A simple case for intelligent design

[SkepticThinker]

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

If the Bible is correct about "kinds" (which lacks a solid definition) then we should be able to find the first pair of animals that God supposed created of each "kind." That would be a major strike against evolution, which does not dictate that such things could be found.
Can you identify the first created couple of any "kind" anywhere?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

What is a "kind," exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

I'm sure you also noticed that taxonomy has moved far away from Bible concepts since then.

Can you give a definition of "kind?"
The one Kent Hovind gives is almost akin to a "clade" in actual science, but still not quite, since he doesn't agree with common descent. Do you agree with his definition?

 

[Polymath257]

What is a "kind," exactly?

Even a useful operational definition would be a good start.

How, precisely, do we determine if two fossil species are the same 'kind'?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even a useful operational definition would be a good start.

How, precisely, do we determine if two fossil species are the same 'kind'?

That's what I'd like to know.

 

[Bear Wild]

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

The evidence is all around you in the world we live in. Do you believe in Thor just because he was included in written word. Do you accept Zeus because of Greek writings. Did turtle Island form by animals creating land for Sky Women. All have those who believe in them even today although many still see the writings as myths. That is just the beginning of so many creation stories. Did Oisin, whose mother was Sadhbh who was changed into a deer, really discuss things with St Patrick? St. Patrick has evidence he existed and maybe there was a man named Oisin who also existed. How much would you consider myth vs truth. Those tales were written by monks in Ireland. Were they directed by god to write that this meeting was true as well as Oisin's parents? Did St. Patrick really get rid of all of the snakes from Ireland? Let me know how much of this tale is true and what is myth and maybe it will help me to Identify what was true or myth in the bible.

 

[gnostic]

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?

What does this have anything that I have written, which you have quoted me?

What does Lincoln or Jesus have to do with Behe’s pseudoscience works (Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Darwin’s Black Box (DBB)) have not used “scientific method” to test his works and have not been “peer reviewed”?

Intelligent Design and Behe’s IC & DBB are Discovery Institute’s (including Behe’s) attempt at replacing the scientific theory of evolution and falsifiable hypothesis abiogenesis, as alternative “natural science” concept. But the Discovery Institute (including Behe) refused to follow the specifications of scientific method or reviewed by their peers, since DI know that their ID concept have nothing to do with science.

Lincoln and Jesus are people, and history of individuals have nothing to do with “natural science”, so you wouldn’t try “peer review” Lincoln or Jesus.

What I mean is that if you want to test for existence of Jesus or Lincoln, there are other means of testing or verifying if they exist or not, which has nothing to do with peer review, such as comparing with other independent historical records or with archaeology.

History and archaeology are not natural science; they (archaeology and history) have more to do with social science.

Natural science are studies of natural mechanisms, which includes physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy. Evolution and abiogenesis falls under the broad category of biology.

While social science would include any social activities of man, like the studies of cultures (eg anthropology), sociology, archaeology (studies of man-made objects or man-made settlements), political science, morality and ethics, psychology, humanities, etc.

Comparing natural science and social science are like comparing apples and cheese.

I wouldn’t use peer review on the existence of Lincoln or on Jesus. You would use other mean of testing their existence, but not scientific method and not peer review. But it just showed that you don’t understand the concept of science.

 

[gnostic]

Or that you currently exist?

As to if you or I “exists”, we can share our real names, and trace each postal address, phone numbers, social security numbers, find out we each work, etc. We can meet in real person, by visiting each other country, have lunch together.

The other way to prove your existence would get private detective or hacker to find your name and location.

Wouldn’t any of that prove yours and mine existence?

You don’t need scientific method, nor peer review to prove each other existence.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="gnostic, post: 5883033, member: Comparing natural science and social science are like comparing apples and cheese.

QUOTE]

How is that?

 

[gnostic]

Apples and cheese?

Or natural science vs social science?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is it your informed opinion that evolution ONLY occurs at the morphological level?

It doesn’t occur on ANY level. Don’t confuse adaptation as meaning evolution. E. Coli despite thousands of mutations and generations remained E. Coli. Fruit flies despite a hundred years of accelerated mutations, remain fruit flies. Creatures in the fossil record despite millions of years remain the same creature.

An identified common ancestor is not needed to identify relatives when there is sufficient, tested methods that can be used.
Very astute.

And yet to test for relation between humans they don’t cut the genome up into small sections, then randomly compare it to any random part using algorithms to another genome, now do they. Nor do they do that to test for relatedness between any two animals of the same species. So what actual tested method would that be that has been proven to have any validity in showing relatedness?????

I just read that there are about 30,000 named species of bacteria, and that was in 2005.
About 1500 species of fruit fly (just referring to Drosophila).

Sure, and they call finches mating right in front of their noses producing fertile offspring separate species too...... they are no more a separate species than a poodle is a separate species from a wolf....

What point did you think you were making again?

What point did you think you were making again? That they have a species problem and can’t even identify correctly things mating right in front of their noses?

Right... Your arguments are so profound, well thought out, and verifiable that I suspect we will see an announcement from the AAAS any day now.

Seems they were better thought out than yours, since they clearly can’t even admit Darwin made a mistake in classifying those finches that are mating right in front of their noses.... at least he had an excuse, he never saw them mating in the two weeks he was on the island and no one else did for close to 180 years.... so they thought they were reproductively isolated...... what’s your excuse????? Besides not wanting to admit to their multitudes of incorrect species classifications?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the Bible is correct about "kinds" (which lacks a solid definition) then we should be able to find the first pair of animals that God supposed created of each "kind." That would be a major strike against evolution, which does not dictate that such things could be found.
Can you identify the first created couple of any "kind" anywhere?

Speaking of solid definitions, which of the 26 definitions of species are you claiming is correct?

Can you identify ANY of those “missing common ancestors” for any of the claimed splits on every single tree? No, you cant even identify one, so why would missing the original pair bother you when every single one is missing in your belief, yet that doesn’t seem to bother you....

But every creature in the fossil record remains distinct. You “claim” they split to become other creatures, but can’t point to one single common ancestor because they are all missing. At least the fossil record shows creatures remain the same across your claimed millions of years, backing an original pair. You can’t even show change without resorting to those missing common ancestors.

Any small changes that do occur are nothing more than the change of a wolf to a poodle, change within the “Kind”, not species to species......

But I understand, if all they had were the fossils of dogs, and had never seen them in real life, they would classify them as separate species and claim one evolved into another. No matter how “wrong” we know that to be in reality..... just as they classify creatures “wrong” in the fossil record and come to the “wrong” conclusions......

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I thought you claimed an affinity with secular scholars?

Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain[2][3][4][5][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4][nb 5] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels

Source: Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

If the Bible is correct about "kinds" (which lacks a solid definition) then we should be able to find the first pair of animals that God supposed created of each "kind." That would be a major strike against evolution, which does not dictate that such things could be found.
Can you identify the first created couple of any "kind" anywhere?

If kind is equivalent to family, you are saying that during creation God made only one pair of mammals, not many species? Are you talking about some kind of theistic evolution instead?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The evidence is all around you in the world we live in. Do you believe in Thor just because he was included in written word. Do you accept Zeus because of Greek writings. Did turtle Island form by animals creating land for Sky Women. All have those who believe in them even today although many still see the writings as myths. That is just the beginning of so many creation stories. Did Oisin, whose mother was Sadhbh who was changed into a deer, really discuss things with St Patrick? St. Patrick has evidence he existed and maybe there was a man named Oisin who also existed. How much would you consider myth vs truth. Those tales were written by monks in Ireland. Were they directed by god to write that this meeting was true as well as Oisin's parents? Did St. Patrick really get rid of all of the snakes from Ireland? Let me know how much of this tale is true and what is myth and maybe it will help me to Identify what was true or myth in the bible.

Neither of us believe in a supernatural Thor "just because he is in written form". Both of us sift evidence. But when someone becomes a hardened apatheist, they cannot "hear" evidence. The Bible speaks of people who are so dead within, it's too late for them to hear evidence. I hope you are different than that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If kind is equivalent to family, you are saying that during creation God made only one pair of mammals, not many species? Are you talking about some kind of theistic evolution instead?

There is no evolution of ANY type. God made two canine types, and from there we get over 100 breeds. Not separate species..... they won’t even classify them correctly under their own classification system as subspecies, because doing so would show the error in other classifications....

 

[BilliardsBall]

What does this have anything that I have written, which you have quoted me?

What does Lincoln or Jesus have to do with Behe’s pseudoscience works (Irreducible Complexity (IC) and Darwin’s Black Box (DBB)) have not used “scientific method” to test his works and have not been “peer reviewed”?

Intelligent Design and Behe’s IC & DBB are Discovery Institute’s (including Behe’s) attempt at replacing the scientific theory of evolution and falsifiable hypothesis abiogenesis, as alternative “natural science” concept. But the Discovery Institute (including Behe) refused to follow the specifications of scientific method or reviewed by their peers, since DI know that their ID concept have nothing to do with science.

Lincoln and Jesus are people, and history of individuals have nothing to do with “natural science”, so you wouldn’t try “peer review” Lincoln or Jesus.

What I mean is that if you want to test for existence of Jesus or Lincoln, there are other means of testing or verifying if they exist or not, which has nothing to do with peer review, such as comparing with other independent historical records or with archaeology.

History and archaeology are not natural science; they (archaeology and history) have more to do with social science.

Natural science are studies of natural mechanisms, which includes physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy. Evolution and abiogenesis falls under the broad category of biology.

While social science would include any social activities of man, like the studies of cultures (eg anthropology), sociology, archaeology (studies of man-made objects or man-made settlements), political science, morality and ethics, psychology, humanities, etc.

Comparing natural science and social science are like comparing apples and cheese.

I wouldn’t use peer review on the existence of Lincoln or on Jesus. You would use other mean of testing their existence, but not scientific method and not peer review. But it just showed that you don’t understand the concept of science.

Perfect!

"What I mean is that if you want to test for existence of Jesus or Lincoln, there are other means of testing or verifying if they exist or not, which has nothing to do with peer review, such as comparing with other independent historical records or with archaeology."

Why do you not accept that 12 different NT writers allows us to compare independent historical records? Is it an anti-supernatural bias or a personal bias?

Why do you not accept the hundreds of times, indeed now, some count thousands of times, archaeology verifies the Bible? Is it a personal bias, since you choose instead to setup straw man arguments, like "The Bible SAYS the Flood was at X date, against archaeology," even though Jesus is called the SON OF DAVID, removed from David by 1,000 years?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As to if you or I “exists”, we can share our real names, and trace each postal address, phone numbers, social security numbers, find out we each work, etc. We can meet in real person, by visiting each other country, have lunch together.

The other way to prove your existence would get private detective or hacker to find your name and location.

Wouldn’t any of that prove yours and mine existence?

You don’t need scientific method, nor peer review to prove each other existence.

Then since I have encountered Jesus Christ...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Neither of us believe in a supernatural Thor "just because he is in written form". Both of us sift evidence. But when someone becomes a hardened apatheist, they cannot "hear" evidence. The Bible speaks of people who are so dead within, it's too late for them to hear evidence. I hope you are different than that.

I believe in both Thor and Hercules. They were the men of renown, from before the flood, just the truths got changed as the stories got retold.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Perfect!

"What I mean is that if you want to test for existence of Jesus or Lincoln, there are other means of testing or verifying if they exist or not, which has nothing to do with peer review, such as comparing with other independent historical records or with archaeology."

Why do you not accept that 12 different NT writers allows us to compare independent historical records? Is it an anti-supernatural bias or a personal bias?

Why do you not accept the hundreds of times, indeed now, some count thousands of times, archaeology verifies the Bible? Is it a personal bias, since you choose instead to setup straw man arguments, like "The Bible SAYS the Flood was at X date, against archaeology," even though Jesus is called the SON OF DAVID, removed from David by 1,000 years?

Because they can’t or won’t accept something larger and more knowledgeable than themselves in their ego’s. The damage to their ID would be devastating to admit such a thing.