Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 25 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Evolution and its flaws...
PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:05 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6268
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:
But...
intellect is the key to even beginning to understand that there is a machine.
But it's not a machine. The world is not an artefact. That is a huge flaw in ID.

EtcumSpiri22-0 wrote:
Therefore...
An external intellect is required.
ID cannot give us God. It can only give us a 'designer' who might as well be some kind of creator Galactus character. You need classical theism to do so. But when you do that, you see that God couldn't in principle be the designer of ID.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

https://twitter.com/kkringlebotten

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution and its flaws...
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:06 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6787
Religion: Christian
Stephen C. Meyer: Is intelligent design science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xRGtJHC1E


How did we get from Newton to Dawkins?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQMs2-GqUkA&spfreload=1

_________________
But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution and its flaws...
PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:21 am 
Offline
Highness
Highness

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6787
Religion: Christian
Evolution has no biology to support the theory. Absent the biology the theory has no way of being proven.

The theory of evolution requires time to produce a new species through a series of random biological events.
Evolutionists strictly adhere to the rule that the entire evolutionary process was completely undirected/ random. No intelligence directed the process in any way.

By simply crunching the numbers
... Scientists have realized, through the process of statistical analysis, that the number of undirected/ random biological events required to make even one part of one protein (which is only one part of one substance of the millions of components required to build a new species) would take far more time than all of geologic history.

_________________________________________________
'The Cambrian Explosion (the point in geologic history when evolutionists believe that evolution really started to explode into multiple new species) was not produced by any biological process as understood today'... Doug Erwin (of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History) ...

"Animals cannot evolve if the genes for making them are not yet in place. So clearly, developmental/genetic innovation must have played a central role in the radiation." Charles R. Marshall, "Explaining the Cambrian 'Explosion' of Animals," Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences 34 (2006): 355-84.

There is no known/ viable mechanism for producing the genetic material required to support the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Recent experiments have established the extreme rarity of functional genes and proteins among the many (combinatorially) possible ways of arranging nucleotide bases or amino acids within their corresponding sequence spaces. The rarity of functional genes and proteins within sequence space makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that a series of random mutation searches will fail to generate even a single new gene or protein fold within available evolutionary time. This extreme rarity is reflected in the research of mathematical biologists, using standard population genetics models. They are calculating exceedingly long waiting times (well in excess of available evolutionary time) for the production of new genes and proteins when producing such genes or proteins requires even a few coordinated mutations. Hundred million years would not afford enough opportunities to produce the genetic information necessary to build even a single new gene or protein, let alone all the new genes and proteins needed to produce new animal forms. It is not even enough time to allow the mutation/selection process to search more than a tiny fraction of the relevant sequence spaces. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/to ... 77541.html

_________________
But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution and its flaws...
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:44 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:27 pm
Posts: 459
Location: Canada
Religion: Catholic
I thought Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos was good. He's an atheist. And a philosopher not a scientist. It's interesting to see how someone struggles with the conclusion that the facts lead us to teleology but still tries to leave out God. I have not read E. Gilson's From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again but will some day. :D

_________________
Formerly CanadianCatholic

I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; Matt 12:36


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Evolution and its flaws...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:15 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness

Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Posts: 6787
Religion: Christian
This one is behind a paywall that allows you in once or twice. I think it might be accessible if you have Google Incognito as well:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxa ... 1419544568


Statistics is the worst enemy of the atheist...
Excerpt:
The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Carl Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

_________________
But our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ, Philippians 3:20


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 25 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: