What evidence would convince you that a watch evolved?
The watch did no evolve; on the contrary, it was created.
1 Like
What type of evidence would convince you that humans evolved, either by theistic or non-theistic processes?
1 Like
We need fossils that definitely show macroevolution and transferred forms. A cat to a dog. Would that nt hurt my Christianity? NO! I accept proven reality. Antarctica would be a place to search. Do you agree?
How do you determine if a fossil shows macroevolution? For example, what features would a fossil need for you to accept it as evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with chimps?
1 Like
As a philosophical position, that kind of Intelligent Design has been a familiar one among Christians for many centuries. Nevertheless, the modern day ID movement claims that this philosophical position can also be established by means of the scientific methodâand even formalized as an âID theoryâ which can be subjected to falsification testing. It is this difference between ID as philosophy (which happens to refer to scientific topics) and ID as actual science which is the key to some of the talking-past-one-another on this thread.
As a born-again, Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I certainly believe that God created the universe and all within itâand that he did so intelligently. Nevertheless, I have yet to see anyone publish a cogent Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design. Nobody has demonstrated that compelling evidence supports such an âID theoryâ and that it can survive falsification testing and peer-review.
That is why I reject âID theoryâ as science. If someone eventually publishes a compelling ID scientific theory, I will be delighted to investigate it further. Thus far (and Iâm talking many years of reading ID publications), Iâve not been impressed, nor am I optimistic that this will change any time soon.
Until such a compelling âID theoryâ is published and survives peer-review, Intelligent Design will continue to find acceptance in philosophical and theological circles. That doesnât make it science. We do well to recognize the difference.
To put it another way: A philosophical discussion that happens to involve science topics (even biology topics) doesnât make any resulting conclusions scientific conclusions. To confuse ID as philosophy and ID as science is yet another equivocation fallacy which plagues so many Internet forum threadsâincluding this one.
5 Likes
I do not totally agree, but I like your answer. God bless you, brother Allen.
1 Like
I will talk with everyone tomorrow. God bless.
1 Like
Great. Where do you draw the bright white line separating human from nonhuman in this series?
No one who understands biology thinks that dogs evolved from cats. Is that what they taught you at ODU, or at Liberty?
2 Likes
Isnât Liberty that Christian GOP university that was recently implicated in some⌠unsavory business?
1 Like
Amen! Well stated.
Obviously, when we find a watch somewhere, we recognize it as a product of human design because weâve seen many prior watches and we already know that humans made them. That in itself makes Paleyâs analogy extremely weak.
Suppose Paley had walked along a beach one day and he found a crystalline sphere of surprising properties. A chemical analysis reveals that the material doesnât match that of any of the rocks in the vicinity. Also, it doesnât appear to be the product of any known biological process. Was the mysterious crystalline sphere âintelligently designedâ? Indeed, if âID theoryâ is good science, can it help us determine whether or not this spherical object is intelligently designed?
Now, if that sphere measures 1.0000 centimeters in diameter to an incredible degree of precision and is a âperfect sphereâ, we should consider a possible human engineering origin. (That is, it deviates only very minutely from the shape of a true sphere.) And if we eventually find other such spheres in the area, and all are perfect integer multiples of the size of that mystery sphere, we would probably assume that human standards dictated the size of those objects. Nature doesnât necessarily follow metric standards.
Alternatively, if the mystery objects were of random sizes, determining whether the spheres were of natural/geological/biological versus intelligent-design origins would be far more difficult. Are there any âID theoriesâ or intelligent design scientific discoveries or methodologies which can provide any new kinds of assistance to help the geologists, anthropologists, biologists, and other scientists in analyzing and identifying these mystery objects? I donât think so.
A high-level employee of the school was indeed implicated in a recent news report. (And neither the employee nor the school denied the news report.) But as I understand the news story, the school itself on any official level was not involved. The employee has a business on the side which provides various computational/statistical services to clients, as I understand it.
I have no affiliation nor am I a donor or spokesperson or advocate for that school. Iâm simply a third-party observer.
3 Likes
A cat doesnât evolve into a dog. Every organism gives birth to an organism that is similar but not exactly like its parents.
And that is also a good reply to the ID advocate on this thread (or perhaps it was another thread) who said that the Theory of Evolution canât be science because it is not falsifiable. Obviously, evolution theory is falsification tested on a daily basis by scientists all over the world. And if scientists started observing cats âevolving into dogsâ, that would be massively powerful evidence against evolution theory.
1 Like
No. I was taught at ODU that cats and dogs came from a common dog and cat like creature. I am going to study these. I would like that line two is different. What is you opinion, Dr. Mercer
That could be true. I was for moderate Democrat H. Clinton.
Then why did you challenge with the non sequitur:
???
Whatâs your basis for judging G as nonhuman and H as human?
Itâs crystal-clear that they all have a common ancestor. Evolutionary theory predicts a lack of bright white lines.
1 Like
I disagree.
Humanness is behavioral. Humanness is not reflected in the shape or size of the skull. Human behavioral qualities may be seen in all species from A through N.
1 Like
2 problems with this notion:
-
even if we never seen a human made a watch- we can still conclude design by looking at the watch shape and structure.
-
humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria genomes are also the product of design. as i said: the watch argument is still valid.