Jump to content


Photo

What Designed The Designer?


  • Please log in to reply
211 replies to this topic

#41 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 October 2009 - 12:24 PM

:lol: the only reason why I would want to live forever would be to see all the new technology!!!!!!!!

View Post

I would want to live forever so I can keep learning. I'm addicted to *epiphany.

*The the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. NOT, the Adoration of the Magi of the miraculous Incarnation of the infant Christ, and to the Feast of the Epiphany which commemorates it.

:lol:

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:22 PM

Richard Dawkins' challenge to Intelligent Design is "What designed the designer?"

I don't think the question is much of a challenge, because the question is outside the scope of Intelligent Design; as an explanation for certain features of biology.  Just as the question "how did life begin?" is outside the scope of Evolutionary Theory; as an explanation for biological change and diversity.  Surely Dawkins' knows that in science some questions are outside the scope of a theory, therefore he presents no challenge.

What do you think?

View Post


Richard Dawkins reaches far afield quite a lot in his religious fervor for evolution and atheism. But "How did life begin" still needs to be answered by the evolution sect because evolution had to evolve from somewhere didn't it?

#43 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 October 2009 - 02:41 PM

Richard Dawkins reaches far afield quite a lot in his religious fervor for evolution and atheism. But "How did life begin" still needs to be answered by the evolution sect because evolution had to evolve from somewhere didn't it?

View Post

No.

Abiogenesis is the secular science for origins of life. There is no confirmed theory in that area as yet. Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time.

But I agree with your view on Dawkins. Its just unfortunate that Dawkins has tied his atheism to evolutionary theory, because evolution has nothing to do with atheism. In Dawkins case, he is like a boy with his new hammer (Evolutionary Theory), everything is a nail (can be explained by evolution) in his view!

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:19 PM

No. 

Abiogenesis is the secular science for origins of life.  There is no confirmed theory in that area as yet.  Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time. 

But I agree with your view on Dawkins. Its just unfortunate that Dawkins has tied his atheism to evolutionary theory, because evolution has nothing to do with atheism.  In Dawkins case, he is like a boy with his new hammer (Evolutionary Theory), everything is a nail (can be explained by evolution) in his view!

View Post


No.

Evolution is something coming from something else (or nothing????) over however much time you can imagine. So, logically, what did it evolve from? There isn't even a confirmed theory for macro-evolution, so of course there is no confirmed theory for Abiogenesis!

#45 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 14 October 2009 - 06:43 PM

No. 

Abiogenesis is the secular science for origins of life.  There is no confirmed theory in that area as yet.  Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time. 

But I agree with your view on Dawkins. Its just unfortunate that Dawkins has tied his atheism to evolutionary theory, because evolution has nothing to do with atheism.  In Dawkins case, he is like a boy with his new hammer (Evolutionary Theory), everything is a nail (can be explained by evolution) in his view!

View Post


I think if evolutionists want to play that way--that is to preclude the actual origin of life, then they should by all means stop pressuring IDers to name the deity which designed everything. This is rhetorical and sometimes political ploy.

Can we leave nothing to personal decision? Every one wants control. Present the evidence, refute it, debate it in a civil manner--just like here on this website and others, and let people decide. But let's let the matter out of the box.

#46 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 October 2009 - 07:04 PM

Evolution is something coming from something else over however much time you can imagine. So, logically, what did it evolve from?

View Post

Evolutionary Theory in the most precise definition of the modern synthesis used by evolutionists, is "change in allele frequencies over time through natural selection".

I notice Conservapedia article on Evolution cites a Merriam-Webster definition, "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

But when I looked up the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and I noticed the author of the article has selected a specific definition of "evolution" from the dictionary; as it relates to phylogeny. So, the article is wrong, in so far as describing the Theory of Evolution specifically is those terms, even though it does relate to evolutionary theory indirectly.

Conservapedia also states in the Phylogeny article, "[Phylogenetics] the science of phylogeny, is one part of the larger field of systematics, which also includes taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying the diversity of organisms.

As far as I can tell, Conservapedia accepts Phylogenetics as a field, but dismisses Evolutionists contributions to it. I have no problem with that.

But what I question is Conservapedia's use of phylogeny to define the Theory of Evolution in a way, not even evolutionists would agree with.

So, if you want to hold your definition of evolution as indicative of the theory, I won't stop you. But I do feel someone needed to point out to you, that if you want to discuss "evolution" in any way relevant to the ramblings of Evolutionists, then I suggest you use their definition, since it is their Theory of Evolution you are objecting too. That way you'll avoid being accused of making a strawman argument against evolutionist science.

#47 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 October 2009 - 07:07 PM

I think if evolutionists want to play that way--that is to preclude the actual origin of life, then they should by all means stop pressuring IDers to name the deity which designed everything.  This is rhetorical and sometimes political ploy.

Can we leave nothing to personal decision?  Every one wants control.  Present the evidence, refute it, debate it in a civil manner--just like here on this website and others, and let people decide.  But let's let the matter out of the box.

View Post

AFJ totally nailed the issue. :lol:

#48 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:17 PM

Evolutionary Theory in the most precise definition of the modern synthesis used by evolutionists, is "change in allele frequencies over time through natural selection".

I notice Conservapedia article on Evolution cites a Merriam-Webster definition, "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

But when I looked up the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and I noticed the author of the article has selected a specific definition of "evolution" from the dictionary; as it relates to phylogeny.  So, the article is wrong, in so far as describing the Theory of Evolution specifically is those terms, even though it does relate to evolutionary theory indirectly.

Conservapedia also states in the Phylogeny article, "[Phylogenetics] the science of phylogeny, is one part of the larger field of systematics, which also includes taxonomy. Taxonomy is the science of naming and classifying the diversity of organisms.

As far as I can tell, Conservapedia accepts Phylogenetics as a field, but dismisses Evolutionists contributions to it.  I have no problem with that.

But what I question is Conservapedia's use of phylogeny to define the Theory of Evolution in a way, not even evolutionists would agree with.

So, if you want to hold your definition of evolution as indicative of the theory, I won't stop you.  But I do feel someone needed to point out to you, that if you want to discuss "evolution" in any way relevant to the ramblings of Evolutionists, then I suggest you use their definition, since it is their Theory of Evolution you are objecting too.  That way you'll avoid being accused of making a strawman argument against evolutionist science.

View Post


Negative! I refuse to play the evolutionists game of flexible definitions. I will use the basic and simple definition, and not some convoluted explanation.

"Evolution is something coming from something else (or nothing????) over however much time you can imagine. So, logically, what did it evolve from? There isn't even a confirmed theory for macro-evolution, so of course there is no confirmed theory for Abiogenesis!"

#49 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:51 PM

Negative! I refuse to play the evolutionists game of flexible definitions. I will use the basic and simple definition, and not some convoluted explanation.

View Post

What is convoluted about this definition, "change in allele frequencies over time through natural selection"?

Even Michael Behe accepts this in his book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism . Behe accepts micro-evolution accounts for change that generates diversity. But he rejects evolution as a explanation for the creation of new species or macro-evolution.

Do you reject evolutionary theory as an explanation for micro-evolution?

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 October 2009 - 03:14 AM

What is convoluted about this definition, "change in allele frequencies over time through natural selection"?

View Post

The definition is not the problem, it is the push to believe that this is all that evolution is. These types of equivocal arguments are against forum rules and for good reason. They waste time in an effort to confuse and bewilder. It may work at other forums but it won't work here. Consider this a warning.

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 09:28 AM

What is convoluted about this definition, "change in allele frequencies over time through natural selection"?

Even Michael Behe accepts this in his book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism .   Behe accepts micro-evolution accounts for change that generates diversity.  But he rejects evolution as a explanation for the creation of new species or macro-evolution.

Do you reject evolutionary theory as an explanation for micro-evolution?

View Post



As Adam stated, there is nothing wrong with the definition for micro-evolution. After all, "micro-evolution" is just a retooling (or rip-off ) for the definition of "adaptation" within a species or kind. And it was done to make adaptation more evolution-friendly. But Macro-evolution isn't even a theory (except in the imaginations of some), it's nothing more than a model.

#52 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 October 2009 - 10:44 AM

The definition is not the problem, it is the push to believe that this is all that evolution is. These types of equivocal arguments are against forum rules and for good reason. They waste time in an effort to confuse and bewilder. It may work at other forums but it won't work here. Consider this a warning.


Rather than threatening him/her why don't you explain what you believe is the barrier between observed speciation and speciation over millions of years? The article you link also does not explain the difference. If you were convinced by your answer you would elaborate and not prohibit discussion.

Alledging that your opponents "waste time in an effort to confuse and bewilder" is disingenuous. It is no secret why a Christian would fear the mainstream view on natural history: common descent implies that humans are no more made in God's image than are fungi or bacteria; we did not "fall from grace". If there is no choice that we can make that represents a failure of our existential purpose there can be no "sin" and no cause to fear damnation. Without the threat of damnation we need not make a leap of faith to believe in salvation through the resurrection.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 11:01 AM

Rather than threatening him/her why don't you explain what you believe is the barrier between observed speciation and speciation over millions of years?  The article you link also does not explain the difference.  If you were convinced by your answer you would elaborate and not prohibit discussion.

View Post



That's actually pretty simple; "speciation over millions of years" is mere speculation, and macro-evolution is nothing more than imagination. Observed speciation, or adaptation within a species or kind is supported by inductive evidence. This is why your equivocation on the subject isn't allowed, and is against the rules of the forum. And, thus renders the rest of your quibbling moot because arguing with a moderator is a violation of the rules as well. Please see: http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

Any other questions?

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 11:14 AM

As an aside; I wasn't referring to myself when I was talking about moderators. I was referring to Adam, the person you were questioning. We like to support our administrative personnel when their authority is being questioned by those who either don't take the time to read the rules, or did read them, but decide to violate them anyway.

#55 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:25 PM

The definition is not the problem, it is the push to believe that this is all that evolution is. These types of equivocal arguments are against forum rules and for good reason. They waste time in an effort to confuse and bewilder. It may work at other forums but it won't work here. Consider this a warning.

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

View Post

Sorry.

You're right. It is equivication to say "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection" equates to the modern evolutionary synthesis, because the synthesis is a union of various evolutionary ideas.

But honestly I did not think that is what I was saying. Every evolutionist biologist and philosopher of biology I've talked to at university when asked to give the basic definition of evolution have said, evolution is "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection".

I didn't find Ron's definition conform to this experience because he only refers to evolutionary ideas about phylogeny, when phylogeny is not the sole domain of evolutionists. Creationists have phylogeny without evolutionism.

It seemed to me Ron was conflating Evolutionary Phylogeny with Evolutionary Theory, when Evolutionary Phylogeny is the application of core evolutionary ideas, such as "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection" to taxonomic relationships in the science of phylogeny.

Also, my question why is "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection" a convoluted statement? Is not a claim "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection" is all that evolution is. I'm merely asking Ron to explain what he means when he says it's convoluted.

But I accept your warning. It seems loosely justified, even though it misses the meaning of my question.

#56 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:34 PM

Rather than threatening him/her why don't you explain what you believe is the barrier between observed speciation and speciation over millions of years?  The article you link also does not explain the difference.  If you were convinced by your answer you would elaborate and not prohibit discussion.

Alledging that your opponents "waste time in an effort to confuse and bewilder" is disingenuous.  It is no secret why a Christian would fear the mainstream view on natural history: common descent implies that humans are no more made in God's image than are fungi or bacteria; we did not "fall from grace".  If there is no choice that we can make that represents a failure of our existential purpose there can be no "sin" and no cause to fear damnation.  Without the threat of damnation we need not make a leap of faith to believe in salvation through the resurrection.

View Post

Tommy,

While I appreciate your support, I do not think it is necessary. Adam is correct in saying evolution is not just, "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection". The modern evolutionary synthesis does say a more in relation to biology.

Also, I'm not interest in having someone who is not trained in evolutionary theory give their opinion on what they think are the barriers between observed speciation and speciation over millions of years.

It would be like asking the Pope for advise on parenting!!! :lol:

And furthermore. I'm not an opponent to Ron or Adam. In fact I support their views, even if I don't agree with them, or find them ill-informed. I believe their views are a rational position.

#57 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:58 PM

I didn't find Ron's definition conform to this experience because he only refers to evolutionary ideas about phylogeny, when phylogeny is not the sole domain of evolutionists. Creationists have phylogeny without evolutionism.

It seemed to me Ron was conflating Evolutionary Phylogeny with Evolutionary Theory, when Evolutionary Phylogeny is the application of core evolutionary ideas, such as "change in allele frequencies over time by way of natural selection" to taxonomic relationships in the science of phylogeny.

View Post


I wasn’t confusing the two at all Lounge head. And the answers you look for are dependant upon which professors you ask. Having said that, as long as you don’t attempt to tie micro and macro evolution together by invoking time (the religious side of evolution), then all you are saying is that we adapt to our surroundings without any empirical evidence that we evolve into another species. At which case, you , I and Behe agree. But, if you are insinuating macro-evolution, than you are equivocating.

#58 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:18 PM

I wasn’t confusing the two at all Lounge head. And the answers you look for are dependant upon which professors you ask.  Having said that, as long as you don’t attempt to tie micro and macro evolution together by invoking time (the religious side of evolution), then all you are saying is that we adapt to our surroundings without  any empirical evidence that we evolve into another species. At which case, you , I and Behe agree. But, if you are insinuating macro-evolution, than you are equivocating.

View Post

I'm not attempting to tie micro-evolution to macro-evolution. You and Adam are creating a strawman argument by implying that I am.

All I'm doing is saying the Modern Synthesis, which is about the biological process for change in a population, is a different theory from Abiogenesis, which is a hypothesis about bio-chemical processes that lead to life i.e. the creation of DNA.

If anyone is equivocating here, I believe it is you, in claiming Abiogenesis is the same as the Modern Synthesis.

Read the conservapedia article on Abiogenesis. It makes no mention of evolution.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:38 PM

I'm not attempting to tie micro-evolution to macro-evolution.  You and Adam are creating a strawman argument by implying that I am.

All I'm doing is saying the Modern Synthesis, which is about the biological process for change in a population, is a different theory from Abiogenesis, which is a hypothesis about bio-chemical processes that lead to life i.e. the creation of DNA.

If anyone is equivocating here, I believe it is you, in claiming Abiogenesis is the same as the Modern Synthesis.

Read the conservapedia article on Abiogenesis.  It makes no mention of evolution.

View Post


So, you are saying that when you said "Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time" you meant that humans have always been humans, and didn't evolve from another (ape like, or whatever) creature. But just adapt to their surroundings, and have always been human? Or, that by saying "Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time", you meant that these populations were (for example) ape like creatures that adapted to their surrounding (over millions of years) into the humans we are today?

I think you'll find that we've heard it all before, and were nipping it in the bud before the equivocation games began. I don't build straw men, I burn them down.

On the otherhand, if you don't believe in micro-evolution, then I'll be more than happy to apologize and move on.

#60 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:57 PM

So, you are saying that when you said "Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time" you meant that humans have always been humans, and didn't evolve from another (ape like, or whatever) creature. But just adapt to their surroundings, and have always been human? Or, that by saying "Evolution is science of population change; how groups of living organisms change over time", you meant that these populations were (for example) ape like creatures that adapted to their surrounding (over millions of years) into the humans we are today?

View Post

I haven't said any such thing.

All I have said is Evolutionary Theory is a different scientific theory from the abiogensis hyothesis. Secular abiogenesis is a hypothesis about the creation of DNA and proteins through natural chemical processes.

http://www.conservap...com/Abiogenesis

Conservapedia says,

"...the various proposals fall into two schools of thought. One, held by creationists, is that life originated supernaturally. The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes. This is commonly referred to as abiogenesis."

The article makes no mention of evolutionary theory in the formation of DNA.

I think you'll find that we've heard it all before, and were nipping it in the bud before the equivocation games began. I don't build straw men, I burn them down.

On the otherhand, if you don't believe in micro-evolution, then I'll be more than happy to apologize and move on.

View Post

I understand the need to nip equivocation in the bud. I totally support it, which is why I attempted to point out the equivocation you appeared to be making between Abiogenesis and Evolutionary Theory.

Also, I think you mean to say, "if you don't believe in [macro]-evolution".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users