Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't think you see the difference you can predict design flaws under
We can predict deisgn "flaws". We see them. We can predict that placing organisms under stress will make them adapt. We have MRSA. We have many, many other examples like this.
current systems, but a system such as the eye before there were eyes,
exactly how would or could that be predicted? The colors that we pickup
were simply beyond all imagination if there was a time where there
were no eyes. We can predict what could occur in our current systems
mainly because we grasp the stresses they are going through, and
while we know the ranges of stress we can monitor reactions. That is
not the same thing as predicting something new, and evolution as
cool as that theory is, is not required for such predictions to occur and
be right on the money.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you functionally retarded? Evolution is what causes species to react to stresses. What we observe is evolution at work. Claiming otherwise is just nonsense.
I don't think you see the difference you can predict design flaws under
current systems, but a system such as the eye before there were eyes,
exactly how would or could that be predicted? The colors that we pickup
were simply beyond all imagination if there was a time where there
were no eyes. We can predict what could occur in our current systems
main ...[text shortened]... hat theory is, is not required for such predictions to occur and
be right on the money.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZEvolution is between your ears, it can be whatever you want it to be.
Are you functionally retarded? Evolution is what causes species to react to stresses. What we observe is evolution at work. Claiming otherwise is just nonsense.
The 'process' that is believed by people to have taken life; after some
how non-living material became life, does not mean every stress that
is applied to everything is causing all things to evolve into something
better or more highly evolved.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCareful, KJ. Even if you don't accept evolution, it is good to understand it properly. In the big scheme of things, evolution is directionless in the 'better' or 'highly' sense. Also individuals themselves to not evolve; populations do.
Evolution is between your ears, it can be whatever you want it to be.
The 'process' that is believed by people to have taken life; after some
how non-living material became life, does not mean every stress that
is applied to everything is causing all things to evolve into something [b]better or more highly evolved.
Kelly[/b]
Okay, carry on. 🙂
Originally posted by telerionI know that, which is why depending on how one defines it I can
Careful, KJ. Even if you don't accept evolution, it is good to understand it properly. In the big scheme of things, evolution is directionless in the 'better' or 'highly' sense. Also individuals themselves to not evolve; populations do.
Okay, carry on. 🙂
accept it. I do not call something going through a stress evolution,
that might be what others claim, but evolution as a word simply
can be very vague for my liking. You can express yourself on the
topic, but depending on the reader it can be taken completely
in a different way than what you meant.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut the alternative, Creationism, predicts no change, ever.
I don't think you see the difference you can predict design flaws under
current systems, but a system such as the eye before there were eyes,
exactly how would or could that be predicted? The colors that we pickup
were simply beyond all imagination if there was a time where there
were no eyes. We can predict what could occur in our current systems
main ...[text shortened]... hat theory is, is not required for such predictions to occur and
be right on the money.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd yet Creationism is even more poorly defined.
I know that, which is why depending on how one defines it I can
accept it. I do not call something going through a stress evolution,
that might be what others claim, but evolution as a word simply
can be very vague for my liking. You can express yourself on the
topic, but depending on the reader it can be taken completely
in a different way than what you meant.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo actually that's just what you think Evolution is. Evolution is a well-defined process that everything undergoes. Life from non-life is abiogenesis as has been explained to you many many times before.
Evolution is between your ears, it can be whatever you want it to be.
The 'process' that is believed by people to have taken life; after some
how non-living material became life, does not mean every stress that
is applied to everything is causing all things to evolve into something
better or more highly evolved.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNot until you empirically prove the existance of God.
I guess God did it, doesn't do it for you? 🙂
Kelly
Until you do, I'll continue to believe the universe to be the handiwork of the FSM, Giant Celestial Chicken, and that the earth swims through space on the back of a giant turtle.
5 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzScott,
Not until you empirically prove the existance of God.
Until you do, I'll continue to believe the universe to be the handiwork of the FSM, Giant Celestial Chicken, and that the earth swims through space on the back of a giant turtle.
I had a chance to speak to Professor Michael Behe, the author of "Darwin's Black Box" ( the book that evolutionists say is no good but most have never read).
When he came to a local university I went to specifically ask him a question at the end of his lecture. I asked him what would he say to those critics who say that Behe has just thrown up his hands and decided "Oh well it must have been God who did it. We don't know how it works so it must have been designed by God."
His reply in that public session I found interesting. He said in essence that his decision to pursue a theory of Intelligent Design was not based on what he didn't know. It was rather based upon what he did know.
As a scientist he understands about how some processes do work. And this is what led him to consider Intelligent Design. And there is not a hint in his book that because of possible intelligent design scientists should throw up their hands and stop researching, stop studying, stop inventing, or stop trying to find out how things work.
Now there is a book by an Evolutionists that I have promised myself that I am going to read. It is called "The Blind Watchmaker". I want to hear what that writer has to say. I wish some critics of Behe would not just take their queue from fellow Darwinists that his book is no good. Rather I wish some of them would read it.
I hope in a about a half a year you can hold me to my promise that I intend to read "The Blind Watchmaker". And if you haven't read "Darwin's Black Box" I hope you would give it a read. I found it very interesting and fair minded from more than one angle.
Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"?
Originally posted by jaywillBehe's trash has been refuted by proper scientists doing proper science.
Scott,
I had a chance to speak to Professor Michael Behe, the author of [b]"Darwin's Black Box" ( the book that evolutionists say is no good but most have never read).
When he came to a local university I went to specifically ask him a question at the end of his lecture. I asked him what would he say to those critics who say that Behe has ju ...[text shortened]... ed from more than one angle.
Have you read "The Blind Watchmaker"?[/b]
Originally posted by XanthosNZLet me guess. You haven't read the book for yourself. You were told that every page has been refuted.
Behe's trash has been refuted by proper scientists doing proper science.
So you jump on the band wagon and go with the party line "Behe's trash has been refuted"
I looked up some of these specific "refutations" and found some of them weak indeed. For instance the refutation about the irreducible complex nature of a mouse trap. Some alleged "refutation" went about to show how the mouse trap could work without all its parts. The overall impression I received was of MORE clever input by intellegent design rather than less.
Point me to the refutation of the "trash" about the clotting of blood. Where's the refutation of this "trash?" Could you recommend something to me which specifcally refutes the example of the blood blotting cascade? That is how gradual Darwinian evolution might arrive at such a process in stages?
Where's the refutation?
Originally posted by scottishinnzScott,
Not until you empirically prove the existance of God.
Until you do, I'll continue to believe the universe to be the handiwork of the FSM, Giant Celestial Chicken, and that the earth swims through space on the back of a giant turtle.
You are suppose to be the dispassionate and objective seeker of the truth.
How come all of your responses concerning the possibility of design in creation sound like "I don't like this God of yours"?
You are not allowing for the possibility that the designer may indeed be someone not likeable. Does your not liking the designer make intelligent design not possible?