Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Setanta,

Quote:

You fail to understand the fortuitous nature of natural selection, and therefore have no business trying to dictate here.

I understand. The system is very complex and works very well. Best system in the universe. Only system without an author. I would suggest an unknown author.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Leadfoot has more guts than I do. When I recognized the many contradictions in their teachings, I left the church and became an atheist. I didn't bother providing the church members or my siblings with those contradictions, because I knew it will not be successful.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

NO, youve again got it wrong. YOU RESPOND by turning on the AC or adjusting the temp on your climate control. The car doesnt do a damn thing till YOU tell it.

I know I am the living intelligence guiding the system. Ive never seen a system come into existence and create without it.

Quote:

via Occams Razor, you feel your belief is right.
In this case LAZY i just lazy.

Neither one of us is lazy.

brian

Quote:

If it doesn’t require intelligence then we should observe nature doing it somewhere today.

farmer

Quote:

Thats not only an argument out of ignorance, its based upon defiant ignorance. Youve had many opportunities to go to many of the listed sites of per reviewed papers and texts that I and several others have presented, yet you deny their existence. You seem to deny that simple chemistry and the basic reaction series can be the instrument of lifes change , you seem to be stuck on the ID bus and unable to investigate the more rigorous world of science. YOu, my friend are demonstrating how religious fanaticism if formed.

I have read all your papers. Sometimes it took a while and the blog went of topic. This sums them all up though. They provide mathematical evidence that the system is capable of micro evolution even though they cannot provide any evidence when or how the new information entered the genome. All observational evidence of live animals (finches, dogs, cows) appears that all the information was in the genome before the physical characteristics changed thus suggesting this is a natural form of selective breeding.

The other papers provided statistical analysis of the amount of time that was available for the mutations to happen that caused major changes (like sight). And there was plenty of time. What they don't explain is how the sequence of mutations occurred in the right order to multiple body systems, skeletal, muscular, nervous system, plus an new system in the eyeball itself when over thousands of generations while the environment and predators are also changing.

Quote:

You fit the bill of the "modern IDer", where your buds claim a deep respect for what science has done but claim alternative evidence(which remains behind the curtain and is fed us as a "principle" ( but not a demonstrable fact) and they cherry pick from science in a fashion that is incomplete and only focuses on one phenomenon at a time.

Saying evolution just happened from random insertion of new information simultaneously in multiple systems without replicating it in a computer simulator or something similar to that is lazy.

I cherry pick so we can talk about the pertinent facts. There are many complex systems running simultaneously doing many different jobs, and we have to sort through to where the new information is entering each system sequentially and simultaneously.

Quote:

Id say that you guys are guilty of being our pseudo- scientific fanatics, whose only goals in life are to " somehow prove" that your religious beliefs are actually valid science when they are not.

Intelligence. I've never seen a system come into existence and create complexity without it and science has not replicated it. That is not a religous belief, it is an observation.

Sounds like plenty pseudo-science going around.

Quote:

My personal journey consisted of feeling that I was being used and dictated as to what was the basis for the rise of life on the planet.

And you were right to feel that way. Science isn't about feelings. It is about observation of systems doing things or replicating systems doing things. That is it. There are very few believers who understand the science and the history well enough to provide a coherent ID argument. That doesn't mean we should give up. Instead let's ridicule them and drive on. That's more fun and leads to the truth. You stubborn, religiously abused, ass. Wink

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I know I am the living intelligence guiding the system. Ive never seen a system come into existence and create without it.

so what is the living intelligence behind biology again? And you understand it how?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Also, I really dont give a rats ass how they all carry on as long as they keep their religious worldview out of science classes that are payed for by our taxes (namely public and charter schools).

Those are my taxes too. How bout a voucher system?

Quote:

In order for them to do that, they MUST convince the state ed boards and school boards that what they speak about Creation and evolution is NOT religiously based

Yeah, until you get one ignorant judge to outlaw the people's will or the rights of an educated minority.

Once again voucher system?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

I never posted any blogs. Ive only posted results. The only blog I posted was to wass is name about a guy named Shapiro. SO i think youve not rad much to understand or at least develop some questions of how does scientific evidence rise to become a valid answer.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

so what is the living intelligence behind biology again? And you understand it how?

Since we cannot replicate initiating life from nonliving matter would you suggest looking for someone with capabilities greater than our own that lived when life was initiated?

This is a legitimate question. Do you have a logical answer to my question?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I never posted any blogs. Ive only posted results

That is what I meant. I read most of the stuff about mathematical analysis before it was posted here.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

That's an absurd contention on your part--you have no basis for it other than gross speculation (undoubtedly arising from your preferred theistic superstition). It also violates Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Since we cannot replicate initiating life from nonliving matter would you suggest looking for someone with capabilities greater than our own that lived when life was initiated?

That sounds like good Christian apocrypha (sorta like the statement that used to be attributed to mr Deull that went something like,

" In 1899 ,Everything that could be invented has already been invented"

I guess we should just throw up our hands an say Godidit

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I guess we should just throw up our hands an say Godidit

No, I said look for someone who has the characteristics to do it. We have been trying for a few thousand years and have almost proven we are not the intelligence. (Unless we had greater capabilities in the past.)

Throwing your hands up without explaining how and why is lazy and poor science.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

That's an absurd contention on your part--you have no basis for it other than gross speculation (undoubtedly arising from your preferred theistic superstition). It also violates Occam's Razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

If, one intelligence existed before matter and time, it could be logical to assume that it was the only thing existing. I f there is nothing else existing then it could be logically assumed that this supposed intelligent entity exists as one intelligence occupying all of space and that all of space is really one single piece of space (a singularity) because if there were quarks and matter then there would physically be something and the universe would not have a beginning.

So if this is entity is one intelligence, contained in one singularity, with only one decision to make (which is, "Since, I am the only person capable of creating, should I create a universe.") then, it doesn't get much simpler than that and, Occam's Razor (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) is fulfilled completely and as simply as possible.

3 Replies

@brianjakub,

Sounds reasonable.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I see you tried to dodge Occam's Razor by simply proclaiming the existence of an intelligence, as though something like that is the simplest thing there could possibly be. Nice try.

And by the way, the "intelligence" you describe, existing before matter and time, doesn't sound much like the traditional Christian God. Are you sure you aren't rationalizing the bible just a tad to get where you need it to be?

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Sounds reasonable.

Yeh, because *poofism* is so reasonable.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

brianjakub

Quote:

So if this is entity is one intelligence, contained in one singularity, with only one decision to make (which is, "Since, I am the only person capable of creating, should I create a universe.") then, it doesn't get much simpler than that and, Occam's Razor (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) is fulfilled completely and as simply as possible.

I look at the universe naturally first.

So, using naturalism, "in the beginning, the universe physically existed as a singularity". (Because, no ideas are stored in the physical universe as information except the one idea "the universe exists as a singularity".)

Quote:

I see you tried to dodge Occam's Razor by simply proclaiming the existence of an intelligence, as though something like that is the simplest thing there could possibly be. Nice try.

Thanks. I thought it is a nice try too. But I think I can succeed at using it as a logical assumption for this reason.

Whenever we observe new information entering the universe today or clear back into historical times, it enters through intelligent human thought or through a preexisting system either created by humans or one with unknown origins. Since the only known origins I "can" observe for new information is intelligence, I am not going to automatically assume that new information entered the universe any other way without physical evidence.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

intelligent human thought

is a oxymoron. Human thought is subjective in most of how we live our lives. One person's reality is not another's. There are too many contradictions in our subjective thinking, and how one lives. Add to that the opportunity environment. It's different for everybody.

Evolution is a proven theory. It's based on the change in the environment.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Throwing your hands up without explaining how and why is lazy and poor science.

but thats what youve entailed, not me. I demand concrete evidence. You obviously crave the salad dressing.

Im doing a seminar on intermediate fossils and species. I have one Biblical based IDer in the crowd and the rest if the students are professional core. See what happens .

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

OK, now we can add Latin to the list of subjects about which you know jack sh*t, but pretend to know something.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem = More things should not be used than are necessary. Things is this case meaning causes.

Really, I would be so mortified to be caught so often just making sh*t up that I would never post here again. No hope of that with you, though.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

And by the way, the "intelligence" you describe, existing before matter and time, doesn't sound much like the traditional Christian God. Are you sure you aren't rationalizing the bible just a tad to get where you need it to be?

If we assume the intelligence did exist then it must have capabilities greater than we have right now because, we are part of the system that must be a part of the intelligence. (Which was the undivided singularity that was the initial state of the universe). That would make the intelligence a universal intelligence outside of time because if the singularity there can be nothing rotating in relationship to the singularity to get a reference for time to be measured from.

The God of the bible was universal and his characteristics fit. (The Alpha and the Omega, the Great I Am, etc. . .)

If this intelligence existed and the universe exists we can assume that the intelligence made the simple decision to create the universe instead of not creating it. This had to be the simplest decision because there could be no other decisions to make before the universe existed. We can assume that the intelligence felt that this was a good idea because we know the decision to create the universe was obviously made and followed through with. Since it was followed through with we know the intelligence felt it was a "good" idea.

This good feeling could be represented by the "Holy Spirit" of the bible.

If the idea is to be understood as a good idea that someone can interpret, the idea must be turned into a pattern of stored energy known as information. That can only be done by storing energy in something rotating. Those are the spinning quarks arranged in patterns forming the matter we observe.

Those patterns that store information could be the Living Words of God that then became physically real as they were stored in the atoms of the universe as the intelligence spoke it into existence.

Now there you have it. The universe coming into existence as it says in the bible.

A Physical Idea that is Good. (an idea shared by God the Father manifested through the Living Word and determined to be good through God's feelings, the Holy Spirit.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know