ID is evitable.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I should have posted: "If you leave out natural selection then you are not talking about evolution."

Evolution is random mutation (i.e. chance) and natural selection. You need to include both in any probability calculation.

The problem is with chance. Natural selection is what drove the speciation after the animals came off the ark.
The difference is the animals loss information rather than gained information which the T.o.E. requires. To gain the complex information which makes up the DNA code...by chance...is what stops evo-ism in it's tracks.
Just the act of moving a snout up an animals forehead and accounting for all the changes to morph it into a working successful blowhole...by random mutations is impossible.....then throw in natural selection....evolution fails.


Again you fail to describe an undesignable organism. To help you, here is what Darwin said:

All organism are designed. Evo-ism doesn't work..which is why I can stand by my statement that you can't show how mutations can add up beyond the coloring book level.
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." - Origin, Chapter Six.​
I've read of certain seeds that need to be scratched by a birds digestive system to be pooped out and then germinate...or seeds that need to be in a forest fire to germinate. But, we can even go deeper with systems within an organism that are dependent on each other to have evolved at the same time to support each other. I've presented the assembly line of organelle as an example in the past that the evo-minded here seem to shy away from answering.
What I am looking for is an equivalent statement from Intelligent Design:

"If it could be proved that «... fill in the blank here ...» it would annihilate ID theory, for such could not have been produced through intelligent design."​

So far ID does not appear to have filled in that blank.
"If it could be proved that «... man arrived via the goo through the zoo ...» it would annihilate ID theory, for such could not have been produced through intelligent design."
 
The problem is with chance. Natural selection is what drove the speciation after the animals came off the ark.
Natural selection operates on the differences between members of the same species, such as being more or less susceptible to a new disease. If there is no chance, i.e. random mutations, then there are no differences for natural selection to operate on. Both are required for evolution to operate. Random mutations introduce variation into the population and natural selection preferentially amplifies the more successful variants.

All organism are designed.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I dismiss your unevidenced claim.

"If it could be proved that «... man arrived via the goo through the zoo ...» it would annihilate ID theory, for such could not have been produced through intelligent design."
It has been so proved, to within the limits of scientific sccuracy. Thank you for confirming that ID is false.
 
Why not? I can build a machine that throws a ball farther than I could.
If the designer is the one God who is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, how can that God make another God more powerful than he is?
Perhaps God could make a machine who can do all of those things but it would be only a machine and not a personal God. It would be created and not uncreated.
 
If the designer is the one God who is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, how can that God make another God more powerful than he is?
Perhaps God could make a machine who can do all of those things but it would be only a machine and not a personal God. It would be created and not uncreated.
You have a contradiction there. If the designer cannot make a new designer more powerful than him/her/it-self, then that designer cannot be all powerful. At best that designer is almost-all powerful since there is a least one thing they are not capable of doing.

An all-powerful designer can do anything, including making a new designer more powerful than himself.
 
If the designer is the one God who is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, how can that God make another God more powerful than he is?

Sorry, I think I led both of us down the wrong road with my reply. Let me start over.

Your suggestion is not a falsification of the idea that God designed life on earth. It's a falsification of the idea that God could create anything that is greater than he is. Whether God can create anything greater than he is has nothing to do with falsifying the claim that God designed life on earth. Those are two different claims.
 
You have a contradiction there. If the designer cannot make a new designer more powerful than him/her/it-self, then that designer cannot be all powerful. At best that designer is almost-all powerful since there is a least one thing they are not capable of doing.

An all-powerful designer can do anything, including making a new designer more powerful than himself.
There is more than one thing that God cannot do. He can't lie, either.

I don't believe it is possible for God to create another God greater than he is, at least not the Christian God. According to the Bible, I don't believe there is or can be more than one true God.
I'm sure a classical theist would agree. Maybe the Greek gods could do that.
 
If there is no chance, i.e. random mutations, then there are no differences for natural selection to operate on.
Bravo Sierra.

Breeding dogs, cat, cattle...relies upon selection. No mutations required...but differences are the by-product.
 
If the designer is the one God who is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, how can that God make another God more powerful than he is?
Perhaps God could make a machine who can do all of those things but it would be only a machine and not a personal God. It would be created and not uncreated.
"how can that God make another God more powerful than he is?" That would be like God could create an uncreated god.
 
Bravo Sierra.
Thank you for such a succinct summary of the intellectual level of your criticisms of evolution.

Breeding dogs, cat, cattle...relies upon selection. No mutations required...but differences are the by-product.
No, breeding relies on having a mommy dog and a daddy dog who really, really, really like each other. Then they do grown up doggy stuff, and a litter of puppies results.

The mutations are present in the puppies, as is shown by genetic sequencing parents and offspring. There will be some genetic sequences in the puppies that are not present in either parent. The great majority of the DNA in the puppies comes from one or other parent, but not all.

Selection is on the basis of the DNA in the puppies, which is mostly a recombination of parental DNA with a few mutations.
 
Thank you for such a succinct summary of the intellectual level of your criticisms of evolution.


No, breeding relies on having a mommy dog and a daddy dog who really, really, really like each other. Then they do grown up doggy stuff, and a litter of puppies results.

The mutations are present in the puppies, as is shown by genetic sequencing parents and offspring. There will be some genetic sequences in the puppies that are not present in either parent. The great majority of the DNA in the puppies comes from one or other parent, but not all.

Selection is on the basis of the DNA in the puppies, which is mostly a recombination of parental DNA with a few mutations.
You said a lot of nothing...would you like to try again?
 
You said a lot of nothing...would you like to try again?
What part of: "The mutations are present in the puppies, as is shown by genetic sequencing parents and offspring. There will be some genetic sequences in the puppies that are not present in either parent. The great majority of the DNA in the puppies comes from one or other parent, but not all" do you have a problem with?
 
What part of: "The mutations are present in the puppies, as is shown by genetic sequencing parents and offspring. There will be some genetic sequences in the puppies that are not present in either parent. The great majority of the DNA in the puppies comes from one or other parent, but not all" do you have a problem with?
Nobody denies mutations. You do understand that?
 
The current way ID is taught is not based on quality, peer-reviewed science.
Like this? But you may be right when most of it is DOA because or philosophical diktats, not actual science.

As a theist and scientist there arguably is an intelligent designer who is behind all known and unknown causes (aka random causes) influencing our world, to include using the mechanism of evolution, but there is no evidence for an intelligent designer
The evidence is in the design itself
who has gone around the mechanism of evolution and directly manipulated DNA of any animal on planet earth.
Move the goalposts to impossible standards. True science is incompatible with logic fallacies. Identity is not needed to deduce intelligent design. You are in over your head.
 
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design is not a faith based doctrine but rather a scientific based theory that posits that our existence came from some intelligent agent rather than unguided random processes (naturalism). They do not claim to know the identity of this designing agent and do not pick out any particular religion but claim that the designing influence can be scientifically measured. And, in fact, one of their most prolific writers and advocates is, David Berlinksi, who is an agnostic.


I myself am Bible based and believe that the Creator is Yahweh who expressed Himself in bodily form as Jesus as prophetized in the OT. But naturalism and unguided Darwinism (although I do respect Charles Darwin as a researcher and a scientist) is taking over the mind of our young people in a school system which has outlawed prayer and does not allow anything contrary to neo-darwinism to be taught in the schools. There is a scientific alternative which is more palatable to Christian doctrine, ID, but it too has been outlawed from the school system ( see Kitzmiller v. Dover ). But way, when is the alternative ever outlawed in any forum?
ID is satans created ugly prison... this earth and ape body.

this is not God’s creation.
He did not create this earth or body.
 
Back
Top