Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Yet MORE evidence for design ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yet MORE evidence for design ...

    Richard Dawkins has long promoted the Materialistic position that any design we observe in nature is only appearance, not real design. He says this because, for him, there is no Designer and so the design "must be" appearance-only, not real.

    You already know what I think of such patentable nonsense - it is Looney Tunes on steroids except that Looney Tunes are funny, Dawkins is not.

    Over the years I have presented numerous evidences and arguments to support that design is real, not merely imagined or only an appearance. I recently came across a short video (under 9 minutes) put out by the Discovery Institute. This video provides yet more evidence of design based on the work of three scientists that were awarded the Nobel Prize for their findings.

    Of course, the Materialists here (comrades of Dawkins) will continue to deny, ignore and/or come up with all manner of concoctions to explain the observations but, hey, I've come to predict and accept that.

    For the rest of you, take heart - design is real because the Designer is real. Science continues gathering more and more and more evidence supporting that position.

    Enjoy. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/ou...ssues-but-how/ Paul Nelson, PhD, is the speaker.

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    Richard Dawkins has long promoted the Materialistic position that any design we observe in nature is only appearance, not real design. He says this because, for him, there is no Designer and so the design "must be" appearance-only, not real.

    You already know what I think of such patentable nonsense - it is Looney Tunes on steroids except that Looney Tunes are funny, Dawkins is not.

    Over the years I have presented numerous evidences and arguments to support that design is real, not merely imagined or only an appearance. I recently came across a short video (under 9 minutes) put out by the Discovery Institute. This video provides yet more evidence of design based on the work of three scientists that were awarded the Nobel Prize for their findings.

    Of course, the Materialists here (comrades of Dawkins) will continue to deny, ignore and/or come up with all manner of concoctions to explain the observations but, hey, I've come to predict and accept that.

    For the rest of you, take heart - design is real because the Designer is real. Science continues gathering more and more and more evidence supporting that position.

    Enjoy. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/ou...ssues-but-how/ Paul Nelson, PhD, is the speaker.

    Jorge
    Nature is indeed amazing - and awesome.

    I distinguish, however, between "awe" and "worship."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Nature is indeed amazing - and awesome.

      I distinguish, however, between "awe" and "worship."
      You can distinguish all you want. If there is a Designer --- and the evidence is overwhelming and ever-increasing that there is a Designer --- then that Designer, that Creator, merits worship. We ALL (yes, you too) 'worship' (give our allegiance to) something --- the only question is, to whom/what do we give our allegiance ('worship')? To God? To a man or men? To science? To technology? To Satan? To Buddha? To ourselves?

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        You can distinguish all you want. If there is a Designer --- and the evidence is overwhelming and ever-increasing that there is a Designer --- then that Designer, that Creator, merits worship. We ALL (yes, you too) 'worship' (give our allegiance to) something --- the only question is, to whom/what do we give our allegiance ('worship')? To God? To a man or men? To science? To technology? To Satan? To Buddha? To ourselves?

        Jorge
        I do not equate "worship" with "give allegiance to." I give my allegiance rarely, but it does happen. One can be said to give a degree of allegiance to their employer - so for me that would be my clients. I don't worship my clients. I give some degree of allegiance to our country...and respects it's laws. I don't worship our country. There are ways in which I give my allegiance to my family. I don't worship my family.

        As for the designer question, I do not find the evidence "overwhelming." I find that people tend to insert god in places where they lack another explanation. I am comfortable with "I don't know."
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          Richard Dawkins has long promoted the Materialistic position that any design we observe in nature is only appearance, not real design. He says this because, for him, there is no Designer and so the design "must be" appearance-only, not real.

          You already know what I think of such patentable nonsense - it is Looney Tunes on steroids except that Looney Tunes are funny, Dawkins is not.

          Over the years I have presented numerous evidences and arguments to support that design is real, not merely imagined or only an appearance. I recently came across a short video (under 9 minutes) put out by the Discovery Institute. This video provides yet more evidence of design based on the work of three scientists that were awarded the Nobel Prize for their findings.

          Of course, the Materialists here (comrades of Dawkins) will continue to deny, ignore and/or come up with all manner of concoctions to explain the observations but, hey, I've come to predict and accept that.

          For the rest of you, take heart - design is real because the Designer is real. Science continues gathering more and more and more evidence supporting that position.

          Enjoy. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/ou...ssues-but-how/ Paul Nelson, PhD, is the speaker.

          "This is SOOOOOOOO complex, it must be Designed!!" - the standard cry of the scientifically illiterate ID-Creationist.

          Comment


          • #6
            Could you point to the actual evidence that indicates design? I've read the piece and skimmed the abstracts of the papers, but there's no mention of how design was quantified or tested for.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Richard Dawkins has long promoted the Materialistic position that any design we observe in nature is only appearance, not real design. He says this because, for him, there is no Designer and so the design "must be" appearance-only, not real.

              You already know what I think of such patentable nonsense - it is Looney Tunes on steroids except that Looney Tunes are funny, Dawkins is not.

              Over the years I have presented numerous evidences and arguments to support that design is real, not merely imagined or only an appearance. I recently came across a short video (under 9 minutes) put out by the Discovery Institute. This video provides yet more evidence of design based on the work of three scientists that were awarded the Nobel Prize for their findings.

              Of course, the Materialists here (comrades of Dawkins) will continue to deny, ignore and/or come up with all manner of concoctions to explain the observations but, hey, I've come to predict and accept that.

              For the rest of you, take heart - design is real because the Designer is real. Science continues gathering more and more and more evidence supporting that position.

              Enjoy. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/05/ou...ssues-but-how/ Paul Nelson, PhD, is the speaker.

              Jorge
              And yet while condemning any Christian who dares agree with any atheist on a matter of science you figuratively trip over yourself giddily hopping into bed with one of the most notorious and intolerant ones out there (Dawkins) over matters like how we should understand what the Bible says.

              That makes you, by any reasonable definition, a comrade of Dawkins. He's your tovarishch.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                You know how domesticated animals (the horse is a good example) evolve by artificial selection? Evolution is simply selective pressures acting naturally on populations. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

                Creative people make things because they are interested in the object they make, not because they suppose that the object is interested in them.

                Creation myths are us explaining ourselves to ourselves. They have inner meaning but no outer reality other than what we fabricate.
                Last edited by firstfloor; 05-16-2018, 03:29 PM.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Could you point to the actual evidence that indicates design? I've read the piece and skimmed the abstracts of the papers, but there's no mention of how design was quantified or tested for.
                  Completely off topic but I came across this yesterday.



                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3jnymeJof4

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    Completely off topic but I came across this yesterday.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3jnymeJof4
                    Isn't it glorious?

                    With a bit of editing, it was also repurposed for a music video:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-HJWnLpdJU
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      You know how domesticated animals (the horse is a good example) evolve by artificial selection? Evolution is simply selective pressures acting naturally on populations. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

                      Creative people make things because they are interested in the object they make, not because they suppose that the object is interested in them.

                      Creation myths are us explaining ourselves to ourselves. They have inner meaning but no outer reality other than what we fabricate.
                      Jorge would likely cite AnswersinGenesis (AIG) or similar "authority" where they say that "We find variant transitional fossils for animals within the same kind—horse to a horse for example but that is expected in a biblical worldview."

                      The fact is the fossil record is complete enough that YEC groups such as AiG actually claim that the evolution of "Hyracotherium" or early Eocene horses to the modern Equus is trivial – "within the same kind."

                      Jonathan Sarfati (who once posted on Tweb under the name "Socrates") declared in Refuting Evolution that "the other animals in the sequence show hardly any more variation between them than within horses today."

                      Yet this is only possible due to our having numerous intermediate forms, for minus them, the anatomical gap is pretty darn big.

                      The Hyracotherium were mostly browsers (whereas modern horses are grazers) with small canines, incisors, simple tricuspid molars and low-crowned simple molars.

                      They were roughly the size of a small dog being roughly 2’ long and only 1 to 1˝' tall and had 4 hoofed toes on the front feet and 3 hoofed toes on each hind foot which were more similar to a dog's foot (including having pads) than anything seen on your typical modern horse (which only have one toe or hoof).

                      They possessed skulls (which rested on relatively short necks compared to modern horses) that were considerably longer and narrower (proportionally) than that seen in modern horses. And the brain inside that skull was smaller and not just proportionally smaller -- they had, for instance, diminished frontal lobes in comparison to what is seen in modern horses.

                      And all the major leg bones were unfused, leaving the legs flexible and rotatable which isn't anything like horses around today.

                      The features of horses today have changed considerably – legs and feet, brain, skull, teeth. It is difficult to accept that anyone could possibly mistake a dog-sized browsing Eocene horse with their three-toed feet, forward-pointing eyes, short snout and different teeth for any living horse no matter how small.


                      00000000000000ars5.jpg
                      You can see for yourself how radically different they were


                      As an aside, as diverse and widespread as horses once were (three different species of Mesohippus along with two of Miohippus that lived along side each other according to finds made in some Late Eocene beds in Wyoming while up to 12 different contemporary horse species have been found at the Railroad Quarry A of Nebraska), they to, like apes, have been reduced to a comparatively few representative species.

                      Finally, Todd Wood, a YEC "baraminologist" and Director of the Center for Origins Research and an Associate Professor of Science at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, acknowledged that horse evolution even involves the dreaded MACROevolution:

                      Source: The horse series and creationism


                      First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A fossil record is an order of fossils being buried.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          A fossil record is an order of fossils being buried.
                          . . . and the evidence of billions of years of the evolving diversity of life on earth beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence in the layers of rock demonstrates the climate, ecology, and the diversity of life in each period of our geologic history.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            A fossil record is an order of fossils being buried.
                            It's more than that. The fossil record also refers to the information scientists have obtained from them in that they help to document the history of life and how it has changed and adapted (i.e., evolved) through the various geological periods.

                            As the University of California at Berkeley's "Understanding Evolution" website[1] explains

                            The fossil record provides snapshots of the past that, when assembled, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change over the past four billion years. The picture may be smudged in places and may have bits missing, but fossil evidence clearly shows that life is old and has changed over time.






                            1. Generally not one of my favorite sources in that they occasionally over simplify things to the point that it can lead to false impressions.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                              "This is SOOOOOOOO complex, it must be Designed!!" - the standard cry of the scientifically illiterate ID-Creationist.
                              Paul Nelson: "There must be some governing logic, some control system that tells those [cell] lineages what they're going to do as they are specialising - and I think from the perspective of an undirected process like natural selection or evolution generally it's very hard to see how you could build that without knowing where you were going.
                              ...
                              You have a controlled process of increasing specialisation where the first decision is being made with respect to it's ultimate target. It defies imagination to conceive of any kind of cause that can do that without knowing where the target is. You've got to know where you're going."


                              Paul Nelson's argument is that the intermediate steps in C. elegans's development are not selectable, therefore they could not have evolved - but that argument only works if animals evolved from eggs to adults, which is bonkers since eggs can't reproduce. Nelson is apparently unable to differentiate the development of an individual organism from it's evolutionary history. Paul Nelson's ignorance is not evidence.
                              Last edited by Roy; 05-21-2018, 04:36 AM.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X