WVK Posted February 3 #1 Share Posted February 3 Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM 1 1 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted February 3 #2 Share Posted February 3 Well, the argument supports the idea that we live in a simulation too. 4 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted February 3 #3 Share Posted February 3 Hi @WVK, thanks for the intro. What are the best examples of ‘the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world.’? 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 4 #4 Share Posted February 4 And yet junk DNA and cancer exists. 1 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pellinore Posted February 4 #5 Share Posted February 4 5 hours ago, WVK said: Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM I haven't yet watched all of this YouTube video, but I have saved it to watch tomorrow. It seems absolutely fascinating. Four polite and educated men arguing rationally. It seems that since God is real and is the Creator, all attempts by science to contradict this Truth is inevitably flawed. 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted February 4 #6 Share Posted February 4 (edited) I believe in intelligent design but I wish they wouldn't make Darwin look like an adversary as I believe in evolution too. I mean take a tiny egg and a sperm cell and all this mindboggling complexity blooms forth from it. Well, I just got to lead with 'intelligent design' as opposed to 'the end result of following unthinking physical laws'. To go further I wouldn't simply call this intelligence 'the omnipotent God' but an entire realm of nature spirits/beings working and developing gradually. Edited February 4 by papageorge1 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Occupational Hubris Posted February 4 #7 Share Posted February 4 5 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: And yet junk DNA and cancer exists. Junk DNA is a misnomer. While the junk sections are non protein coding, they do a ton of regulatory lifting 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 4 #8 Share Posted February 4 Who created Creator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 4 #9 Share Posted February 4 2 hours ago, bmk1245 said: Who created Creator? He did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted February 4 #10 Share Posted February 4 10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: And yet junk DNA and cancer exists. The human spine is not designed for walking upright, the Rh deletion in blood was a response to toxoplasma gondii the sickle cell mutation was a response to malaria. All failures in their own way. 4 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 4 #11 Share Posted February 4 7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said: He did. In the voice of Manuel (the one from "Fawlty Towers"): Its impossible. On the serious note, I'm always flabbergasted over the need of the Creator. Why introduce another unknown into already complex universe with many unknowns? 1 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 4 Author #12 Share Posted February 4 1 hour ago, bmk1245 said: In the voice of Manuel (the one from "Fawlty Towers"): Its impossible. On the serious note, I'm always flabbergasted over the need of the Creator. Why introduce another unknown into already complex universe with many unknowns? If life can’t create itself then it would need a creator? 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted February 4 #13 Share Posted February 4 2 minutes ago, WVK said: If life can’t create itself then it would need a creator? Life haven't created itself. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 5 #14 Share Posted February 5 On 2/3/2023 at 11:21 AM, WVK said: Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia on the case for an intelligent designer of the universe and everything in it (including us). In this wide-ranging conversation, they point out the flaws in Darwin’s theory and the increasing amount of evidence uncovered by a rigorous application of the scientific method that points to an intentional design and creation of the physical world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM A true debate would include an evolutionary biologist. Before setting out to prove "intelligent design", they need to use science to prove the existence of god(s), then they can try to disprove the theory of evolution. Here's what the debate would look like. The Cambrian explosion was not an explosion at all. "It's a three-billion-year-old 'slow fuse,' and we have the fossil record that shows this" said Don Prothero, a paleontologist at California's Occidental College and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. 3 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 5 Author #15 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Portre said: A true debate would include an evolutionary biologist. Before setting out to prove "intelligent design", they need to use science to prove the existence of god(s), then they can try to disprove the theory of evolution. Here's what the debate would look like. The Cambrian explosion was not an explosion at all. "It's a three-billion-year-old 'slow fuse,' and we have the fossil record that shows this" said Don Prothero, a paleontologist at California's Occidental College and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. That article is from 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 5 #16 Share Posted February 5 1 minute ago, WVK said: That article is from 2004. Cambrian explosion was before 2004. What does the year of the article have to do with anything? The scientists in the video ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived conclusion. "It's a three-billion-year-old 'slow fuse,' and we have the fossil record that shows this" 4 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 5 #17 Share Posted February 5 There's no intelligent design in the panda's thumb, the koala's pouch, nor having two kidneys but one bladder. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emma_Acid Posted February 6 #18 Share Posted February 6 On 2/3/2023 at 7:21 PM, WVK said: Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia You can stop right there, because they aren't. The reason they are not taken seriously is because its a pseudoscience, and has literally no basis in actual science. Time and time again their work has been shown to be nothing other than misunderstandings at best, and actual outright lies at worst. 1 4 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 6 Author #19 Share Posted February 6 25 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said: You can stop right there, because they aren't. The reason they are not taken seriously is because its a pseudoscience, and has literally no basis in actual science. Time and time again their work has been shown to be nothing other than misunderstandings at best, and actual outright lies at worst. Why would they all be lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 6 #20 Share Posted February 6 3 hours ago, WVK said: Why would they all be lying? $ 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 7 Author #21 Share Posted February 7 On 2/5/2023 at 10:24 AM, Portre said: A true debate would include an evolutionary biologist. Before setting out to prove "intelligent design", they need to use science to prove the existence of god(s), then they can try to disprove the theory of evolution. Here's what the debate would look like. The Cambrian explosion was not an explosion at all. "It's a three-billion-year-old 'slow fuse,' and we have the fossil record that shows this" said Don Prothero, a paleontologist at California's Occidental College and author of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. What about the Mouse Trap example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 7 #22 Share Posted February 7 20 minutes ago, WVK said: What about the Mouse Trap example? A mouse trap is a mechanical device intended to kill small rodents and if you build a better one, the world will beat a path to your door. Any other question pertaining to this video and so-called challenges to evolution by natural selection can be easily answered with a simple search of the internet. 1 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 7 Author #23 Share Posted February 7 11 minutes ago, Portre said: A mouse trap is a mechanical device intended to kill small rodents and if you build a better one, the world will beat a path to your door. Any other question pertaining to this video and so-called challenges to evolution by natural selection can be easily answered with a simple search of the internet. What are the search terms for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portre Posted February 7 #24 Share Posted February 7 3 minutes ago, WVK said: What are the search terms for that? Oh, I don't' know. Try "Bebe mouse trap evolution", you might find Refuting Behe’s Triple-Jump Conclusions. Or Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry 2 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted February 7 Author #25 Share Posted February 7 17 minutes ago, Portre said: Oh, I don't' know. Try "Bebe mouse trap evolution", you might find Refuting Behe’s Triple-Jump Conclusions. Or Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry Thanks, looks like belief either way “We do not pretend to have a complete account of evolutionary biochemistry. We suspect that the details will eventually emerge from continuing scientific research. But rather than speculate about these matters, we will focus instead on what we do know about biochemical systems.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now