Yes, but that's illegal to talk about on this thread.
ID/Creationism challenge
- Thread starter thaiboxerken
- Start date
How do you know since you don't even know anything about it?
Tell me. Explain the connection between 2 entangled particles. Specifically, how are they connected in basic QM (not the Multiverse) in regards to distance and time?
That's not his whole theory. If it were, it wouldn't be anything new.
On Hawking, not even sure he still maintains it. I used the reference to show you there is more going on in some fine-tuning concepts than you believe.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
[citation needed]
yomero
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,222
Let's pretend that the evidence of blood in dinosaur fossils definitely proves that the earth is only 10,000 years old. How is that confirmation of Creationism or I.D.? We can claim with just the same legitimacy that it proves Lamarck was right. I said ''the same legitimacy'' as in ''none''.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
Of the competitive advantage of ID?
Then how come all of them have their empirical basis in Evolution?
For your first one: The study of Punctuated Equillibrium was the first promenent idea to flesh out the findings of morphological stasis. And that was a natural evolution-based idea. Your paper does not really show how the I.D. can be applied to learn more. It merely asserts there must have been one.
For your second example, much more was learned about centrioles, after their evolutionary pathway was discovered, than by the assumption that they were "too complex" to evolve:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...9af6a1c688275bd0dbe2975eb0c4e05c&searchtype=a
In the fourth example: Both self-organization and self-ordering imply that Intelligence is not necessary to invervene in the process
Your last one about amino acid changes does not introduce any reasons why an I.D. would be necessary to explain the findings. Again, it merely asserts the necessity.
It's like my saying this: "There are dings in my car door, even though there is no car next to mine. Therefore, this is positive evidence for the existence of Door Ding Gnomes!"
How come none of them actually apply the Intelligent Designer in an empirical way?
You still seem to be missing that ingredient.
ETA: I would also like to add that none of your examples follow the first rule set out in the Opening Post. Each one references a perceived "problem" with evolution. None of them really builds a case for Intelligent Design on its own merits.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I would report you for being off topic, if I weren't too lazy to do so.
They don't.
No, it wasn't. Creationists had been pointing out stasis for decades. Evos refused to accept it as fact?
Why is that? Why only when an evo put forward a way to presumably explain it did they finally admit what was a known fact all along?
If you disagree, prove PE advocates were the first to demonstrate stasis.
I suspect you don't get the point but considering peer-reviewed papers are responding to Intelligent Design papers, that's evidence of ID as a legit subject of scientific debate.
No, it's the opposite which is one reason the papers were published.
That's because you didn't read the paper, right? A summary alone will not contain all the evidence of the whole paper.
I disagree. All of these papers present Intelligent Design as the model explaining the results. Of course, they discuss evo explanations but for the purposes of this thread, just take out the part about evolutionism, and it still stands as evidence for ID.
Life adapts to the local environment.
One more comment on this. Gould flat out said when presenting PE that the fact of stasis and sudden appearance had been something "anti-evolutionists" has pointed out for decades. He didn't come up with the concept but rather decided to at least try (most evos ignored the facts) to explain how these facts did not fit with Neodarwinian theories and offer a modification.
Where there is a gap in human knowledge, magic fairies did it.
Where there is no gap in human knowledge but Michael Behe doesn't understand said knowledge, magic fairies did it.
No further study is needed on any subject, but some past studies have to be ignored.
You might want to learn more about this.
I am not a TECer but is important for some YECers whose models advocate extremely rapid variation.
Are you denying that stasis and sudden appearance are facts creationists argued before PE ever came along?
The way they did it is childish, still is. Gould addressed real questions, their idiocy was of little concern.
If you think that you are making a serious argument you have a lot to learn about punctuated equilibrium.