tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3936144274362912648..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Response to Comments: Astonishing But Typical p53 Comment Illustrates Evolutionary ThinkingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48276475570517763002011-07-12T16:44:33.542-07:002011-07-12T16:44:33.542-07:00CH: I described here how the Human Genome project ...CH: I described here how the Human Genome project and high throughput technologies have revealed levels of complexity evolutionists hadn’t even dreamed of, revealing yet another monumental failure of evolutionary theory.<br /><br />Again, scientific theories are not prophecy. Predictions are based on a theory's underlying explanation for phenomena. As such, it's unclear why you expect predictions of any theory to take into account an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel effects that could effect our observations. <br /><br />Could it be that evolution intersects what you think to be divine revelation of God's supposed role in creating life - therefore, you interpret its predictions as if they were prophecy as well? If so, it would seem your objections are yet again based on smuggled assumptions which are not implied. <br /><br />If evolution doesn't "fit" the God sized hole in your current world view, then you consider it a failure. If predictions of evolutionary theory fail to meet your implicit criteria as a prophetic empirical mandate, then it must be false.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71288148897223313162011-07-12T11:03:45.033-07:002011-07-12T11:03:45.033-07:00Well, I guess that told me.
Problem I have Mr.H i...Well, I guess that told me. <br />Problem I have Mr.H is that even if I were to accept your points I still can't think of any credible alternative. The OT/genesis/creation is obviously a fairytale, or at best an allegory. I don't see how ID is anything other than a kind of anthropomorphic projection that will probably be as guilty of everything you claim is wrong with ToE. I'll just let you get on with your research and keep checking back to see if you have an alternative for me. <br />Still, it was nice to get an OP all to myself, thanks, and have a nice day everyone.MrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09000224780914610538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56703265056337236612011-07-12T07:27:20.356-07:002011-07-12T07:27:20.356-07:00Prior to the HGP, what numbers did creationists or...Prior to the HGP, what numbers did creationists or intelligent designists predict?Lenoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12028320615579712292011-07-12T05:51:42.652-07:002011-07-12T05:51:42.652-07:00Hunter:
These soft “predictions” are touted as no...Hunter:<br /><br /><i>These <b>soft “predictions”</b> are touted as no-brainer, compelling proof-texts of evolution.<br />...<br />Forget about evolution’s <b>soft “predictions”</b> that are consistently wrong, or the evolutionist’s faulty logic.</i><br /><br />What are the characteristics that make a prediction "soft" in science? What are the differences from a hard or firm prediction?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43221979637021491102011-07-12T04:41:19.530-07:002011-07-12T04:41:19.530-07:00CH -
"Evolution is an utterly ridiculous, re...CH -<br /><br />"Evolution is an utterly ridiculous, religiously-motivated notion that has no scientific standing. This is not hyperbole but rather a simple description of the facts. Religious proofs underwrite the theory in spite of the obvious scientific evidence. Evolution is not a minor error. It is not a theory that merely needs some tweaks and adjustments. It is an absurdity that is obvious to anyone with common sense."<br /><br />Funny how virtually the whole of the scientific community is against you here. You are the drummerboy for whom everyone else in the band was marching out of step.<br /><br />You demonstrate not the slightest evidence that you understand what science is, let alone evolution.<br /><br />Here are a few hints:<br /><br />1) Science assumes naturalism.<br /><br />2) Evolution ALSO assume naturalism (because it is a SCIENCTIFIC theory)<br /><br />3) Assuming naturalism is a scientific thing to do.<br /><br />4) Not assuming naturalism is an unscientific thing to do.<br /><br />5) If you do not assume naturalism then you are not doing science.<br /><br />6) ToE is no different to any other SCIENTIFIC thoery in assuming naturalism.<br /><br />7) Naturalism is a really important assumption for performing science.<br /><br />8) You cannot perform science without assuming naturalism.<br /><br />Back to the OP, saying 'Biology is complicated - more so than we expected' does not undermine ToE either. Every scientific theory leads to more research, more discovery, more understanding. It is no criticism at all that a scientific theory does not already explain everything in advance. As a scientific theory is followed, it is inevitable tweaked and ammended here and there. These tweaks are not fatal flaws, however much you want them to be.<br /><br />Neither does empty rhetoric undermine ToE. Calling it's flaws 'just obvious to anyone with common sense' does not make it true. You are blinded by your own religiously-motivated biases, which makes it all the more hilarious that you use religion as an accusation against those you seek to attack.<br /><br />Allowing for miracles in science would be the unscientific and religious thing to do. And it is the position YOU take, not those you attack.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11094683590116321702011-07-12T03:47:58.699-07:002011-07-12T03:47:58.699-07:00Cornelius Hunter:
"It is an absurdity that i...Cornelius Hunter:<br /><br />"It is an absurdity that is obvious to anyone with common sense."<br />===<br /><br />Careful here. In a worldview of no absolutes and truth being relative, then according to which parallel universe do you define common sense ??? <br /><br />See how easy it is Cornelius ??? The right Worldview and FAITH go hand in hand.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89034550133992244512011-07-12T02:31:51.608-07:002011-07-12T02:31:51.608-07:00How true.
.How true.<br /><br />.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.com