Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#101 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:09 AM

Agreed

Hmm. Took the wind right out my sails there!

Your profile says YEC. Do you accept evolution could possibly have occurred as part of God's plan? Over millions of years?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Thanks
SeeJay

View Post

This is just to make sure you look. In another post I think you have your answer.
New thread? Let me know.

#102 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 29 October 2009 - 12:52 AM

This is just to make sure you look.  In another post I think you have your answer.
New thread? Let me know.

View Post

:lol:

#103 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 29 October 2009 - 02:32 PM

As interpreted by Evo's.
You still ignore one point which is valid though Evo's don't like.  It could be true AND no falsifyable.

Now, your "punching the ice breaker" theory (I do like the way your mind works) is in principle falsifiable. All you have to do is punch the ice breaker, and if you do not suffer damage, then the theory would be falsified. However, this theory, whilst it is falsifiable, has not in fact been falsified. . . Actually, it has been.  Enough liquor and things happen.  Not me, but I saw it done in Antartica.  Fortunately he was too drunk to stand, lost his balance and only suffered scratches and bruising.  Nothing broke.

The theory that He began the Creation and allowed it to run it's course, including evolution, is not unkown to me.  There are two separate arugments from this theory fr me.  One is evolution. 

The other is denying a literal Bible.  I think the Literal Bible would be a new thread.  I'd be happy to join you in a separate thread. Please let me know.

I cannot prove He did not, just as you cannot prove He did.  There are aspects of even the seemingly random actions that could be described as patterns.  Al Gore says Global Warming.  I say Solar Cycles. 
If God did set everything in motion, how much does He manipulate it now?  There seem to be areas that are not entirely controlled, or at least beyond our observations.  There are however, as I pointed out, some components of nature that have at least a minimum of intellegence and the product of their work is easily identifiable from the of non-intelligent forces.

View Post


Dear larrywj2, I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I don't ignore that ID might be true. I acknowledge it might be true. I actually personally believe something very similar to ID, and have done for many years before ID proponents came along. But the version of ID that ID proponents support is unfalsifiable, and thus takes the position that evidence is irrelevant to whether its true or not. I don't think evidence is irrelevant to whether something's true (and I find it hard to believe you believe that).

I also believe there are evidence-based arguments that a super-intellect is guiding biological life. These are being explored in the journals of philosophy of mind, neurophysiology, AI, chaos & complexity theory etc. What the ID proponents do, trying to prove an intelligence is involved by disproving evolution, is utterly fruitless and wrong-headed, in my opinion. They should be putting their efforts elsewhere.

I will start a thread about evolution and a literal Bible.

Kind regards
SeeJay

#104 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 29 October 2009 - 03:16 PM

Dear larrywj2, I appreciate the thoughtful response.

I don't ignore that ID might be true. I acknowledge it might be true. I actually personally believe something very similar to ID, and have done for many years before ID proponents came along. But the version of ID that ID proponents support is unfalsifiable, and thus takes the position that evidence is irrelevant to whether its true or not. I don't think evidence is irrelevant to whether something's true (and I find it hard to believe you believe that).

I also believe there are evidence-based arguments that a super-intellect is guiding biological life. These are being explored in the journals of philosophy of mind, neurophysiology, AI, chaos & complexity theory etc. What the ID proponents do, trying to prove an intelligence is involved by disproving evolution, is utterly fruitless and wrong-headed, in my opinion. They should be putting their efforts elsewhere.

I will start a thread about evolution and a literal Bible.

Kind regards
SeeJay

View Post

I find much agreement here. I have always believed the ID's in "charge" of the debate fail by relying on attacking evolution.. I understand their strategy, "if Evo does not work maybe something else does". ANd in the current system it has some merit because evo' is accepted as the ONLY possible answer. Others are not discussed. That lack of honest discussion leads me to consider their concerns are not only science based but questions of faith as well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users