|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 @L_SAnd while I appreciate your watching them, I’m not a fan of your monologue-style, rapid-fire document dump which hardly encourages discussion but seems designed to overwhelm someone into silence. I may start responding to your roughly dozen posts in the next day or two. Or maybe not. Plus, if my memory of the video is correct, you’re deviating away from the main points in the video, the strongest of which imo is the impossibility of the numerous biological changes necessary for a land animal to transition into a whale by random mutations and natural selection. And you misrepresented the complexity and interdependence of the whale’s reproductive system and how unlikely (read: impossible) it was to have developed in the way Darwin’s theory says evolutionary change happens. |
||||||||||||||
|
All At Once? Gemini: evolution of the owl butterfly's distinctive eyespots on their wings is a classic example of natural selection. Over generations, slight variations in wing patterns that mimic eyes, even if not perfect, offer some survival advantage, protecting the butterfly from predators. This leads to the gradual development of more effective deterrents, as butterflies with more convincing eyespot patterns are more likely to survive and reproduce, according to Khan Academy. www.youtube.com |
||||||||||||||
|
Lots of Points Feel free to respond to one point at a time, or however you like. You said evolutionists fear debate, or loathe debate, or run away from it, or some such thing. If necessary I will find up the exact wording so as not to be accused of outright lying misrepresentation. <<But discussing molecules-to-man evolution with people who believe it seems impossible without their resorting to misrepresentations, insults, trolling and diverting the discussion to the Bible. But I’d be interested to hearing what’s wrong in the two videos I posted about problems with whale evolution. Do I think any evolutionist in this club has watched or will watch them? No, I don’t.>> Well, I avoid Bible discussions. See how often I bother posting in those threads. Not interested. I’ll leave insults and trolling to others. Have I insulted you? Claimed you enjoyed posting porn, or anything of that nature? Insisted your posts were “the babbling of an idiot whose brain is succumbing to the ravages of syphilis?” I hope these are dismissed as rhetorical questions not requiring any response. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 14:33 You hate long posts—I do too. Your videos shotgun many points which I address one by one as briefly yet thoroughly as seems justified. If I just responded to one thing it would seem like I accept all these others. I accept every valid point raised. I thought momentarily Jonathon’s lung elasticity was a good argument, until I saw the counter argument that trivially explained what amounts to a reversion to sarcopterygian lungfish status through gene omission. It was a trait LOSS, not a trait evolution. The flukes represent both atrophy of hip and leg bones as well as adaptation to an aquatic environment. Why do whales possess vestigial leg remnants? Those of the basilosaurids were larger and more pronounced than the diminutive bones of modern cetaceans. Deeply compelling evidence of gradual transition to anyone with an open mind. |
||||||||||||||
|
But like I said, if I see after sifting through your document dump that you posted anything that responded to the main points in the first whale video, I’ll post a reply. As for your questions, you habitually wrote porn on this site, though appear to have recently found another outlet for your dime novel erotica, and you habitually mocked Christianity, Jesus and Christians. So while you’ve gotten better in recent days, your history is quite different than what you represent AND you’re dragging up things I wrote to you in your “bad boy” days on here. |
||||||||||||||
|
Trait Loss The blowhole would be more compelling if fossils didn’t reveal its migration from the snout to the skull top, as though it changed via gradual transition through standard evolutionary mechanisms. I apologize my responses come across as monologues. I talk to myself. If I quote you it is easy to cut and paste, but far more difficult to rekey dialogue from YouTube videos. If you could cite articles instead of video I could respond in more of a conversational mode. |
||||||||||||||
|
Syphilis As a credit to Apatzer’s the seal clubbing comment was long, long ago, which I should probably have dropped but BC requested that I boot you, probably due to some exchange of that nature. I can’t, and you’ve given no cause I perceive for any such action—so I’m not even recommending that. My hope is we can continue civil, respectful discourse such as we have already enjoyed, absent the rancor of ancient insults and accusations. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 12:30 I agree with you! I have no interest debating what the video said, either. My interest is in debating whether or not the video is a balanced presentation of the evidence. Shiva has shown that it is NOT. There are several misrepresentations in it as listed by Shiva, and a couple more that I noticed but he hasn't listed explicitly (probably from exhaustion). Are there unanswered questions? Of course there are! Just as there are unanswered questions in every aspect of life. Example:- "What was the name of the Rabbi in the Nazareth Synagogue who taught Jesus Hebrew? You don't know? Then obviously Jesus never learned Hebrew!" That is the standard of intellectual rigour that you apply. Basically, Vic; you seem to have no interest in debating anything. Your interests extend no further than stating your own opinion (which you are quite entitled to do) and refusing to countenance any dissent (which you are also entitled to do). But it is common courtesy to give that same respect to the rights and opinions of others as you go. But instead, when Shiva goes to the trouble of researching the question in peer-reviewed literature and reporting back, you dismiss his post as "You’re really in document dump mode, aren’t you?". And meet this information with a mere repetition of your original assertion, or parrot back the part of the video that Shiva has just shown to be a misrepresentation. Not one of his objections is met with any attempt to counter it! That shows your total lack of respect for real science and people who do the hard work of real science. |
||||||||||||||
|
That, to my memory, was the main point of the first video. If L_S addressed that, please direct me to which post he addressed it in (either by timestamp or by reposting it here.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 15:07 I feel obliged to leap to the defence of Shiva here. I can't recall any times when Shiva has mocked Christianity, Jesus and Christians. There may well be a few cases that have slipped my memory and you should feel welcome to link to them; but I think 'habitually' is an exaggeration. Perhaps you are confusing him with Zorro, our favourite Satanist. But Shiva certainly has frequently mocked some specific aspects of some specific traditions. Most of those I recall have been examples of dogmatism, hypocrisy, self-serving priorities and inhumane attitudes well-deserving of mockery. I would hope that all people with a heart for the Two Great Commandments would agree. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Ch ch ch Changes Look at all the changes wolves went through to become dogs in just the past twenty thousand years. Or look at the changes amphibians underwent to result in all terrestrial vertebrates, diapsids and synapsids. All that in a bit shy of four hundred million years. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<How Darwinism Became a Pseudoscience Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein has a reputation for some pretty wild ideas outside his area of expertise that I might not want to defend. But when it comes to some comments he made a few months ago, within his own field of expertise, he was spot on when he provided a disturbing reality check on the current state of Darwinism. As a scientist, I have my own reasons why this is so. He stated, “In my opinion, the mainstream Darwinists are telling a kind of lie about how much we know and what remains to be understood … I think modern Darwinism is broken. Yes, I do think I know more or less how to fix it. I’m annoyed at my colleagues for, I think, lying to themselves about the state of modern Darwinism. I think I know why that happened. I think they were concerned that a Creationist worldview was always a threat … and so they pretended that Darwinism was a more complete explanation, as it was presented, than it ever was …” As a biophysicist specializing in the information encoded in the DNA of protein-coding genes, and how that information prescribes the 3D structure of proteins, I have my own reasons for agreeing with Weinstein on this issue. Although he thinks he knows “more or less how to fix it,” my knowledge of the extreme difficulty (a colossal understatement) of locating sequences that will code for a functional protein with a stable 3D structure, tells me that neither he nor anyone else is going to fix it (although I would be fascinated to hear his proposed solution). That said, there are some phrases in his statement that deserve to be pointed out: “telling a kind of lie,” “broken,” and “lying to themselves.” Note, also, the motive for promoting this broken theory. To be clear, I am not suggesting that Darwinists are conspiring to deliberately corrupt science and mislead people, although such corruption and misleading is certainly happening. Rather, scientists who should know better, but continue to promote Darwinism, are living in denial, motivated by their own a priori commitment to materialism and scientism driven by an antagonism against any possibility that there is an intelligent mind behind the software encoded in the genomes of life.>> ***************************************************** <<Summary For Darwinism to be true, nature must provide an arena where novel, functional, stable, 3D proteins are relatively easy to find, and the rate of production of novel functional information encoded in the genomes of life is greater than the rate of destruction. The reality is that neither is true. The laws of physics determine that stable 3D protein structures are unimaginably rare and the natural process of mutation leads to a net deterioration of whatever functional information is already out there. This is why every selective breeding experiment hits a limit if we try to see how far we can go. Nature ensures that the two critical predictions of Darwinism will continue to be thoroughly and consistently falsified. Darwinism began as a fascinating theory, but the falsification of its critical predictions means that those who continue to promote it are promoting a pseudoscience. They are, as Weinstein put it “lying to themselves” and “telling a kind of lie” to the public. Ending on a Positive Note As Weinstein stated, “modern Darwinism is broken.” I am often asked what I have to offer as an alternative. My response is that we should go where the science points. In this case, the science shows that protein-coding genes require an impressive level of functional information, which is already encoded in the genomes of life. The only thing science has ever observed that can produce functional information are minds; we do it every time we message someone, write an essay, or write computer code. The fingerprints of an intelligent mind are all over the genomes of life in the form of the functional information encoded in the DNA. Science has no other observable, repeatable option; to ignore this is bad science. The ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information is unique to intelligent minds. The key word here is “unique”; no other such process has ever been observed by science. Even genetic algorithms require an intelligent mind to design the fitness function and are, thus, examples of intelligent design in action. I have written a short introductory article, “Why This Scientist Believes that Intelligent Design Was Required for Biological Life,” presenting a positive, scientific method to test the hypothesis that the functional information found in life requires an intelligent mind. The job of science is to reverse engineer the cell with its information-processing and gene-regulatory systems to understand how it all works.>> evolutionnews.org |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 16:39 Yet you expect everyone else to sit through the videos you link to, when we have very strong grounds for expecting them to be propaganda pieces that cherry-pick what they show and skim over the fact that they present no credible alternative? If the 'central point' of the video simply said "The necessary biological changes for whales to have transitioned from land animals are far too numerous and complex to have resulted from random mutations and natural selection" (estimated time, two seconds), then you might be right in saying a single post would be adequate response. So why did it list so many 'uncentral' points? Vic, if you want to understand a serious, adult-level field of learning, then you should expect that it will take time and effort. Scientists are smart guys, and even they spend decades of constant effort to keep abreast in their niche fields. (Even the guys who put together the videos you link are no fools. They understand what they are doing, too. But the guys who are paying for these videos have an agenda that is not simply a pure search for a better theory. As you have said elsewhere, they can't posit a better theory. They can't even outline the vague shape of a better theory. They just know what they don't like.) To have even an informed overview requires more than a passing article or two. As a general rule, the value of someone's opinion is proportional to how much time and effort has been spent informing that opinion. Terribly elitist of me, I know, but I don't get a burger-flipper to do brain surgery on my kids. If you don't have either enough time or enough interest to inform yourself, then YOU are setting the value of your opinion. Meanwhile, others (such as Shiva) who take the time to watch your videos and think through their examples and then research its claims for accuracy (not counting all the time and effort spent outside watching your video!) are spending more time and effort than you are. So that sets the relative value of their opinions on the subject. |
||||||||||||||
|
Two Points for Vic Ok, you skipped the explanation. There is a gene that causes testes to fall. That gene is not active in whales, hippos, and a variety of other mammals. Internal testes is a result of gene inactivation, not the development of some novel trait. And a number of species have specialized circulation regulating nut temperature. Human testes don’t always descend, I have explained three times now. You ignore this as though you must think it irrelevant. It isn’t. All that is required is that the gene responsible for descent does NOT activate—it doesn’t require the development of any novel feature. These are the two “complex” things that make whale reproduction miraculous and biologically inexplicable. So it simply isn’t as DI describes. They have an agenda, and scientific accuracy isn’t it. <<I don’t have the time and barely have the interest to read through a document dump when the central point of the first video – the necessary biological changes for whales to have transitioned from land animals are far too numerous and complex to have resulted from random mutations and natural selection – could be addressed in a single post.>> While there are some links to peer reviewed literature, I thought you might peruse the abstracts. I read the entire paper, though I didn’t delve into the mathematics, some of which uses unfamiliar notation. I don’t know what you expect, Vic. I responded to the video point by point. If you prefer “is not,” that isn’t the style of argument I find compelling. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<This is where we have to disagree. Some of the changes listed might be independent, small, and easy, but there are also some pretty massive, complex ones that would seem to need coordination. For one example, losing tooth enamel does not make baleen plates. For another, whale testes are inside the body. In itself this appears to be a trivial change, and it makes good design sense in terms of streamlining. That is, until you try to implement it, and find that mammalian testes become infertile if kept too warm, so now you need a cooling system, or else a redesign of the reproductive system. It is not so trivial any more. And the changes do need to be coordinated. What selective advantage is there in a cooling system? None unless you have testes there. What selective advantage is there in internal testes? None, unless a cooling system is there. It turns out that dolphins and whales have mysteriously acquired an elaborate counter-current cooling system that keeps the testes the same cool temperature as its fins! That system is not trivial, and it is not going to evolve with just one or two mutations.>> evolutionnews.org Sidestepping the issue by saying mammals with internal testes don’t need a cooling system neglects the fact that whales have them and their development by random mutations and natural selection is completely unrealistic. Nevertheless, AI says mammals with internal testes (including whales) can indeed become infertile without a cooling system… <<Yes, prolonged exposure to warm temperatures can negatively impact mammalian testicular function, potentially leading to infertility. Testicular temperature needs to be maintained 2-7°C below body temperature for optimal sperm production. When this thermoregulatory balance is disrupted, spermatogenesis is compromised, and sperm quality suffers. Here's a more detailed explanation: Spermatogenesis is temperature-sensitive: The process of sperm production (spermatogenesis) is highly sensitive to temperature. A rise in testicular temperature can significantly reduce sperm production, decrease sperm motility, and increase the proportion of abnormal sperm. Mechanisms of heat damage: Heat stress can damage spermatogenic cells, especially spermatocytes and spermatids, through oxidative stress and apoptosis (programmed cell death). Causes of increased testicular temperature: Increased testicular temperature can be caused by various factors, including: Environmental heat: High environmental temperatures or exposure to direct heat sources like saunas. Fever or illness: Fever can raise body temperature, leading to increased testicular temperature. Tight clothing: Tight clothing can constrict the scrotum and trap heat. Internalized testes (cryptorchidism): In mammals with internalized testes, they are subjected to higher temperatures, impacting spermatogenesis. Consequences of reduced sperm quality: Reduced sperm quality, motility, and number can lead to infertility or difficulty conceiving.>> But again, this is beside the point – the cooling system in whales exists. Where’d it come from? Why would a whale need a reproductive cooling system without internal testes? How could a whale have internal testes without a cooling system? Are we supposed to believe these miraculously developed at the same time by the blind-chance process of random mutation and natural selection? Guys, give it up already lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Bret Weinstein Why does that seem like trolling? |
||||||||||||||
|
This is the same kind of gang trolling you guys pulled in FIAT LUX III and its earlier iterations, though you had more people in your gang-trolling posse back then. Try sticking to substance, Bob. L_S, please address my most recent post. |
||||||||||||||
|
@L_S Am curious to see your response to my 20:00 post. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 19:20 & 19:31 <L_S has in the past habitually mocked Christianity, the Bible and Jesus. But I’m not searching through threads to find examples because it’s a waste of time.> The second sentence is true. It would indeed be a waste of time, bulk time! Because you could spend hours before you found a single example. 19:31 Following on from my 19:38 post.... I clicked on your link to check out the article. It is in a sheet promoting "Intelligent Design". In case you're not aware of this, Science is based in Naturalism. BY DEFINITION, any direct cause other than natural causes are ruled out. BY DEFINITION, 'Intelligent Design' is not 'Scientific'. That doesn't mean that 'Intelligent Design' is false. It only means that Science can't investigate it, any more than a telescope can detect a bad odour. Does this mean that science is opposed to Religion? Not at all! Many scientists are also deeply religious. But it DOES mean that Science is opposed to quasi-pagan ideas of religion such as thunder being caused by Thor's hammer or Neptune causing tidal waves. Intelligent Design is just a fashionably-clothed form of paganism. Christians who accept it need to think more deeply about a God who is transcendent. This article you linked to posits two 'tests' for 'Darwinism'. Note that these are not tests that Darwinists predict or accept, but straw men invented by an opponent. It then 'explains' why Darwinism will fail these tests. No research is presented that demonstrates the truth of this 'explanation', just a combination of unrelated references and stitched together by conjecture dressed up as logic. Yet even then, this would only 'prove' that this author's version of 'Darwinism' has problems that he can't explain. It says nothing about other models that don't demand his proposed features. He then promotes a tract on 'Inteligent Design' in which he claims to be 'testable'. What those teats are, and how he can tell that any of them absolutely DEMAND an intelligence behind them (rather than as-yet-unknown natural causes) is not stated. You say you don't have the time or interest to read real science, but you expect people to spend their time reading this hollow propaganda? Can you guess why this article wasn't published in 'Nature' or some similar peer-reviewed magazine? |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 20:04 What an incredibly well-thought-out response, Vic! Shiva gives you excellent scientific detail in his objections, but you don't have the time or interest to read it; while I address the systemic flaws in your sources and you think them insubstantial! Who is the troll here? |
||||||||||||||
|
Internal Testes They are a semi aquatic mammal. Hippos, like many other mammals, have mechanisms to cool their testicles, which is important for sperm production and survival. While hippo testicles don't have a scrotum like humans, they do have other ways to regulate temperature. The specific mechanisms for cooling in hippos are not fully understood, but research suggests they may involve a combination of factors, including: Cooling due to water environment: Hippos spend a significant portion of their time in water, which helps to keep their bodies, including their testicles, cooler than they would be in a land environment. Testicular mobility: Hippos have highly mobile testicles, which can be moved closer to or further away from the body depending on the surrounding temperature. This allows them to regulate the temperature of their testicles by adjusting their position relative to their body. Potential for other mechanisms: While the primary mechanism for cooling appears to be through water immersion and testicular mobility, other mechanisms may also be involved, such as blood flow regulation or heat exchange with the body. So modern hippos apparently solved testicular thermal regulation the same way other mammalian species have, including whales. My speculation is that all or nearly all mammals have similar capacity, such that more specialized systems like those of whales required minimal additional modification. I’m glad you’ve dropped the internal teste argument as flawed, given the simple explanation nothing was required for that to happen. Whales whose testes DO drop are likely infertile as a result—the opposite of humans. Many mammals besides whales possess rete mirabile. These specialized vascular networks are found in various locations, including the head, limbs, and even reproductive organs of different species. Examples include ruminants like goats, sheep, and cattle, as well as giraffes, dogs, and cats. Goats, sheep, and cattle are ungulates, as was Pakicetus. So rete mirabile already existed in the testes of the creature that evolved into whales—it wasn’t anything whales had to develop. Because they lived in water, whales with the deactivated drop gene reproduced more effectively than the whales that dropped. The only real marvel in the evolution of whale reproduction therefore becomes the migration of the testes to their location near the kidneys—not really all that miraculous a change. Note: One of the paragraphs above was a Gemini citation, but I modified the quote to make it more natural and less like a “document drop.” I trust this doesn’t lead to charges of plagiarism. I asked the question, the AI responded, and I inserted those three sentences into the text, which I anticipate won’t be read anyway. |
||||||||||||||
|
Really? I said that, Bob? Or is this another of your lies? Still baiting and provoking, Bob? Still trolling? BTW, feel free to respond to my post at 20:00. It was for your education too! And no, Bob, you’re not more informed on this subject than an evolutionary biologist and a biophysicist who specializes in the information encoded in the DNA of protein-coding genes, both of whom were in that article I posted. And on your other point, minds exist in nature. We have minds, animals have minds. To claim attributing a mind or minds as a causal effect to what we see in the world is unscientific or not permitted by science is ridiculous. There are minds all over this planet! That some humans think no mind superior to theirs can exist is just arrogance. |
||||||||||||||
|
Reposted from 20:00… <<And the changes do need to be coordinated. What selective advantage is there in a cooling system? None unless you have testes there. What selective advantage is there in internal testes? None, unless a cooling system is there. It turns out that dolphins and whales have mysteriously acquired an elaborate counter-current cooling system that keeps the testes the same cool temperature as its fins! That system is not trivial, and it is not going to evolve with just one or two mutations.>> |
||||||||||||||
|
BTW, your claim that science is not allowed to investigate the possibility of intelligent design leaves you with consciousness arising from physical matter. How does that work? Nevertheless, science can investigate intelligent design. Did you miss this paragraph in my 19:31 post? <<I have written a short introductory article, “Why This Scientist Believes that Intelligent Design Was Required for Biological Life,” presenting a positive, scientific method to test the hypothesis that the functional information found in life requires an intelligent mind. The job of science is to reverse engineer the cell with its information-processing and gene-regulatory systems to understand how it all works.>> |
||||||||||||||
|
<<Hypothesis: A unique property of intelligent minds is the ability to produce statistically significant levels of functional information as defined in the literature. A key word here is “unique”; intelligence is the only thing with enough intellectual horsepower to produce significant levels of functional information. The above hypothesis is certainly testable and falsifiable. To falsify it, all we need is to verify a natural, mindless process that will produce statistically significant levels of functional information. ... the only option science has on the table that is observable, testable, and verified is intelligence Almost anything, including dumping alphabet characters out of a box on to the floor, can produce functional information at trivial or non-significant levels. However, if one wishes to produce significant levels of functional information one needs something else in addition. Right now, the only option science has on the table that is observable, testable, and verified is intelligence. Although there are other creative scenarios as to how large quantities of functional information can be formed naturally, our failure to verify them suggests that they should be more properly classified as science fiction.>> www.kirkdurston.com |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 20:56 Likely you didn’t have a chance to read the explanation at 20:44. That does happen to me all the time—sometimes a post goes on a prior page and I don’t see it until long later. Anyway, the cooling system was already in place. Modern ungulates have it, likely so did Pakicetus, even though the common ancestor of sheep, goats, and cows, may be more recent than the common ancestor of goats and Pakicetus. So the only real change aside from the deactivation of the gene responsible for dropping the testes was the migration of the testes to the kidneys. That migration made the drop gene function irrelevant. Modern sheep have the same testicular rete mirabile as whales, so that function appears common to all ungulates. Despite not having hooves whales remain ungulates. Condylarths almost certainly had the rete mirabile whales inherited. I’m guessing protungulatum would NOT have had rete mirabile, as it was very small and pre Cenozoic. So precisely when ungulates would have evolved that trait is not known. Protungulatum is identified as a condylarth. It is possible these mammals evolved the rete mirabile in response to some warm Mesozoic climate. Remember, Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic. I don’t know the epochs of the Cenozoic. The first is Eocene. There is a Pliocene, Miocene, Paleocene, and a few others in it. I’m not all that up on the Cenozoic epochs. The Mesozoic sports three primary divisions—Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. So those are easy. There is a pornographic version of the Paleozoic one of my astronomy students gave me. Delightful lass. But I use “Campbell’s very ordinary soups do make people puke.” Cambrian, Vendian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian (these two combined are the Carboniferous), and Permian. The Permian hosts the early terrestrial vertebrates. Pelycosaurs and the like. I think primitive vascular land plants herald from the Silurian. I always have to look it up. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 20:51 Your exact words were "I don’t have the time and barely have the interest to read through a document dump" (16:39). I think I captured the gist accurately enough. <BTW, feel free to respond to my post at 20:00. It was for your education too!> Thanks. I will if I have something to contribute. <To claim attributing a mind or minds as a causal effect to what we see in the world is unscientific or not permitted by science is ridiculous.> Minds certainly can be a link in a chain of causation. I have never denied that. Why is my coffee cup on my desk? Because I chose to put it there. Why is there a coffee cup? Because someone manufactured it. Etc. But each of those chains of causation involve matter and energy that is able to be described by naturalist mechanisms. "Intelligent Design" as I have read about it involves no such naturalistic mechanism, or at best a non-naturalistic origin to the chain of causation; more like Fiat Creationism (as in "Let there be..." = 'fiat' in Latin). Yet even that is contrary to Science's naturalistic assumptions. Even my choice to put my cup in a certain place is explicable (in theory, at least) in terms of electro-chemical processes in my brain. To propose an Intellect prior to all naturalistic effects is not Science. <That some humans think no mind superior to theirs can exist is just arrogance.> Then perhaps I'm not as arrogant as I accuse myself, because I readily recognise a God who is so far superior to me that no meaningful comparison is possible. Now, to be more constructive than merely responding to your posts... I accept a form of 'Intelligent Design' that involves an Intellect enormously greater than that proposed by conventional 'Intelligent Design' writers. I accept a Transcendent God who not only created, but did so in a way that far outruns our feeble imaginations. That this was not only 'In the Beginning', but is ongoing at every instant; and that embraces not only all time, but all eternity simultaneously, in so far as those words can be united. But this far transcends the scope of Science, so I don't even try to use Science to explore it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic 21:13 <<In case you're not aware of this, Science is based in Naturalism. BY DEFINITION, any direct cause other than natural causes are ruled out. BY DEFINITION, 'Intelligent Design' is not 'Scientific'.>> <BTW, your claim that science is not allowed to investigate the possibility of intelligent design leaves you with consciousness arising from physical matter. How does that work?> I don't know. Did you miss this paragraph in my 19:31 post? <<I have written a short introductory article, “Why This Scientist Believes that Intelligent Design Was Required for Biological Life,” presenting a positive, scientific method to test the hypothesis that the functional information found in life requires an intelligent mind. The job of science is to reverse engineer the cell with its information-processing and gene-regulatory systems to understand how it all works.>> I didn't miss it. I even alluded to in in a previous post. |
||||||||||||||
|
<<I didn't miss it. I even alluded to in in a previous post.>> If you didn’t miss the bottom paragraph in my 19:31 post, then how did you miss this? “The job of science is to reverse engineer the cell with its information-processing and gene-regulatory systems to understand how it all works.” |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
