A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

What are you doing then? I do not understand your question. What is it you want here? To me, the question shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and taxonomy.

Do you have evidence showing the Bible is incorrect (things reproduce according to kind/family only) or no?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I cannot. Again, what does this question mean? It appears to show a distinct misunderstanding of evolution, speciation and taxonomy. If I read all this correctly, you are asking for the impossible and declaring failure to deliver as evidence against evolution by natural means.

If a species from a known family suddenly morphed into a species in another taxonomic family, that would be evidence against the theory of evolution. Much as the crocoduck chimera would be.

So the Bible is correct, then? "Things reproduce according to their kind only"?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well then maybe it did not happen. Maybe it is symbolic and not an actual account. Would not be the first thing to be symbolic and not an actual event.

I await your reply, as to how you know which parts of the Bible are symbolic, which literal.

 

[Polymath257]

So the Bible is correct, then? "Things reproduce according to their kind only"?

Since the Biblical notion of 'kind' is nonsense, this question has no real answer. Species change over time, acquiring new characteristics, but do so within the range of variance in the (shifting) population at each time.

But, as has been pointed out, vertebrates will continue to produce vertebrates, apes will continue to produce apes (including humans), etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have evidence showing the Bible is incorrect (things reproduce according to kind/family only) or no?

Now you know you are trying to form a false argument. Why would someone that claimed to be a Christian use a dishonest technique?

 

[Bear Wild]

I await your reply, as to how you know which parts of the Bible are symbolic, which literal.

Most is clearly is a symbolic representation with some real historical figures and events transformed into the religious belief system of the Jewish religion. Some parts such as genesis and the biblical flood which are clearly myth and others that contain references were there is some archeological evidence or recorded history to support that those people and events happened but written within the Jewish tradition and view point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have evidence showing the Bible is incorrect (things reproduce according to kind/family only) or no?

Ever heard of a mule? How about beefalo? That is a hybrid that results from the crossing of two different genera. Are you going to claim that domestic cattle and the American bison are of the same kind, whatever that means?

Are you claiming the Bible is a science book or one on animal breeding?

Kind is not a scientific term and is so vague as to be meaningless.in a discussion of species, relationships and interbreeding. A family in science is a taxonomic group of related genera and the species assigned to those genera. Breeding between species in taxonomic families is not known to occur naturally and I cannot think of any artificial systems where it is forced to occur. Perhaps in plants, but I do not know, as I am not a botanist.

Your questions do not make much sense in light of science, evolution and taxonomy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So the Bible is correct, then? "Things reproduce according to their kind only"?

No. Not according to the existence of hybrids, it is not. At the time it was written, human knowledge did not include knowledge of how reproduction even worked outside of the larger mechanical and behavioral aspects in mammals.

 

[Skwim]

Now you know you are trying to form a false argument. Why would someone that claimed to be a Christian use a dishonest technique?

Because claims are cheap.

.

 

[gnostic]

I personally don't believe FTL travel is likely, given the science involved.

That’s because FTL travel only exist in science fiction, not actual science. No spaceship can move faster than speed of light, because such vessel can never have zero rest mass.

The only moving at the speed of light, are electromagnetic waves, like light or photons, because photon has zero rest mass.

The only thing moving faster than the speed of light, is the expansion of space, or more precisely the expansion of the universe. Only space can move as fast or faster than speed of light.

When talking of expansion of universe, then everything within the universe move with it. So, galaxies themselves don’t move faster than speed of light, they are moving with space.

 

[gnostic]

I understand. Behe, of course, never discovered, e.g. that a unicellular animal is more complex than Chicago, Illinois, he just commented on the same. Meanwhile, after decades of research, scientists cannot reproduce anything remotely approaching abiogenesis.

All Behe is doing isn’t just equivocation and talk, he is not doing any science.

You keep forgetting that science required observational evidences, and therefore requiring some works done, eg finding evidences or doing experiments.

Behe is not doing that for ID, or for his own Irreducible Complexity. As to Darwin’s Black Box, it is merely just writing pseudoscience, with him trying to justify his pseudoscience assumptions about complexity and design.

There are no evidences involved, no original research, and no discoveries. There is nothing science about either his paper on IC or on his manuscript.

I don’t see how you can defend his works that are not science, that cannot be tested, nor have them peer reviewed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since the Biblical notion of 'kind' is nonsense, this question has no real answer. Species change over time, acquiring new characteristics, but do so within the range of variance in the (shifting) population at each time.

But, as has been pointed out, vertebrates will continue to produce vertebrates, apes will continue to produce apes (including humans), etc.

Are you unaware of Mendel's Christian background, and how modern taxonomy started with Bible concepts? Are you unaware the word "kind" is related to family by most Bible scholars? And are you attempting to goalpost shift away from the fact that evolution agrees with the Bible--a creature reproduces in its family, only?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you know you are trying to form a false argument. Why would someone that claimed to be a Christian use a dishonest technique?

I wrote: "Do you have evidence showing the Bible is incorrect (things reproduce according to kind/family only) or no?"

Are you saying it's dishonest to say the Bible says "creatures after kinds" or dishonest to ask why you have no evidence for sudden, rapid evolutionary change, in a single generation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most is clearly is a symbolic representation with some real historical figures and events transformed into the religious belief system of the Jewish religion. Some parts such as genesis and the biblical flood which are clearly myth and others that contain references were there is some archeological evidence or recorded history to support that those people and events happened but written within the Jewish tradition and view point.

And... what is your evidence for this statement?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ever heard of a mule? How about beefalo? That is a hybrid that results from the crossing of two different genera. Are you going to claim that domestic cattle and the American bison are of the same kind, whatever that means?

Are you claiming the Bible is a science book or one on animal breeding?

Kind is not a scientific term and is so vague as to be meaningless.in a discussion of species, relationships and interbreeding. A family in science is a taxonomic group of related genera and the species assigned to those genera. Breeding between species in taxonomic families is not known to occur naturally and I cannot think of any artificial systems where it is forced to occur. Perhaps in plants, but I do not know, as I am not a botanist.

Your questions do not make much sense in light of science, evolution and taxonomy.

Really? You are unaware that most Bible scholars take "kind" as "family"?

And you are equally unaware that many hybrids are sterile, another point against the kind of just-so stories you use to define family crossings and etc.?

 

[BilliardsBall]

All Behe is doing isn’t just equivocation and talk, he is not doing any science.

You keep forgetting that science required observational evidences, and therefore requiring some works done, eg finding evidences or doing experiments.

Behe is not doing that for ID, or for his own Irreducible Complexity. As to Darwin’s Black Box, it is merely just writing pseudoscience, with him trying to justify his pseudoscience assumptions about complexity and design.

There are no evidences involved, no original research, and no discoveries. There is nothing science about either his paper on IC or on his manuscript.

I don’t see how you can defend his works that are not science, that cannot be tested, nor have them peer reviewed.

Good question: Is there anything I can defend, that isn't peer reviewed? Did peer review testing exist to prove that Lincoln existed? Or Jesus? Or that you currently exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you unaware of Mendel's Christian background, and how modern taxonomy started with Bible concepts? Are you unaware the word "kind" is related to family by most Bible scholars? And are you attempting to goalpost shift away from the fact that evolution agrees with the Bible--a creature reproduces in its family, only?

The word "kind" is constantly redefined by believers of Bible myths constantly. By the way they are not "Bible scholars". But it is nice to see that you at least admit that you share a common ancestor with tarsiers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wrote: "Do you have evidence showing the Bible is incorrect (things reproduce according to kind/family only) or no?"

Are you saying it's dishonest to say the Bible says "creatures after kinds" or dishonest to ask why you have no evidence for sudden, rapid evolutionary change, in a single generation?

You are trying to create a false depiction of evolution. This indicates that you do not understand what you are trying to refute. A "change of kinds" is a creationist belief, not an evolutionary one since "kinds" is a worthless, improperly defined term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good question: Is there anything I can defend, that isn't peer reviewed? Did peer review testing exist to prove that Lincoln existed? Or Jesus? Or that you currently exist?

History has a form of peer review too, and yes, it is easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lincoln existed. And it would be easy to prove using the same methods that you or I exist. Jesus on the other hand is not so easy to prove that he existed. There probably was a man named Jesus, but there is plenty of doubt left in the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s another with BilliardsBall’s claims, regarding to his so-called “super-intelligent” aliens, is that his scenario required the aliens to break law of nature or physical law.

Seriously, how could BB possibly know what the aliens are capable of, when no one has ever seen these real aliens.

Everything he has said in regarding to aliens are based on his personal speculations and yet he treat his speculations as if they are true.

And as if anybody here (besides him) has ever seriously made such an assertion.