Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Why, of course. Funny stuff.

Grammar correction: Both of these are sentence fragments.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I'll post what I want and you can think what you want.

Correct.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

It's not gonna change me in the least.

What you post won't change you in the least? What is the subject "it's" in this sentence in reference to?

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You sure whine a lot.

What have I whined about? I am unaware of any whining. I've requested you support your arguments, but there is nothing to whine about if you don't. It only weakens your position if you don't defend your positions.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Anyone around here buy your crap?

Should I be concerned by what other's think of me? How much do you care? Tell me what crap I'm selling is, so I can know specifically what you take issue with.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Anyone around here take you seriously?

I've never asked explicitly, but I think I am taken seriously.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Show me where I mentioned evolution.

Early onset of Alzheimer's?

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Nope, that's not how things work.

ID is incompatible with the theory of Evolution. You believe in ID, a non-theory, and so you do not believe in evolutionary theory. Then again, I'm not sure what you learned in home school, so you might not actually know what the theory of evolution actually states.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Only a rigid, closed mind would think like you do.

Please describe how I think.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I'm sorry for you.

Why? I'm a very fortunate individual.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Open your mind, you might learn a few things.

I continue to learn things ever day of my life. Plenty of information gets in and my life is full of lessons.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I disagree. I can believe in Intelligent Design and evolution. Tell me why not.

2 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Because that is DoubleThink

1 Reply

@Anarkatheist,

Anarchy and atheism are Double Unthink.

Gee-these assertions are easy!

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I disagree. I can believe in Intelligent Design and evolution. Tell me why not.

Evolutionary theory specifically claims that the traits of a species (read: their features) are passed on through environmental fitness. ID claims that our features are irreducibly complex and that our design is intentional to a sentient being's desire.

In other words, the human eye is either the product of cellular development over generations, with each generation having it's own fit with an increasing photo sensitivity, or the human eye was designed by a being because it wanted us to see.

The two theories are incompatible because they credit different drivers for the diverse features and fitness of life.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

But the design can include the capacity of cellular development over generations with each generation having it's own fit with an increasing, or decreasing, photo sensitivity. As a logical possibility.

The capacity is then capable of different developments under different light and survival conditions.

The human eye is only one of a large number of eyes.

0 Replies

@failures art,

LOL. My God, you're so full of crap.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1153

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

LOL. My God, you're so full of crap.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1153

Did you read your own link? The short answer gives you a nice little tidbit, but the longer technical description repeats what I told you about incompatibility of evolution and ID.

From your own link:

Quote:

It should be noted that although ID and evolution are compatible on the general level (i.e. life could be the result of both evolution AND Intelligent Design), on the specific case-by-case level, intelligent design is NOT compatible by evolution. A given nucleotide sequence either is the product of design or natural selection. That which is the product of design cannot be the product of natural selection, and visa versa. Thus, on the specific level, ID is not compatible with evolution. As William Dembski said during a talk at UCSD in 2001, "as far as the Darwinian mechanism goes, blessings to it." Dembski thinks its blessings stop at a certain point, and the information content at that point is so high, Dembski thinks it points to design.

Looking more into the site you linked to, I see it is a ID promotion site. To add to the discussion, here is more from the National Science Foundation:

NSF wrote:

The theory of intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have happened by chance and that, therefore, some sort of intelligent designer must be responsible. Critics claim that this theory is simply a more sophisticated form of creationism (which the courts have said may not be taught in public schools). They argue that intelligent design theory has nothing to do with science because its assertions are not falsifiable: they cannot be tested or observed and cannot undergo experimentation (Morris 2002). In contrast, "[evolution] has been directly observed in operation not only in the laboratory but also in the field. Where there is still room for argument and discussion is in the precise contributions of different mechanisms to evolutionary change. In this vibrant debate, intelligent design offers no meaningful contribution" (Greenspan 2002). According to Eugenie C. Scott, president of the National Center for Science Education, "There aren't any alternative scientific theories to evolution" (Watanabe 2002). In October 2002, the American Association for the Advancement of Science Board of Directors passed a resolution on intelligent design that "calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of 'intelligent design theory' as a subject matter for science education" (Pinholster 2002).

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

It appears you really have a serious comprehension problem, Mr. Engineer.

"There are two fundamentally different possible causes for how humans have come to exist: blind natural processes (chance-law) or purposeful intelligent design. The two mechanisms are not wholly mutually exclusive over time, for some entities in the natural world may have come to their present forms due to some combination of chance-law and design. However, the two views stand in stark contrast to one-another as fundamentally different mechanisms for human origins. Some aspects of biology changes may very well be the result of Darwinan evolution (i.e. the mutation-natural selection mechanism), but some aspects of life may be due to design. Thus, in general, an organism life could be a combination of both forces at work on a species.

In particular, many proponents of intelligent design believe that microevolution is a strong force shaping life, but question if many macroevolutionary changes can be explained through the Darwinian mechanism. The term "evolution" simply means "change through time," but there are two types of evolution: macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution is "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species." (Futuyma, D., Evolutionary Biology, glossary, 1998) For example, within humans, there are different eye colors, hair colors, and skin colors. These are the result of microevolution. Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa" (Futuyma, D., Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, 1998) or, "evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…" (Campbell, N. A., Reece, J. B., Mitchell, L. G., Biology 4th ed., pg. G-13, 1999). There is thus a fundamental difference in kind between microevolution and macroevolution.

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

So I should compare the theory of Evolution to ID, which is not even a theory? Are you aware of the fossil record?

Here's a fun little image to help you out. I think it's rather useful.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

They argue that intelligent design theory has nothing to do with science because its assertions are not falsifiable: they cannot be tested or observed and cannot undergo experimentation (Morris 2002).

That's because "they" view their own egos as the centre of the universe and thus cannot see that in the absence of some sort of design theory there would be no science and no verbal or instrumentation tools for them to work with. And any assertions to the contrary are not falsifiable either.

Describe a scenario in which original atheists could have come up with modern western science. Not only does ID theory have to do with science but our science, which is unique, has very little to do with anything else.

You would be grubbing up nuts fa without an ID theory. For sure.

0 Replies

@failures art,

I don't care what you do. I can believe in evolution and ID and you'll have to accept that. You need to define which type of evolution you are referring to.

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I don't care what you do. I can believe in evolution and ID and you'll have to accept that.

You're correct. I'd have to accept that you believed any pseudo science or magical idea. I have no choice on the matter of what you believe.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

You need to define which type of evolution you are referring to.

All evolution. Macro and Micro. How is ID compatible with micro evolution? Simply put, it's not. The proponents simply know that the time scale changes that occur on the micro level are fare more easily observable so they split the difference to save face.

ID isn't a theory. It doesn't predict anything and it is not testable/demonstratable. The fossil record supports evolution both micro and macro.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Your ignorance is showing. You really need to study microevolution. If you don't know what microevolution is then you're lost and you look really lost. Microevolution is the change within species. The best example is cross breeding. Darwin knew about that and he also knew that natural selection at breeding withing the species produces different "breeds" within the species. Look at the Bird of Paradise, Penguins, monkeys,, etc.

You better stick to engineering.

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Let's be clear. You believe in evolution inside of a species, but not the evolution of new species? Do you think all species were created at the same time and since then the only changes have been within species?

If so, you should know that the fossil record does not support this.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Which fossil record are you talking about, the one during the first earth that was destroyed or this one?

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Which fossil record are you talking about, the one during the first earth that was destroyed or this one?

This is a very confusing question. You believe the earth was destroyed at some point? We don't have multiple fossil records, we have only what the earth gives us.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

I don't think fa is taking me on but volcanic eruptions must be being re-fed from the crust otherwise the earth would be a hollow iron ball by now. What we see as the earth must have been re-cycled. And fossils wouldn't survive such a process.

"Destroyed" is not the right word. Piecemeal re-cycling is more likely. It's like the scrap metal business.

1 Reply

Are you against Christian Sharia Law?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know