this that should have had it in the list if what you say is so....

https://nomadsworld.com/aussie-slang/       

Searched yesterday and today before I wrote this.

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee

I suppose you just dont get it.   ???

You claim that science proves evolution. I bring up quotes from famous scientists like Einstein, and you rebuttal is that he couldnt figure out the tipping bird as an example that 'oh, well he is just stupid' or whatever you meant by it.

So what now? Because of your statement about Einstien, we should just ignore anything he has ever said?

Well then why is it that we shouldnt judge you for your shortcomings and just say 'well, I dont know if Brad has it all together, so why should we take anything else he says seriously?' especially when it comes to this subject??

Just saying, if that is your argument against Einstein, then maybe you should be put under the same scrutiny for things that are just as frivolous as the tipping bird.

It goes both ways.

When I was a kid, my grandfather had the tipping bird. I didnt knopw how it worked at the time either, and it wasnt explained to me as maybe my grandfather didnt know either.

And since you stated it about the 'death ears', I did some searching. Cant find a lick about it being a common aussie saying. I even found this that should have had it in the list if what you say is so....

https://nomadsworld.com/aussie-slang/       

Searched yesterday and today before I wrote this.

Mags

What i was saying is that no one gets everything right,or knows everything.

The simplest of things can stump the smartest of people.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
What i was saying is that no one gets everything right,or knows everything.

The simplest of things can stump the smartest of people.


Brad

Ok. But, you seem to disagree with your own statement when it comes to evolution and you completely dismiss the possibility that science may be put forth to make it look like God doesnt exist let alone created the heavens and the earth. Just as you and F6 vehemently attack and strike down any talk of god or religion, there are people in science that do the same. Like your not satisfied with what you should be content with and have to hammer on the ideals of others that do not agree with you on this.  It seems to really bother you 2 sooo much, I find it very interesting as to why. I venture to say, as I had said before, that you had some bad experience with religion in the past, in order for you to have such animosity toward it. If so, Im not asking you to open up about it. But I find it odd that there is a lot of hate behind it all and it cannot be just about who is right and who is wrong, otherwise why do you care so much about what someone says about it to a point of, well look at this thread.

In contrast, I find having conversations with liberals about Trump to be even more reactionary, as just the mention of his name and they either step back away from me or come out of the woodwork and yell, 'He is a liar!' (what most say at first) And I ask, what did he lie about?  Mostly they first say about the crowd size at his rally's.  Oh really?  And when you try to show proof otherwise, they dont want to see it. And they dont have any real substance as to why they hate Trump. They just simply shout off statements from CNN, MSNBC, etc. But they really dont know anything but what they hear from these propaganda news stations day in and day out. If I try to say, well look at the economy and the stock market, lowest unemployment rate, etc, and many of the promises he has kept, they say that Obama is responsible for all that. Even Obama says it. Then I say, well if trump is soo bad, why hasnt all this good that has come not fallen since Trump has been in office, as it would or should with a lying, treacherous president as you claim he is? But they dont have any answers to that, as it seems they only believe the headlines and dont do their own research.     And, most will not talk to me any further and treat me like I am an enemy.

I hope he gets another 4 yrs in 2020.



But some do come to see the light. Check out #walkaway movement. People that have some sense and find their own party members seem to have just gone batty.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ/videos

Many of the vids are of real people explaining why they have walked away, and most all for the same reasons. And many say because they have done their own research.


Mags
« Last Edit: 2019-06-19, 02:58:35 by Magluvin »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Ok. But, you seem to disagree with your own statement when it comes to evolution and you completely dismiss the possibility that science may be put forth to make it look like God doesnt exist let alone created the heavens and the earth. Just as you and F6 vehemently attack and strike down any talk of god or religion, there are people in science that do the same. Like your not satisfied with what you should be content with and have to hammer on the ideals of others that do not agree with you on this.  It seems to really bother you 2 sooo much, I find it very interesting as to why. I venture to say, as I had said before, that you had some bad experience with religion in the past, in order for you to have such animosity toward it. If so, Im not asking you to open up about it. But I find it odd that there is a lot of hate behind it all and it cannot be just about who is right and who is wrong, otherwise why do you care so much about what someone says about it to a point of, well look at this thread.

In contrast, I find having conversations with liberals about Trump to be even more reactionary, as just the mention of his name and they either step back away from me or come out of the woodwork and yell, 'He is a liar!' (what most say at first) And I ask, what did he lie about?  Mostly they first say about the crowd size at his rally's.  Oh really?  And when you try to show proof otherwise, they dont want to see it. And they dont have any real substance as to why they hate Trump. They just simply shout off statements from CNN, MSNBC, etc. But they really dont know anything but what they hear from these propaganda news stations day in and day out. If I try to say, well look at the economy and the stock market, lowest unemployment rate, etc, and many of the promises he has kept, they say that Obama is responsible for all that. Even Obama says it. Then I say, well if trump is soo bad, why hasnt all this good that has come not fallen since Trump has been in office, as it would or should with a lying, treacherous president as you claim he is? But they dont have any answers to that, as it seems they only believe the headlines and dont do their own research.     And, most will not talk to me any further and treat me like I am an enemy.

I hope he gets another 4 yrs in 2020.



But some do come to see the light. Check out #walkaway movement. People that have some sense and find their own party members seem to have just gone batty.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ/videos

Many of the vids are of real people explaining why they have walked away, and most all for the same reasons. And many say because they have done their own research.


Mags

Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth. So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science.

It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp,and after reading this thread you can plainly see as to just how far creationists will go to keep there elusion going.
The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes.

If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact.

When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's  a no brainer as far as im concerned.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth. So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science.

It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp,and after reading this thread you can plainly see as to just how far creationists will go to keep there elusion going.
The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes.

If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact.

When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's  a no brainer as far as im concerned.

Brad

"Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth."

But it was you guys that took a comment in the other thread and created this conversation, and then the conversation was moved to here. :P


"So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science."

Tell me, where are we twisting things? Discredit?  And you did not try to discredit Einstein as a reply to my posts on Einsteins statements about God?  Come on Brad. If you now think we should take your 'twist' that your bird tipper post was not a form of discrediting Einstein because I had shown his positive views on intelligent design, then I have to say you are either delusional or dishonest.  How could anyone here read that and not see it exactly for what it was. You are doing just fine discrediting your self here.


"It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp"

lol. Show me our dishonesty!!! Show me where I have lied here!! You really have a lot of nerve Brad. Show me we lied! Lied like you lied about the 'death ears' being an aussie thing, of which I have found NO reference to such, and I doubt anyone can or will. And you say we are twisting and dishonest.  I have just lost a load of respect for you here and now.


"The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes."

You are a complete hypocrite Brad. You really think you can just reduce what you said of Einstein, and meant by it, to a bit of nothing and then try and prop up what I said to be the bad guy.  You still dont get it. I used it as an example. You insulted his intelligence to downplay his words about god. It was very very clear that this is what you were doing. See, for you it seems to be ok and alrighty then to do so, but when it is done to you, well we cant have that, can we, Mister Twister....  The word hypocrite was used in the Bible, and for the same reasons I have used it here.


"If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact."

Well I dont agree with 'your' facts that there is no God that you choose to believe. So to me, evolution 'THEORY'  is a myth when it is put in place of intelligent design and creation.


"When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's  a no brainer as far as im concerned. "

Yes it is. It doesnt take any brains to accept evolution over creation. ;)   There is some twist. Made it myself.


Mags


   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
"Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth."

But it was you guys that took a comment in the other thread and created this conversation, and then the conversation was moved to here. :P


"So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science."

Tell me, where are we twisting things? Discredit?  And you did not try to discredit Einstein as a reply to my posts on Einsteins statements about God?  Come on Brad. If you now think we should take your 'twist' that your bird tipper post was not a form of discrediting Einstein because I had shown his positive views on intelligent design, then I have to say you are either delusional or dishonest.  How could anyone here read that and not see it exactly for what it was. You are doing just fine discrediting your self here.


"It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp"

lol. Show me our dishonesty!!! Show me where I have lied here!! You really have a lot of nerve Brad. Show me we lied! Lied like you lied about the 'death ears' being an aussie thing, of which I have found NO reference to such, and I doubt anyone can or will. And you say we are twisting and dishonest.  I have just lost a load of respect for you here and now.


"The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes."

You are a complete hypocrite Brad. You really think you can just reduce what you said of Einstein, and meant by it, to a bit of nothing and then try and prop up what I said to be the bad guy.  You still dont get it. I used it as an example. You insulted his intelligence to downplay his words about god. It was very very clear that this is what you were doing. See, for you it seems to be ok and alrighty then to do so, but when it is done to you, well we cant have that, can we, Mister Twister....  The word hypocrite was used in the Bible, and for the same reasons I have used it here.


"If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact."

Well I dont agree with 'your' facts that there is no God that you choose to believe. So to me, evolution 'THEORY'  is a myth when it is put in place of intelligent design and creation.


"When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's  a no brainer as far as im concerned. "

Yes it is. It doesnt take any brains to accept evolution over creation. ;)   There is some twist. Made it myself.


Mags

In the other thread,god and religion was thrown in there,where it had no place to be there.

Now,go and read the entire thread,and then you will see all the dishonesty.  I provided solid evidence to the so called !missing links!,and still it is still put up as some form of bogus argument to back creation.

So here is the deal Mags--
I'll supply countless pages of proof (solid proof) of evolution,and you supply the same solid proof of god.
Now,we both know who can deliver,and who cannot.

So enough of the baloney posts,lets put up the proof.




---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
Oddly enough,the amount of water that cloud dropped was the exact amount of water the ocean gave to it in the first place.

So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water.

Total gain in sea level =0.


Brad

Well if much of the water at the time were in the sky, then there would be a lot of land to flood. You believe in all these fantastical abilities of your deity, 'nature', but cant believe that the land could have been much flatter before the floods, and when the bible says God opened up the fountains, your argument might be, heh, there is no water under ground. Well you nor anyone else knows exactly what could have been back then.

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.

Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.

Recommended Resource: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.



Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm

Evidence for Intelligent Design

So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.

Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." 1 By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.

Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. 2 However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level! 3

    It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology. 4

Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.

However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...

    When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5

H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:

    In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.6

Mags


   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm

Miracle of Life

So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time...

Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.

    In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.

    ...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1

Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.

In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:

    The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3

Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.

Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:

    An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 292
I really liked this one, especially the part about the frog in the blender. Genius.


https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/creation-of-life.htm

Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"

Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1

There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.

After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...

"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."

He stared at me with that look...

"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."

I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"

He thought for only a second...

"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.

"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."

In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
Well if much of the water at the time were in the sky, then there would be a lot of land to flood. You believe in all these fantastical abilities of your deity, 'nature', but cant believe that the land could have been much flatter before the floods, and when the bible says God opened up the fountains, your argument might be, heh, there is no water under ground. Well you nor anyone else knows exactly what could have been back then.

Mags

No,but we know what couldn't of happened,and that is the sudden appearance of nearly 4 times the volume of water as existed back then.

The bible says that the water covered all the mountains and high hill's,so obviously the land was not flat.
And the ark is suppose to be atop a mountain in Ararat,so that mountain was obviously already there.
Todays science can also tell us how long the mountains have been about,and how they were formed.

So the great flood is one of the junk creationists sciences i am talking about.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the “explanatory filter,” a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will

1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern

Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.

Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins’ observation that, “The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.” What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.

Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.

It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.

What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.

Recommended Resource: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.



Mags

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

Quote: William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,[1] specifically the concept of specified complexity, and was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[2] On September 23, 2016 he officially retired from intelligent design, resigning all his "formal associations with the ID community, including [his] Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years."[3]

In 2012, he taught as the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Science and Culture at the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, North Carolina near Charlotte.[4]

Dembski has written books about intelligent design, including The Design Inference (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999), The Design Revolution (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).

Intelligent design is the argument that an intelligent cause is responsible for the complexity of life and that one can detect that cause empirically.[5] Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC), or what he called "specified complexity."[6] The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.[7]

Seems he even came to his sensors eventually.

Nuff said  C.C


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 22:34:54