MormonFreeThinker Posted May 31, 2014 Author Posted May 31, 2014 Your statements are irrational. I not interested in argument. You appear to be changing the subject. Are you or anyone able to shed some light on this question: "Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?" The reason why all LDS palentologists believe in Evolution, is because there are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. Do you expect a crocoduck? Here is the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html There are "smoking guns" that prove Evolution, that is why all LDS PhD biologists believe it.
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 The evidence clearly points to our existence being the cause of an intelligent design. This is not an appeal to the supernatural, its called drawing the logical conclusion. Intelligent Design is a Christian religious argument.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designhttp://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/ Supernatural means pertaining to God.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural There is nothing logical about ID. It is a teleological argument.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 The reason why all LDS palentologists believe in Evolution, is because there are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. Do you expect a crocoduck? Here is the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html There are "smoking guns" that prove Evolution, that is why all LDS PhD biologists believe it. CFR that "all" LDS PhD biologists beelieve it
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Intelligent Design is a Christian religious argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-2/ Supernatural means pertaining to God. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural There is nothing logical about ID. It is a teleological argument. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ ID is a theory that best explains the evidence. Like it or not the evidence in nature points to purpose and design, not chance. Supernatural in the context you use it means "magical and beyond science". My God is thus not "supernatural", he works within the laws of science. Perhaps your god is magical, mine is not. ID theory is very logical. ID is manifest billions of times everyday. My simple typing of these words is just one more case of intelligent design in action.
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 ID is a theory that best explains the evidence. Like it or not the evidence in nature points to purpose and design, not chance.Supernatural in the context you use it means "magical and beyond science". My God is thus not "supernatural", he works within the laws of science. Perhaps your god is magical, mine is not.ID theory is very logical. ID is manifest billions of times everyday. My simple typing of these words is just one more case of intelligent design in action. ID is a religious argument. Bring on the Crockaducks. Supernatural1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. ID is just a variation on the Watchmaker analogy, a teleological argument that neither science nor the courts have upheld.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy Kitzmiller v Doverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 31, 2014 Author Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) ID is a theory that best explains the evidence. Like it or not the evidence in nature points to purpose and design, not chance. Nobody here is saying chance alone, we are saying that God created useful animals using Evolution. "Like it or not"You are the one making "scientific" conclusions based on what you like. I don't like Evolution, I wish direct ID was true, but the evidence doesn't point to that direction. I am not doing wishful thinking. So like it or not, the evidence points to Evolution, and that is why LDS PhD biologists believe it. Edited May 31, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 ID is a religious argument. Bring on the Crockaducks. Supernatural 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. ID is just a variation on the Watchmaker analogy, a teleological argument that neither science nor the courts have upheld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy Kitzmiller v Dover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Let me ask- do you believe there is such a thing as an intelligent design anywhere or do you just see all of it as a random conglomeration of things that have no purpose? This is the most important question to answer. As such I am positive you will of course say that we do in fact see innumerable cases of intelligent design in everything. You and I both agree that a computer program is an intelligent design. We both also would agree that the blueprint for a house is an intelligent design. In forensic science they try to establish design or purpose by an intelligent agent that caused the intentional death of another. These all are cases where intelligent design theory are observed and seen. We have no doubts that intelligent design exists all around us in one form or another. DNA is probably at the pinnacle of ID theory because it is more than just a structure. Its a language that codes intelligent information. Not only this but you have the fact that if you have an intelligent language on the one side you also have an intelligent code reader that can read the intelligent information and do what it says to do. Its the same as an architect who makes a blueprint for the purpose of builders to use it to read and know how to build it. But this DNA takes it one step further. Not only does it tell the builder what to build, where to build it, and how long it should take, etc, it also tells how to build the builders themselves. Here you have a unique situation where we only see this pattern in human intelligence processes. We know of no situation in biology where you can take chemicals and randomly join them so that they will assemble and write an intelligent language all on their own. It FLAT OUT does not happen! Chemicals, by themselves, do not possess intelligence needed to write intelligent designs. This is just one of the many gaps in Darwinian science where imagination fills in the gap to make it work. Everyone in their right mind knows that intelligent information can only come from intelligent information or intelligent processes preceding it. There has never been even one documented case where a random process initiated a process that led to producing intelligent information. In order for your science to be true however- there has to be at least one instance where nature, through random processes created an intelligent design that was able to jumpstart life into existence. My challenge to you is to provide just one documented case where a random process created intelligent information. I know it can't be done but since you insist ID theory is bogus you must have proof otherwise showing I am wrong.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Nobody here is saying chance alone, we are saying that God created useful animals using Evolution. "Like it or not" You are the one making "scientific" conclusions based on what you like. I don't like Evolution, I wish direct ID was true, but the evidence doesn't point to that direction. I am not doing wishful thinking. So like it or not, the evidence points to Evolution, and that is why LDS PhD biologists believe it. For you to admit that God created life using evolution is to admit that ID theory is true.
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 For you to admit that God created life using evolution is to admit that ID theory is true. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. I think this may be your over-arching problem. Evolution explains quite well how species developed, but it isn't about explaining the origin of life and never has been. Accepting evolution does not require anyone to deny the existence of a creator.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. I think this may be your over-arching problem. Evolution explains quite well how species developed, but it isn't about explaining the origin of life and never has been. Accepting evolution does not require anyone to deny the existence of a creator. Evolution has to do with "how" life evolved. This includes chemical evolution which led to the first life form. Don't believe me- then take any introductory biology class at any college. They all teach the spill about how life first evolved.
canard78 Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Impossible to debate close minded folks.I love irony
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Evolution has to do with "how" life evolved. This includes chemical evolution which led to the first life form. Don't believe me- then take any introductory biology class at any college. They all teach the spill about how life first evolved. There are lots of theories about abiogenesis. The theory of organic evolution is not one of them.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 I love irony I know, its kind of ironic that evolutionists say they are opn to new ideas just as long as none of those new ideas disturb any of their old ideas. Truly ironic, truly ironic. I totally agree with you.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 There are lots of theories about abiogenesis. The theory of organic evolution is not one of them. Shhh, don't tell any evolutionary professors this- they all teach abiogenesis as part of their class...shh
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 "Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Shhh, don't tell any evolutionary professors this- they all teach abiogenesis as part of their class...shh Of course they teach abiogenesis. It's still not the same thing as organic evolution. And your rude behavior makes me far less inclined to excuse your conflation of the two.
jkwilliams Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 "Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml And? Organic evolution is one field of evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis is another. They are still not the same thing.
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Evolution has to do with "how" life evolved. This includes chemical evolution which led to the first life form. Don't believe me- then take any introductory biology class at any college. They all teach the spill about how life first evolved. Evolution is about how life developed AFTER it got here. Abiogenesis is about how life first appeared.
canard78 Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 I know, its kind of ironic that evolutionists say they are opn to new ideas just as long as none of those new ideas disturb any of their old ideas. Truly ironic, truly ironic. I totally agree with you.
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 I know, its kind of ironic that evolutionists say they are opn to new ideas just as long as none of those new ideas disturb any of their old ideas. Truly ironic, truly ironic. I totally agree with you. None sense. The Theory of Evolution has evolved since it beginning.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Of course they teach abiogenesis. It's still not the same thing as organic evolution. And your rude behavior makes me far less inclined to excuse your conflation of the two. Do you know how tired I get of people saying that abiogenesis and darwinian evolution are not related? Its a bad argument. And its even more than that, its complete ignorance for what Darwin was all about in discovering lifes origins. In that evolutionary tree of life you have to have that frist common ancestor- darwinian evolution is all about finding this first common ancestor. But then how did that first ancestor come into existence? This too is covered by evolutionary theory- its called the theory of chemical evolution. That same theory uses the same darwinian principle to explain it. Saying they are not the same is like saying that fuel technology is not applicable to building race car engines.
Rob Osborn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Evolution is about how life developed AFTER it got here. Abiogenesis is about how life first appeared. Tell your friends that at Berkeley.
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Tell your friends that at Berkeley. In astronomy we talk about the evolution of stars. In automobile building we talk about the evolution of the automobile. Do you really believe either of those are living things? You keep talking about context. Sheesh
thesometimesaint Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 More proof of evolution.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RnygS7opCA#t=154
longview Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 The reason why all LDS palentologists believe in Evolution, is because there are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. Do you expect a crocoduck? Here is the evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html There are "smoking guns" that prove Evolution, that is why all LDS PhD biologists believe it. I read the link. It appears to mostly a long series of micro evolution. But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have (such as wings). I have yet to see a "smoking gun". It is obvious that a whole lot of speculating is going on.
Recommended Posts