Posted on 06/13/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coleus
You're welcome. The next time some skeptic asks you for proof of evolution, you are welcome to cite: "The fact that nature is intelligible. The Hand, Sir Charles Bell" and watch him succumb to the withering blast of evolutionary reasoning.
"Thank you for providing proof for evolution. You’ve shown that evolutionary pressures will cause organisms to adapt to their surroundings, and grow suitable features for their own roles."
The primary issue is that there is evident design and evident intelligence in the design. What the purpose is, is a different question and depends on what specifically you're looking at and how the purpose might be interpreted.
Are you perfectly designed?
The issue again is evident design with evident intelligence behind the design. Perfection or lack thereof is a different issue.
Duuuude, you just dissed Coyoteman!I browsed the links and they were full of strawmen and fallacies. Claiming a methodology is atheistic is nonsense!
Since atomic fission was unknown to the Apostles, then clearly fission is of the Devil, and nuclear power and research as a result are satanic.
Likewise, radio was used by Nazis to propogandize and incite their followers. Thus any means of conveying information via radio must be evil as well.
No, it is the application of the methodology that determines its merit. Not the methodology itself. [excerpt]
No such evidence exists to my knowledge. Even if you were able to scrape up even one such piece of evidence, I think it would be hard to hold a global theory based on it. Science should be about probability and preponderance of evidence via the scientific method, not conjecture based on a possible scrawny single piece of evidence.
Compare that to the innumerable pieces of evidence of design in living things that show clear evidence of intent and purpose pointing to intelligence behind the design. ID is robust, whereas Darwinism is paltry. There's no comparison.
Hmmm, that's curious since your Bible is titled The Origin of the Species, and your fellow disciples use it to try to explain how life began.
Well, if it's good enough for ID, it should be good enough for evolution, right?
That's what Darwin supporters say about evolution.
There's no equivalence here. ID has innumerable pieces of evidence while Darwinists have not one shred of evidence of species migrating to another species.
OK, look at the Larus genus - the seagull. They are considered a ring species. Species that live close to each other can breed, but the further apart they live the less likely they can breed, to the point where a few species simply cannot inter-breed at all.
Remember, in science a single negative will destroy a theory. We have here a single negative for ID. Something that pokes a BIG hole in ID, and supports evolution at the same time.
And you still have not presented any evidence for ID that could not also apply to evolution. Unlike the evidence of the Larus genus of gulls.
You forgot to provide the source for your talking points. They are from CreationWiki, a fundamentalist/creationist website. They are not exactly a paragon of scientific accuracy and reliability.
Tell you what: you define your religious beliefs, and let scientists who know something about the subject define what the theory of evolution covers.
Please see the bacteria referenced earlier in this thread. Evolved a new stomach, that one did. Specifically to metabolize man-made chemicals.
If that does not qualify as evolution then you REALLY need to explain just what you consider evolution!
"You forgot to provide the source for your talking points. They are from CreationWiki," [excerpt]
You are wrong (as usual).
Fossil Horses FAQs (more information than you'll ever read)
Au contraire, my friend. Not that we need some man's approval to accept common sense, but Darwin most certainly struggled with ID up until his death.
From Charles Darwin & Intelligent Design Denis O. Lamoureux St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta (Accepted March 2003 in Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies):
...during the last year of his life in a conversation with the Duke of Argyll who recalls: I said to Dr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the ‘Fertilization of Orchids’ and upon ‘The Earthworms,’ and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature–I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely, adding, ‘it seems to go away” (F. Darwin 1888, I:316).
Yes, and from a fellow who very often uses talk-origins as a source. Go figure.
And by the way, the theory of evolution does not include origins!Hmmm, that's curious since your Bible is titled The Origin of the Species, and your fellow disciples use it to try to explain how life began.
As I have said, giving examples (of intelligent design pointing to an intelligent designer/creator) feels like pointing out trees in a forest, but here's a couple that I've given before:
- DNA - a miraculous and incredible amount of intelligent information and code in an infinitesimally small building-block of life.
- Your ear - The inner ear has three multi-directional nerve/sensors elegantly designed to help you keep your balance. They're called semicircular canals - three loops of fluid-filled tubes that are attached to the cochlea in the inner ear. They help us maintain our sense of balance. Each of these loops goes in a different direction, so that all three together helps maintain one's equilibrium no matter what angle your body is in.
- Any detailed study of a leaf or your eye or anything in your body or any living thing.
More evidence than the sand of the sea.
Evolution and its proponents are fast becoming a three ring circus with a sidesplitting comedy headliner.
An expected answer from those who have no answer for the undeniably of evident design and evident intelligence in living things. Valid inquiry is acceptable in discussing these matters, but cynicism and contempt are not valid refutations to ID.
I always thought so. At least according to everything related by the wisemen of science who do now, or did previously, inhabit this forum.
” -- because the theory of evolution does not include origins no matter how many times creationists claim it does!”
I wasn’t aware that the UC Berkeley campus was infested with Creationists (Marxists/Socialists, yes, but not Creationists). It must be the case however, if we are to believe the Berkeley website “From soup to cells – the origin of life”, under their general heading “evolution 101” and further billed as “your one-stop source for information on evolution.” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01
It’s not uncommon for people to sculpt their tale to fit their audience. Nor is it uncommon that the tale may differ markedly from one venue to another. But it’s a rather disappointing tactic to see practiced by people who tout their invincible integrity and steadfast dedication only to the facts as they are presently best known.
You need to inform the good folks at Berkeley of their profound error in linking the origin of life to the TOE. You might also suggest that they notify the other universities who list the Berkeley website as a reference on their own evolution websites. Otherwise there must be rather a large number of people who have concluded that, despite what they say contrarily, many scientists and other academics are actually convinced that speculation on the origin of life is inevitably infused and informed by the Theory of Evolution.
This may be the reason why you have so much trouble convincing Creationists that the TOE does not include the origins of life. It may be that many Creationists are inclined to believe all these University websites rather than your assurances to the contrary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.