Is intelligent design continuing?

Cisco Qid

Active member
The Big Crunch would involve the entire universe compressed into a black hole. Seems less than perfect to me...

Also, the evidence indicates expansion is accelerating, so the Big Crunch seems increasingly unlikely.
Let's consider the theory that two particles moving in opposite directions will eventually meet as proposed by a very well known physicist. Would that create an acceleration at the boundaries of the universe? It might also explain why the universe is getting hotter.
 
Last edited:

JNelson

Well-known member
You need to establish that that particular species of insect in the Precambrian would break evolution. It's not like any old organism in precambrian rock is going to break evolution. Also, without a reference, link, or citation, your statement doesn't mean much, because any scientific claim has to be open to examination and challenge.
Birbal Sahni is the one who made the discovery in the Salt Range Formation in Pakistan. He found several things like wood, angiosperm and the winged insect. The winged insect he found is too early over 100 million years according to the supposed timeline and the angiosperm too early by over 400 million years.

Not surprised you haven’t heard of it because it clearly contradicts the evolution fable but it’s just ignored by most.
This doesn't answer my question. Can you fill in this blank: If we observed _________________________, that would be good evidence that there was no designer.
I have to reiterate this point because it's really crucial, scientifically. Any scientific claim has to live up to and survive challenges to it. I'm trying to get from you what evidence would constitute an effective challenge to ID.
Actual full sets of complete fossils showing the changes each step of the way. If it was a land animal to a sea animal it would need to have every transitional change. The whale supposedly took about 8-16 million years to evolve from a hoofed mammal which means there should be thousands of fossils showing each change along the way.
Science is ultimately about trying to **disprove** hypotheses, not prove them (although trying to prove a hypothesis plays its role in practical terms). If you can disprove it, then you're done. If you can't, then maybe you're onto something.

Lastly, without being able to state what would disprove a claim, it becomes unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.
Let me ask you, if in fact someone finds mammal fossils in the supposed Precambrian era and evolution is unequivocally proven wrong would you believe in God or would there be another explanation for origins that’s not God or evolution?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
The evidence simply shows that all different types of animals have lived and died. Many have changed and adapted to specific environments but they remained the same kind not deers to whales.

You’re in the same boat my friend. Anything and everything is consistent with evolution you just need to add more magic, sorry, I meant “time”. ID predicts that animals within their kind adapt and produce within their kind which is exactly what we can observe today.

All extant species have ancestors who were the same kind of animal. They evidence you speak only show similarities between different animals which is consistent with a common creator.


You’ve been lied to my friend. Give me the name of the museum, laboratory or even website that has the thousands of fossils showing step by step a hoofed animal evolving to a whale?

Where’s the whale fossil at the midpoint? Half its bones should be whale and the other half hoofed land animal.

By what percentage did that hip bone decrease every generation? If you have all the transitional fossils this should be a very simple answer.


Crocodiles have lived in both water and land for supposedly

So once an animal starts transitioning it can’t revert if the environmental pressure return to how they were previously?

What exactly hinders an animal from evolving back to it’s original state of the environment start reverting back?

You finally admit you believe in magic.

There are plenty of scientists who have knowledge built on lifetimes of dedicated studies that believe in creation.

I’ve been asking you for evidence and you have provided nothing thus far. My evidence is very simple, it takes intelligent beings (humans) to create things like computers, factories, cameras etc. and the equivalent to these in nature are exceedingly more complex and sophisticated so it’s more than clear there is an Intelligent Designer.

Something you’ve yet to prove.
I appreciate that you are wanting to develop your Gish gallop skills but I will only have access to my phone for the next several days. The questions you keep asking need more time and a key board, so you will have to wait. I will get back to you. In the meantime it would be helpful to establish some baselines to avoid wasting time.

Do you accept that the earth is around 4 billion years and that life in some form has been present for at least 3.5 billion? If not, why not?

Do I accept that offspring are not exact copies of their parents, generally speaking? If not, why not?

Do you accept that qualifying words and phrases like "generally speaking", theoretically" and "may", have meaning, and that deliberately deleting them when quoting someone else in order to twist meaning is dishonest? If not why not?

I look forward to hearing from you. I may still reply, but don't expect anything substantial until I have access to a keyboard.

(cue, passive aggressive "joke" about never expecting anything substantive.)
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No, I am saying that in order to prove God does not exist you would have to prove that he is not involved in a different universe in any way, because in this one, he is so intimately involved, at least, as far as I can tell.
Filling in that blank is not trying to prove that god does not exist. It's trying to use a general principle - that unfalsifiable claims are meaningless - and apply it to the question of an intelligent designer.

You keep on working from the basis that God exists, but all my considerations come before one has decided that God exists.

Any claim that is unfalsifiable is worthless as a claim. So the claim that life was designed by an intelligent designer is worthless as a claim unless it is falsifiable, and it is falsifiable if you can fill in that blank.

Again, if you could show me beyond a doubt that another universe exists that God had no involvement in then I would despair thinking how much of my current life in this world was spent dancing, laughing, and crying with someone who did not exist. IOW, its incomprehensible to me that what I perceive has not been with me from the very beginning before time itself. Although, there are times when the world presses down on me, and my soul is weighed down by my circumstances, as if a black hole swirls overhead, —it is at those times I remember what he has said to me, and I hold on to his words with dear life while the ocean rages around me. Eventually, the storm passes and I find myself on a beach in paradise, iow, Where God needed me to be. Is that me justifying the means by the end? Maybe, but looking back (and forward) I wouldn’t do it any other way.


That was a bit confusing, because for me there is only one God, designer, and creator. I am not sure what your point is.


I am trying to follow you.

1) The designer is absolute good (x).
2) We see people committed to evil (ie., “y”) therefore they were not designed by the designer (x).
3) But we also see people committed to x, therefore they were designed by the designer x.
Conclusion, an imperfect being corrupted the nature given him by the designer and formed y in opposition to the designer (1), whereas, the perfect designer secretly formed x (2) despite the imperfect being, because the designer has his Wisdom (“Jesus, Joshua, Yeshua”) and eternity on his side.

——
1) ”Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” (John 8:43)

2) ”And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)
Lemme try again. Let me know at each numbered sentence if you don't agree with just that sentence.

1. There are two mutually exclusive possibilities: either (A) God is the only designer, or (B) the designer(s) is/are other than God. Those are our only two options, right?

2. Either possibility runs into problems.

Problem with (A):
If we say that the only designer possible would be God, then you'd be saying, "If we knew the designer (the designer must = God, so I just sapped out "God" in your sentence and put in "the designer") didn't exist, then that would be evidence that there was no designer." That says nothing (except A=A), it's just a tautology.

Problem with (B):
(B) If we say that some intelligent designer besides god might be possible, then your statement is not true. If we knew God did not exist, then we wouldn't know one way or the other if there was some other designer, because some other designer would still be logically possible.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Birbal Sahni is the one who made the discovery in the Salt Range Formation in Pakistan. He found several things like wood, angiosperm and the winged insect. The winged insect he found is too early over 100 million years according to the supposed timeline and the angiosperm too early by over 400 million years.

Not surprised you haven’t heard of it because it clearly contradicts the evolution fable but it’s just ignored by most.
Just to be precise, are you saying that dating a fossil earlier than what it had previously been dated at, even by 100-400 million years, contradicts evolution?

Actual full sets of complete fossils showing the changes each step of the way. If it was a land animal to a sea animal it would need to have every transitional change. The whale supposedly took about 8-16 million years to evolve from a hoofed mammal which means there should be thousands of fossils showing each change along the way.
First of all, I don't see why this necessarily would mean there was no designer. Why couldn't the designer have designed a complete set of organisms showing all the incremental differences? What's stopping the designer from doing that?

Let me ask you, if in fact someone finds mammal fossils in the supposed Precambrian era and evolution is unequivocally proven wrong would you believe in God or would there be another explanation for origins that’s not God or evolution?
I would at first look around for all potential explanations, including one that's not God nor evolution. Is there a reason why we should close our eyes to that possibility?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
You’re in the same boat my friend. Anything and everything is consistent with evolution you just need to add more magic, sorry, I meant “time”. ID predicts that animals within their kind adapt and produce within their kind which is exactly what we can observe today.
Not at all. Darwin said what would be inconsistent with evolution. Go here for a blog post by Jerry Coyne, a famous biologist and author of Why Evolution is True on what he says would be inconsistent with evolution.

You are just wrong that anything and everything is consistent with evolution. Biologists and those who accept evolution and write books about why evolution is true have said what would be inconsistent with evolution.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
I appreciate that you are wanting to develop your Gish gallop skills but I will only have access to my phone for the next several days. The questions you keep asking need more time and a key board, so you will have to wait. I will get back to you. In the meantime it would be helpful to establish some baselines to avoid wasting time.
I’m ok waiting.
Do you accept that the earth is around 4 billion years and that life in some form has been present for at least 3.5 billion? If not, why not?
No, we don’t have evidence of this. All dating methods require assumptions about the past which we will never know because we weren’t there to confirm it.

If all I told you was that I got home at 2 pm and then asked you how long did it take me, you would have no way of knowing. You don’t know my starting point/time, the method of travel or even what happened during my travel.

Without knowing the all those details there is no way to ever truly know how old something is.
Do I accept that offspring are not exact copies of their parents, generally speaking? If not, why not?
No, not exactly copies. Not even twins are exact copies. But humans always produce human offspring and canines always produce canine offspring. That is what we have observed.
Do you accept that qualifying words and phrases like "generally speaking", theoretically" and "may", have meaning, and that deliberately deleting them when quoting someone else in order to twist meaning is dishonest? If not why not?
If you think that I in some way did this then please show me where.
I look forward to hearing from you.
As do I.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Just to be precise, are you saying that dating a fossil earlier than what it had previously been dated at, even by 100-400 million years, contradicts evolution?
Yes it does, here’s why.

You said “Biology and evolution is clear on what would break evolution; the most famous is Haldane's rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock layer.

There’s supposedly 500 million years between the end of the supposed Precambrian era and the first rabbit, hence the Precambrian rabbit. Some fossils found by Birbal Sahni at the Salt Range Formations date over 400 million years before they were supposed to exist which proves evolution is wrong as per Haldane’s argument.
First of all, I don't see why this necessarily would mean there was no designer. Why couldn't the designer have designed a complete set of organisms showing all the incremental differences? What's stopping the designer from doing that?
Seems like you don’t think that, according to your supposed timeline, finding a fossil 400 million years before it’s time would disprove evolution. So why even mention Haldane’s rabbit if it doesn’t actually disprove evolution?
I would at first look around for all potential explanations, including one that's not God nor evolution. Is there a reason why we should close our eyes to that possibility?
I’m not saying we should, I’m just asking what those other possibilities would be.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I’m ok waiting.

No, we don’t have evidence of this. All dating methods require assumptions about the past which we will never know because we weren’t there to confirm it.

If all I told you was that I got home at 2 pm and then asked you how long did it take me, you would have no way of knowing. You don’t know my starting point/time, the method of travel or even what happened during my travel.

Without knowing the all those details there is no way to ever truly know how old something is.

No, not exactly copies. Not even twins are exact copies. But humans always produce human offspring and canines always produce canine offspring. That is what we have observed.

If you think that I in some way did this then please show me where.

As do I.
I'll get back to you. I ill start with the time line, since if you don't accept that, nothing else makes sense. And yes, we have plenty of evidence for it.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Yes it does, here’s why.

You said “Biology and evolution is clear on what would break evolution; the most famous is Haldane's rabbit fossil in a pre-Cambrian rock layer.

There’s supposedly 500 million years between the end of the supposed Precambrian era and the first rabbit, hence the Precambrian rabbit. Some fossils found by Birbal Sahni at the Salt Range Formations date over 400 million years before they were supposed to exist which proves evolution is wrong as per Haldane’s argument.

Seems like you don’t think that, according to your supposed timeline, finding a fossil 400 million years before it’s time would disprove evolution. So why even mention Haldane’s rabbit if it doesn’t actually disprove evolution?
It seems like you're thinking that because a Pre-Cambrian rabbit would break evolution, and it would be 500 million years off where it should be, then any organism that is dated 500 million years away from where it is now would break evolution too.

But it's not the 500 million years itself that breaks evolution, it's the fact that the ancestors of the rabbit, from which the rabbit evolved (according to evolution), would not have been around if the rabbit was 500 million years earlier. It's not the years themselves, it's breaking the ordering of ancestor species to the species-in-question that is the thing that breaks evolution.

But you haven't mentioned the dating of the ancestor species for your example, so it's still unclear as to how or why that example breaks evolution.
I’m not saying we should, I’m just asking what those other possibilities would be.
I dunno, but without a logically exhaustive list of other possibilities, it would be illogical to then claim that some god did it because evolution wasn't true.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Not at all. Darwin said what would be inconsistent with evolution. Go here for a blog post by Jerry Coyne, a famous biologist and author of Why Evolution is True on what he says would be inconsistent with evolution.

You are just wrong that anything and everything is consistent with evolution. Biologists and those who accept evolution and write books about why evolution is true have said what would be inconsistent with evolution.
Whenever something is found that goes against evolution the story just gets adjust to fit what previously was considered impossible. Dinosaur soft tissue and proteins being found is a great example but evolutionists just explain it away.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Whenever something is found that goes against evolution the story just gets adjust to fit what previously was considered impossible. Dinosaur soft tissue and proteins being found is a great example but evolutionists just explain it away.
Have you ever read any of the criticism of the dino soft tissue claims of ID-ists? That criticism doesn't stand up by evidence and logic. We've seen that right here on these forums.

Just calling it "adjust to fit" and "explain it away" only has rhetorical value, it just repeats your claim that you think it's bogus, but what we really need is some evidence/logic that will stand up to scrutiny. It hasn't happened yet.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Have you ever read any of the criticism of the dino soft tissue claims of ID-ists? That criticism doesn't stand up by evidence and logic. We've seen that right here on these forums.

Just calling it "adjust to fit" and "explain it away" only has rhetorical value, it just repeats your claim that you think it's bogus, but what we really need is some evidence/logic that will stand up to scrutiny. It hasn't happened yet.
Yes I’ve read them, I always read both sides. The explanation that evolutionists provide just isn’t a good one. Basically, the solution is that iron is what supposedly worked as a preservative.

The problem is that it was an experiment where the conditions were no where near the actual conditions of the fossil nor was the hemoglobin acting as the preservative consistent with what would be found in the fossil. And even still, the tissues were only “recognizable” after 2 years.

So clearly no evolutionist is ever willing to accept that the dinosaurs aren’t as old as they believe, even when irrefutable evidence is provided.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Yes I’ve read them, I always read both sides. The explanation that evolutionists provide just isn’t a good one. Basically, the solution is that iron is what supposedly worked as a preservative.

The problem is that it was an experiment where the conditions were no where near the actual conditions of the fossil nor was the hemoglobin acting as the preservative consistent with what would be found in the fossil. And even still, the tissues were only “recognizable” after 2 years.

So clearly no evolutionist is ever willing to accept that the dinosaurs aren’t as old as they believe, even when irrefutable evidence is provided.
We have no got the disagreement into technical areas that will take too much for me to get up to speed on. I will acknowledge your critique of the solution of biologists who accept evolution, but I can't accept it because it will take too much for me to adjudicate it.

Perhaps someone else in this thread can weigh in?
 
Top