PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     The Evolutionists' Manifesto
       Predicting the truth since 1859

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Evolutionists’ Manifesto




Fact: DNA may be shown to indeed show all the properties of design and that no other way is possible for its origin. This of course means that a supernatural agent created life and that it was not natural.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that DNA would show supernatural design. The Theory of evolution also agrees that supernatural forces do indeed exist and explain a lot of “supposed” inconsistencies in the Theory of evolution.
-Consequently if DNA is shown to have originated by pure natural means later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: The fossil record may ultimately fail to provide any clear evidence of an intermediate species which is what the Theory of evolution requires.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that the fossil record would not give any evidence in favor of the theory. All life is to be considered intermediates of other related life forms and/or intermediates are not required, and  biological evolution is too slow to leave evidence.
-Consequently if intermediates are found in the fossil record later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, intermediates are required, and biological evolution is then fast enough to leave evidence, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: Mutations may be shown to not be the cause of increased genetic information in a species and that it is impossible for a species to gain a vertical increase in genetic information which is what the Theory of evolution requires.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that mutations would not account for information increase in DNA of a species and that it is not necessary for the Theory of evolution.
-Consequently if mutations turn out to increase genetic information later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, and genetic increase in information by mutations is necessary, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: Comparative anatomy may be shown to lend support towards Creationism in that species share similar traits because they were made by the same designer, instead of the interpretation being that all species spawned from one another.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that comparative anatomy would show that all species were created by the same designer. This has always been the stance of the Theory of evolution.
-Consequently if comparative anatomy turns out to actually prove that species changed from one to another later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: Radioisotope dating may be found to be based on several un-provable assumptions and actually be shown that its results show discrepancy as the rule instead of the exception. Also dates may actually show that the earth is thousands not billions of years old.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that radioisotopes would give inaccurate dates. This is in perfect accord with the Theory of evolution as a whole. And only several years are required for biological evolution.
-Consequently if radioisotope dating turns out to be accurate later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, then billions of years are required for biological evolution, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: Genetic Sequencing between species to determine their phylogenic relationships may prove to be very unreliable in determining common ancestry and may instead show that unrelated species may be closer to each other than related species revealing the ineptitude of gene sequencing to determine common ancestry.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that genetic sequencing to show phylogenic similarities between species would prove fruitless. Some unrelated species show that they are closer genetically then their related species, and related species show that they are not genetically related even though they make look morphologically similar.
-Consequently if genetic sequencing turns out to prove common ancestry among species later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.

Fact: A better theory could be devised that disproves the Theory of evolution, fits all the evidence, and is more accurate and trumps the Theory of evolution.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution has always predicted that a better theory would trump it. The new theory will of course have to then change its name to the Theory of evolution and this of course confirms the prediction that the Theory of evolution is the best theory and can never be trumped.
-Consequently, if the new theory turns out to be inaccurate later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.

Well there you have it. Creationists your time is up. As I’ve shown, any evidence you find will have already been predicted by the Theory of evolution. You cannot deny these facts!


Facts:

-A recent survey shows that over 100% of evolutionary scientists believe in evolution! Those are outstanding statistics.

-10 out of 10 evolutionary scientists reject Creationism! That’s right, absolutely zero evolutionary scientists believe in Creation.

-Studies confirm that the Theory of evolution actually agrees with itself in every way.

-Evolutionary scientists have just confirmed that excluding anything but that which is natural and material, the Theory of evolution is the only logical conclusion!

-Scientists who accept the Theory of evolution have just verified that any scientific theory involving even a hint of religion, God, or the supernatural can now be rejected out-of-hand without needing to spend time analyzing it’s truthfulness.

-Evolutionary biologists have recently found that if they interpret any biological experiment using the Theory of evolution, that it in fact confirms the Theory of evolution.

Nothing more can be said. The case for the Theory of evolution being true is closed. The verdict? The Theory of evolution is 100% correct because the theory predicted it so. Nice try Creationists but you will never beat us!


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 05:19 AM on March 17, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What a load of crap this post it!

-A recent survey shows that over 100% of evolutionary scientists believe in evolution! Those are outstanding statistics.

That's all biologists, since the theory of evolution is the unifying theory of biology.

-10 out of 10 evolutionary scientists reject Creationism! That’s right, absolutely zero evolutionary scientists believe in Creation.

Since creationism was falsified over 200 years ago, what's the problem?  Also, 10 out of 10 geologists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 astronomers reject creationism, 10 out of 10 chemists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 physicists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 scientsits reject creationism.

-Studies confirm that the Theory of evolution actually agrees with itself in every way.

This is incorrect, the theory of evolution actually agrees with all evidence found to date.

-Evolutionary scientists have just confirmed that excluding anything but that which is natural and material, the Theory of evolution is the only logical conclusion!

All scientists conclude this, the supernatural can NOT be included in a scientific theory.

-Scientists who accept the Theory of evolution have just verified that any scientific theory involving even a hint of religion, God, or the supernatural can now be rejected out-of-hand without needing to spend time analyzing it’s truthfulness.

Once again, all scientists conclude this, the supernatural can NOT be part of a scientific theory.  Sheesh, you really don't understand how science works...

-Evolutionary biologists have recently found that if they interpret any biological experiment using the Theory of evolution, that it in fact confirms the Theory of evolution.

Nonsense, the theory of evlution makes valid predictions that have been verified.  You creationists like to try and twist the scientific method to suit your needs.  It's obvious from this ludicrous post you don't understand what science is or how it works.  

Nothing more can be said. The case for the Theory of evolution being true is closed. The verdict? The Theory of evolution is 100% correct because the theory predicted it so. Nice try Creationists but you will never
beat us!


The preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, so much so that virtually all biologists accept it.  It is the unifying concept of modern biology.  Creationists are afraid of it because it destroys their silly superstitions.  Despite all their whining, pleading and willful ignorance, they can produce no evidence to falsify it nor can they produce any evidence to support creationism.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:06 AM on March 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Evolutionists’ Manifesto


I’ve read through the entire post, and although it’s obvious it was intended sarcasm—and I did find parts of it humorous—some of it I just don’t understand.

Fact: DNA may be shown to indeed show all the properties of design and that no other way is possible for its origin. This of course means that a supernatural agent created life and that it was not natural.


What exactly is your definition of fact, first of all? That entire statement is purely speculation. In addition, it makes an enormous jump in logic. It ‘may actually be shown’ that DNA was designed… by natural designers. I do not necessarily mean mere laws of our universe, either, but a literal designer in the same way that human beings design commercial jets.

Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that DNA would show supernatural design.


As far as I know, the Theory of Evolution predicts no such thing. That is not to say, however, that such circumstances are impossible.

The Theory of evolution also agrees that supernatural forces do indeed exist and explain a lot of “supposed” inconsistencies in the Theory of evolution.


Your point appears to be that, hypothetically, if evolutionists were confronted with confirming evidence of supernatural design, they would all pivot around and claim that’s exactly what they were talking about with the Theory of Evolution. If that is not your premise, correct me. Needless to say, that’s also all based on speculation, and I would even venture out to say it’s not true.

-Consequently if DNA is shown to have originated by pure natural means later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.


The whole problem with your first paragraph in this post is that the ToE doesn’t even touch the appearance of life! You’re arguing Abiogenesis, not Evolution. You’ve just cleanly explained how, whether or not an intelligent designer did create the first life, Evolution is still possible. What exactly was your final point with the additional sentence starting with “Consequently,” in the first place? That evolutionists will go to desperate measures just to make people believe they’re right? The situation you described is the same with virtually all scientific theories! If a supernatural designer created the first life, Atomic Theory still applies… The Theory of Gravity still applies. Electro Magnetism still applies… I really hope I didn’t misunderstand the last sentence, but I don’t see how you could have been trying to say anything else.

Fact: The fossil record may ultimately fail to provide any clear evidence of an intermediate species which is what the Theory of evolution requires.


I’m afraid to even go here, because the question is worded so strangely. As the scientific definition of a transitional species stands, there are many more than one that have been found in the fossil record. I’ll explain further after citing the rest of this part.

Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that the fossil record would not give any evidence in favor of the theory. All life is to be considered intermediates of other related life forms and/or intermediates are not required, and  biological evolution is too slow to leave evidence.


I’ve seen people argue the issue with that position, and I’ve argued it the same way as well… but without ever claiming Natural Selection is too slow to leave evidence. Essentially, it’s true. Every specie is inherently a transitional to the next specie up the line. I don’t know if you’re just embellishing your own experiences with advocates of the ToE, to make us look more unintelligent or illogical than we really are, or if you’re just picking and choosing from the most dim opponents you’ve ever met. I’ve never heard anyone claim that evolution “is too slow to leave evidence.”

There are, of course, problems with finding complete transitional timelines in the fossil records. The shifting of earth’s tectonic plates is, as you probably know, the main culprit in destroying fossilized evidence. Also taking into account the fact that only a very slim percentage of organic remains actually become fossilized, we are not left with as much to work with as Creationists would like. But that’s a given. We find a transitional that is X number of generations between two other species, and we’re asked for a closer number. We find a transitional that is much closer, and we’re still urged for a closer number. Disregarding the fallacious argument that a lack of evidence for the ToE is positive evidence for Creation, you guys really know how to stamp on our nerves with the issue of transitional fossils.

-Consequently if intermediates are found in the fossil record later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, intermediates are required, and biological evolution is then fast enough to leave evidence, thus confirming evolution.


Right, whatever. Never mind that the majority of evolutionists would not argue that the ToE is plausible under the first conditions you described. But, before I finish with this one… What in the world do you mean by “the fossil record may ultimately fail to provide any clear evidence…”? What are you trying to say? That if all the museums and storage facilities with transitional fossils mysteriously burned down, evolutionists would find themselves pretty pickled?

Fact: Mutations may be shown to not be the cause of increased genetic information in a species and that it is impossible for a species to gain a vertical increase in genetic information which is what the Theory of evolution requires.


This has got to be your most ridiculous shot in the dark yet. Two plus two “might” suddenly fail to equal to four, but until then, I’m satisfied with the way things work. As it stands, genetic evidence supports the ToE. I really don’t care how much a particular evolutionist might struggle to pick up the pieces if the evidence suddenly betrayed evolution.

Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that mutations would not account for information increase in DNA of a species and that it is not necessary for the Theory of evolution.
-Consequently if mutations turn out to increase genetic information later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, and genetic increase in information by mutations is necessary, thus confirming evolution.


From what I remember in my Biology class, DNA mutates both ways! DNA can sustain a mutation in which information is added, removed, and replaced.  The Chain can grow longer, it can grow shorter, or it could stay the same length and still undergo mutations. Where’s the problem, Zero?

Fact: Comparative anatomy may be shown to lend support towards Creationism in that species share similar traits because they were made by the same designer, instead of the interpretation being that all species spawned from one another.


This point is much more one against Intelligent Design than the ToE. Intelligent Design works either way, whether all species are designed similarly or completely different from one another. It’s impossible to falsify ID!

But the whole underlying point of this post is to show that Evolution cannot be falsified either. It ain’t the case, Zero. Yeah, there will always be fanatics in any issue who will claim, no matter how much the evidence contradicts their position, that they are right (like the Flat Earth Society), but you’ve shown no flaws in Evolution as a scientific theory.

Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that comparative anatomy would show that all species were created by the same designer.


Evolution predicts no such thing, and you know someone is full of it when they claim it does. The only possible way Natural Selection could apply to those circumstances, if the “designer” was just Natural Selection itself.

-Consequently if comparative anatomy turns out to actually prove that species changed from one to another later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, thus confirming evolution.


Nothing in science is ever proven, Zero, aside from core mathematics. Assuming you meant “support” in place of “prove,” I completely agree. Comparative Anatomy does support the ToE, and under the current definition of ID that has been made so vague that almost anything works, Comparative Anatomy can also support ID.

Fact: Radioisotope dating may be found to be based on several un-provable assumptions and actually be shown that its results show discrepancy as the rule instead of the exception. Also dates may actually show that the earth is thousands not billions of years old.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that radioisotopes would give inaccurate dates.


What are you talking about? Once again, the ToE doesn’t even touch this issue. It’s the change of life over time, it has nothing to do with the accuracies of radioisotope dating.

This is in perfect accord with the Theory of evolution as a whole. And only several years are required for biological evolution.


Correction: days, not years, in some cases. Certainly not the case with animals and plants that have trillions of cells to deal with, but microorganisms, as you know, evolve almost constantly.

-Consequently if radioisotope dating turns out to be accurate later on, then the Theory of evolution also predicted that, then billions of years are required for biological evolution, thus confirming evolution.


Well, shucks, those evolutionists sure know how to twist the facts to fit their view! It’s a good thing we have you on our side to call their bluffs, Zero.

Fact: Genetic Sequencing between species to determine their phylogenic relationships may prove to be very unreliable in determining common ancestry and may instead show that unrelated species may be closer to each other than related species revealing the ineptitude of gene sequencing to determine common ancestry.


Well, it doesn’t. Sorry.

Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution predicted that genetic sequencing to show phylogenic similarities between species would prove fruitless.


Oh right, of course. I remember coming across in many of Gould’s works.

Fact: A better theory could be devised that disproves the Theory of evolution, fits all the evidence, and is more accurate and trumps the Theory of evolution.
Solution: No problem, the Theory of evolution has always predicted that a better theory would trump it.


Okay, now you’re just going for giggles.

Well there you have it. Creationists your time is up. As I’ve shown, any evidence you find will have already been predicted by the Theory of evolution. You cannot deny these facts!


I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a Creationist… however, I most certainly do deny these disturbing facts you’ve revealed. What are evolutionists coming to, claiming that evolution is too slow to leave evidence? Thanks, Zero. You’ve really opened up my eyes to the stubbornness and argumentative nature of people who… argue the issue.

-A recent survey shows that over 100% of evolutionary scientists believe in evolution! Those are outstanding statistics.


A recent petition shows that the 500 scientists accumulated by the Discovery Institute--who disagree with the way the ToE is taught--are substantially trumped by the some 700 (and growing) scientists, who not only are satisfied with the way the ToE is taught, but whose first names are all a form of Steve.

10 out of 10 evolutionary scientists reject Creationism! That’s right, absolutely zero evolutionary scientists believe in Creation.


Wrong. There are plenty of evolutionists out there who believe in both Creation and Evolution, most notably the devoutly-Catholic professor of Biology at Brown University, Kenneth R. Miller.

-Studies confirm that the Theory of evolution actually agrees with itself in every way.


I heard the same thing about Gravity, and some forms of Creation.

-Evolutionary scientists have just confirmed that excluding anything but that which is natural and material, the Theory of evolution is the only logical conclusion!


Wrong again. Replace ‘logical’ with ‘scientific’, and you’re golden.

-Scientists who accept the Theory of evolution have just verified that any scientific theory involving even a hint of religion, God, or the supernatural can now be rejected out-of-hand without needing to spend time analyzing it’s truthfulness.


Once more: wrong. Any mention of a supernatural force would by definition mean it cannot be a scientific theory, and it would therefore never have the opportunity to be excluded. This is a real problem, in fact. Dembski, Behe and co. just haven’t retired from their podiums yet. They’re too concerned with the glory and fame of having invented the idea of ID to bother writing any scientific reports on the issue and submitting them to the scientific community.

-Evolutionary biologists have recently found that if they interpret any biological experiment using the Theory of evolution, that it in fact confirms the Theory of evolution.


Certainly not all biological experiments (such as dialysis), but a great number of them have their own corner of the ToE to support, yes.

Nothing more can be said. The case for the Theory of evolution being true is closed. The verdict? The Theory of evolution is 100% correct because the theory predicted it so. Nice try Creationists but you will never beat us!


Heh. It was an enjoyable read, Zero, I do admit that. I also hope that you will not find my demeanor to be as “impetuous” nor “imprudent” as you did last time we responded to one another.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:47 AM on March 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, this post was so over-the-toply (new word) sarcastic that I was going to let it go, but the responses have prodded me to make two points...

Since creationism was falsified over 200 years ago, what's the problem?  Also, 10 out of 10 geologists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 astronomers reject creationism, 10 out of 10 chemists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 physicists reject creationism, 10 out of 10 scientsits reject creationism.


I doubt that you are goint to get 10 out of 10 on all of those, especially the physicists...

Yeah, there will always be fanatics in any issue who will claim, no matter how much the evidence contradicts their position, that they are right (like the Flat Earth Society), but you’ve shown no flaws in Evolution as a scientific theory.

What!?!?!?  The earth isn't flat?!?!?!  (ok, I can only be serious for so long, sorry).




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:13 PM on March 17, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THANK YOU ZERO! I was laughing out loud, literally, almost hurt myself.

On a side note, ToE was postulated around 1859 or so. If it was so convincing why wasn't it widely accepted until 1930-1940 during the synthesis. Anatomist and Paleontologist were some of the most against ToE. They had the physical evidence that said no way, still do.

Today it's still the same with but now it's physics. Physics is so theistic it's ridiculous. If I was an Eist, I'd just say, well, that's not part of ToE. But of course the ToE predicted this.

The origin of the universe has God and all the math you need all over it. We have the origin-of-life issue, which is still nowhere. They might as well try be trying to make armor-piercing bullets from cotton balls.

Oh yeah (how many times Entwick?), homology. The science of similarity by common descent. We'll prove it by showing you how similiar they are with sequencing, now it's a fact. We'll further prove it by assuming they're descended in the first place and use the molecular clock(which is known to be inaccurate so it has to be checked by other means) to date the descent. Ah ha, still more of the facts that evolution has occured.

Natural Selection(god) is so powerful it has around seven or so different causes that can happen at the same time. How is this falsifiable?

Honestly, anyone who thinks ToE/ID is 100% proven, has been brainwashed. Anyone who thinks ID has no evidence, has been brainwashed. If there was no evidence ToE would have been accepted a lot sooner.

The truth can stand up to scrutiny and shine. E will never shine because it's been compartmentalized.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:48 AM on March 18, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On a side note, ToE was postulated around 1859 or so. If it was so convincing why wasn't it widely accepted until 1930-1940 during the synthesis.


I don’t know? What an irrelevant observation.

Anatomist and Paleontologist were some of the most against ToE. They had the physical evidence that said no way, still do.


Got a source? It just seems like you’re making this all up once again.

Today it's still the same with but now it's physics. Physics is so theistic it's ridiculous. If I was an Eist, I'd just say, well, that's not part of ToE. But of course the ToE predicted this.


It is worth congratulating you on your ability to be as vague as possible. I don’t even know how you intended that to back up your point.

The origin of the universe has God and all the math you need all over it. We have the origin-of-life issue, which is still nowhere.


So, in other words, we’ve got an issue that is about as neutral as it comes. Yep, that’s proof of a god.

They might as well try be trying to make armor-piercing bullets from cotton balls.


You remind me of Tim on CreationTalk. You make these empty assertions and hopeful predictions for the future over Evolution, but some of the time, I doubt you even believe what you’re saying. There are very few tell-tale signs that Evolution is on its way out, or even weakening, when Republican judges becomes so infuriated with ID and its proponents that they explain it as “masquerading as science.”

Oh yeah (how many times Entwick?), homology. The science of similarity by common descent. We'll prove it by showing you how similiar they are with sequencing, now it's a fact.


Normally I overlook poor grammar, but some of this I can’t even piece together with all the commas. Please make the above statement more clear.

We'll further prove it by assuming they're descended in the first place and use the molecular clock(which is known to be inaccurate so it has to be checked by other means) to date the descent.


You have ignored—EVERY TIME—the point I make about DNA successfully mutating and causing evolution TODAY. Species evolve TODAY, Milken, and there is absolutely NO reason to suspect DNA stopped causing phenotypic changes in any specie’s offspring. Observed events of naturally-occurring speciation further back this point. Homology itself is a neutral fact when left alone as the sole evidence, but when you contrast it with both the fossil evidence and the way DNA behaves as a molecule, there is only one conclusion.

Natural Selection(god) is so powerful it has around seven or so different causes that can happen at the same time. How is this falsifiable?


There’s only one cause, Milken. Changes in the DNA code of a species prove beneficial to that specie’s conditions, and they survive, while species without as many beneficial changes, or perhaps with some detrimental changes, will perish.

Honestly, anyone who thinks ToE/ID is 100% proven, has been brainwashed.


Anyone who thinks science has 100% proven anything has been brainwashed.

Anyone who thinks ID has no evidence, has been brainwashed. If there was no evidence ToE would have been accepted a lot sooner.


::claps:: Profound logic.


The truth can stand up to scrutiny and shine. E will never shine because it's been compartmentalized.


This has been my point from the very beginning of our discussions with each other, Milken. Evolution might not be the all-powerful truth, but it is still the only scientifically viable conclusion. ID cannot stand up to scrutiny, because by definition, it cannot be scrutinized.

Zerocool claimed that evolutionists just turn around and act like any evidence against evolution is actually evidence that has supported evolution all along… but I’ve shown how those examples would never fly within the scientific community. (ie: Evolution is too slow to leave evidence; the ToE predicted DNA would support ‘supernatural design’… ) But it works completely backwards in real life. The real masters of this game of changing the theory to meet the evidence are you guys.

Intelligent Design, according to William Dembski, proposes that a supernatural force created every specie individually, while Michael Behe proposes that a supernatural force created some species—only the irreducibly complex kind—and allowed evolution to work on the others. It is the not the inconsistencies between those two ideas that I hope to point out, so much as the excuses are for the idea of ID over all.

When confronted with the fact that all organisms have impeding body parts that were poorly designed, ID excuses it with the idea that the supernatural force intentionally designed those impediments. When further argued against, on the grounds that body hindrances would hardly advocate for an all-knowing, omnipotent god, the typical reply comes down to a more sophisticated form of “God works in mysterious ways.” What outstanding scientific ethic. To show how we can scientifically prove a supernatural being, it’s established right away that we: may never even know who the designer is, what he/she/it looks like, if he/she/it even has an appearance, how this designer actually goes about designing things, a timeframe of when certain things were designed, why certain things would be designed in the first place…

Milken, ID’s strategy for proving design is to show how little of ID can actually be proven.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:04 PM on March 18, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:04 PM on March 18, 2006 :
On a side note, ToE was postulated around 1859 or so. If it was so convincing why wasn't it widely accepted until 1930-1940 during the synthesis.




Uhhh,  I apologize you felt compelled to reply.



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:43 AM on March 20, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:04 PM on March 18, 2006 :
with the fact that all organisms have impeding body parts that were poorly designed, ID excuses it with the idea that the supernatural force intentionally designed those impediments. When further argued against, on the grounds that body hindrances would hardly advocate for an all-knowing, omnipotent god, the typical reply comes down to a more sophisticated form of “God works in mysterious ways.” What outstanding scientific ethic. To show how we can scientifically prove a supernatural being, it’s established right away that we: may never even know who the designer is, what he/she/it looks like, if he/she/it even has an appearance, how this designer actually goes about designing things, a timeframe of when certain things were designed, why certain things would be designed in the first place…


Entwick: The problem is with your ideas of perfection.  God's perfection and perfect plan includes "weak" things, i.e. "for my strength is made perfect in weakness."  "Impediments" (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on something which is difficult to determine in its totality) and timeframes don't necessarily imply imperfection in design or impotency.  Furthermore, God's total perfection includes the semi-independent workings of imperfect beings such as fallen angels.  It's a tribute to his total perfection and power that he can sustain finite semi-independent imperfection and carry out his total plans.  The fact that imperfect spirits are partly involved in "evolution" says nothing about God's higher perfection.


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 12:02 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Entwick: The problem is with your ideas of perfection.  God's perfection and perfect plan includes "weak" things, i.e. "for my strength is made perfect in weakness."  "Impediments" (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on something which is difficult to determine in its totality) and timeframes don't necessarily imply imperfection in design or impotency.  Furthermore, God's total perfection includes the semi-independent workings of imperfect beings such as fallen angels.  It's a tribute to his total perfection and power that he can sustain finite semi-independent imperfection and carry out his total plans.  The fact that imperfect spirits are partly involved in "evolution" says nothing about God's higher perfection.


It does, however, disqualify ID from science.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:27 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
serp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Though I disagree that IP (intelligent process - I prefer this term because I believe ID unfairly limits the scope of the issues at hand) doesn't have a limited place in the soft sciences, for the moment I want to continue its discussion in the religion forum.  I'm working out my own soft scientific defense of it as well as giving my personal opinions of its deeper connections with religion.

(Edited by serp 3/22/2006 at 05:39 AM).


-------
All truth is found within the
healthy soul.
 


Posts: 48 | Posted: 7:46 PM on March 21, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EntwickelnCollin,

Sorry it took so long to reply to you in this post. It’s good to see you again. Anyway let me just state for the record that the point of the post was in fact to be a playful parody of the evolutionists' position. Though I didn’t intend it to offend anyone it was more meant to bring about light-hearted humor. Hey, everyone can enjoy getting a good laugh at humanity.

In any event, since my post was meant to be purely jocular replying to any specific question would be fruitless. But since you did reply I thought I would at least extend to you the courtesy of a reply back. With that said I’m glad that you enjoyed the post, it shows that my intent was successful.

On a side note, in reference to your demeanor I did find it quite pleasant. Much more so than last time. But like I said previously, you and I are both fine and there’s no need to bring up any past problems. I’ve actually been meaning to have a discussion with you since then because you have since seemed like an intelligent respectful debater. I will post again so that we can start with a fresh thread.

best wishes,


zerocool_12790


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 11:39 PM on March 23, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.