There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

It's funny when I see atheist like Richard Dawkins in a debate. He brings up Evolution like it's the Bible of atheism. The truth is, Dawkins has an interpretation of evolution that's filled with more holes than a fence. When you watch Dawkins and others they don't have answers for half of the questions they're asked. They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet and anyone that attempts to answer these questions in a way Dawkins doesn't agree with, then it's just god of the gaps.

That's just ignorant. Science is suppose to try and answer questions or gaps in a theory and they don't have to answer them according to Dawkins atheism.

The Theory of Evolution is about vanilla as you can get. The reason they don't call it the Theory of the Origin of Species because it would fall flat. The Theory of Evolution is just vague. Of course systems evolve over time. You can just look at any evidence that shows evolution of a species over time and say Viola! That's evidence for the Theory of Evolution.

I can come up with the Theory of Old Age. Who can dispute it? All I have to do is throw every piece of evidence into my Theory of Old Age that shows we age.

There's a narrative or interpretation of Evolution then there's the science that can be interpreted differently and is just as valid if not more so than any other interpretation.

For instance, you look at Quantum Mechanics. There's science behind quantum mechanics but a bunch of different interpretations.

Intelligent Design is an interpretation of the evidence that species evolve. It doesn't need any gaps because it can answer the questions Dawkins and others can't with a naturalistic interpretation.

We can infer intelligence. We do it all of the time. Look at SETI.

If SETI researchers hear a radio signal from another star system that represents the first 1000 prime numbers, they would infer that it was sent by an intelligence.

This wouldn't include who sent the message. So we can infer INTELLIGENT DESIGN without knowing who the designer or designers are. Why can't we do that with DNA or the Cambrian Explosion and other "gaps" in Dawkins interpretation?

Why did so many phyla appear in the record without any precursors during the Cambrian? Intelligent Design explains this well. Dawkins interpretation? Not so much.

Here's a paper that says the Octopus came here via Panspermia.

This one is not to be missed. It’s a new scientific paper, “Cause of Cambrian Explosion —Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, that argues for panspermia. In other words, the seeding of life on Earth from outer space. Published in the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, it comes bearing an impressive array of over thirty authors from credible institutions around the world. The journal’s editors are themselves highly credible, including Denis Noble of Oxford University.

Darwinists will respond with the usual mirthless hyena laughter. But this is no joke.

evolutionnews.org...

This is an important point. Whenever I hear people dismiss something because "It's absurd" or "I can't be true." I look the other way. Science doesn't care about your opinion just refute it with science.

I don't agree with everything in this paper but it was published and went through rigorous peer review. They tried to knock it down but couldn't. This is because there's some truths in this study that Darwinist just can't handle. Here's more:

Regarding the abrupt appearance of animals, the paper proposes that “cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago” and that this helps explain “the Octopus’ sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago.” That’s right: they argue, among other remarkable proposals, for alien octopi and squid from the stars.

The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015). It would thus seem reasonable to go to the biggest available “venue” in relation to space and time.

The most crucial genes relevant to evolution of hominids, as indeed all species of plants and animals, seems likely in many instances to be of external origin, being transferred across the galaxy largely as information rich virions.

evolutionnews.org...

Here's a study about kids who can reason about design at 2 and 3 years old.

Two- and three-year-olds infer and reason about design intentions in order to categorize broken objects.

In naming artifacts, do young children infer and reason about the intended functions of the objects? Participants between the ages of 2 and 4 years were shown two kinds of objects derived from familiar categories. One kind was damaged so as to undermine its usual function. The other kind was also dysfunctional, but made so by adding features that appeared to be intentional. Evidence that 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds were more likely to apprehend the broken objects than the intentionally dysfunctional objects as members of the familiar lexical categories favors the conclusion that, in naming, children may spontaneously infer and reason about design intentions from an early age. This is the first evidence that 2- and 3-year-olds not only take design intentions into account in object categorization, but that they do so even without explicit mention of the objects' accidental or intentional histories. The results cast doubt on a proposal that young children's lexical categorization is based on automatic, non-deliberative processes.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

So a child was given an accidentally dysfunctional item like a comb with broken teeth and an intentionally dysfunctional item like a comb with a transparent bands of plastic on the edges. The children were able to separate items that were just broken from items that may be a new design of something like a comb with transparent bands on the edges.

The point is, I support an Intelligent Design interpretation of the evidence over a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence because I can't support an interpretation with a bunch of gaps and holes that have no explanation. The proponents of a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence are engaging in wishful thinking. They have blind faith that things will eventually be explained in a way that satisfies their belief.

a reply to: neoholographic
I won't beat around the bush.
Dawkin's is a BELIEVER not a scientist, his use of theory as law is proof of that.


A TRUE scientist and TRUE SCIENCE are agnostic by nature and approach.

A False scientist credential's and qualifications not withstanding is a BELIEVER in other direction or in the other.

I can not be a true scientist either since I believe in God and if I believed that there was no god as Dawkin's and his charlatan crew do then I would also be a believer but in there Not being a god so would also be tainted by the exact same level of unscientific approach, reality view and expression of opinion.

Notice how he preaches and attack's religion, now just maybe he was the victim of a dodgy child abusing Anglican priest or something but whatever his reason is he is definitely grinding an axe against Christianity so has a grudge while at the same time wrongly claiming he is rational when in fact his rational is based on personal opinion, a seeming grudge match he want's to wage and even a callous hatred of Christianity which I would add is his main target - why not other religion's who he only attacks peripherally, the guy is con artist, unintelligent in my opinion and for some reason is being given far more stage and free publicity than he deserves.

So instead of attacking idiot's like him and giving voice to his crackpot opinion's why not instead attack the point he is trying to make.

We can not prove reality is real never mind that God is there but then neither can he or his adherent's prove that God is not there or that there reality is real.

Meanwhile the true reason and science is not so much in the middle of the road as on neither side until it can empirically prove one way or the other which it so far has singularly been completely unable to do.

a reply to: LABTECH767

his use of theory as law is proof of that

Do you know the difference?

a reply to: Phage
Do you?

Let's just edit that, Law's of physic's are the immutable rules' such as gravity which classic science saw as fixed but let's remember that is not actually case as quantum mechanic's now outlines and these so called law's are now no longer fixed but variable, even the principles upon which our reality is founded are rather more fluid than most orthodox (old fashioned Newtonian) scientists are in any way comfortable with.

A theory is an IDEA based on INTERPRETATION of evidence - how valid that evidence itself is well that is often open to debate especially in PSEUDO science such as evolution were what could just as easily be aberrations are taken as prime examples despite the sheer difficulty nay impossibility of presenting actual empirical data, a few sample's an empirical data set do not make as you should yourself surely know.

a reply to: LABTECH767
Yes.

In science, a law is a phenomenon which is observed to occur according to discernible parameters. The "law of gravity" for example. In a given gravity field a mass will behave in a predictable manner. Near Earth's surface an object will fall with an acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2. On the Moon it will fall with an acceleration of 1.62 m/sec2. The rate is dependent upon the mass of the objects.

That is the "law" of gravity. It works very well. So well, in fact, that men have sent probes from world to world and beyond by using that law to predict the path of those probes.

Now, the "theory" of gravity is another thing entirely. Why does that happen? It turns out that Albert came up with a pretty good model for it. But it is, to this day, a "theory" and will be so forever.

That's the difference. What happens vs why and/or how.


Oh, I see you completed changed the context of your post. Oh well.

a reply to: Phage

I have my own theory of gravity permeating the membrane of our space time at a one to one ratio so were that space time is compressed, ie in mass or matter the volume of the compressed membrane has a correspondingly higher ratio to volume of space occupied of gravity compared to the un compressed - empty space.

a reply to: neoholographic

This hit my email this morning.

www.livescience.com...

It is only theory. As stated.

One big problem with evolution is that fossilization events are rare.

So. Big gaps are left.

I'm not really looking to debate anything here. Just thought i would share the link.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Or did you just make it up?

a reply to: Phage

Only what I reasoned out in my head one day while sitting on the dunny dealing with a case of constipation, I was there for a while, and to while away the time thought about super string, super gravity - obviously out of fashion at the moment if not entirely disproven - and brane theory as well as how it relates, proof is not my forte especially in such circumstances - let's not get into how I rationalized a fictional time traveller actually moving not into the past but parallel to the time space continuum into echoes of the past losing a kind of amplitude but gaining a kind of bandwidth (far too many dimensions to express in a simple model especially for someone NOT a mathematician as indeed I am not.



By the way is not all science made up, it is only supported and can NEVER be proven according to the original tenets of science - you can support a THEORY - idea or practical idea model but never prove it and if any evidence disproving it or out of it's parameters is observed or proven using mathematics as the case may be then the theory is supposedly then bunk.
But to get around this since most of our theory's ARE now bunk the concept of CHAOS theory was created to explain out of bound's or unpredictable result's or projections and so most of our science now fall's into the MOSTLY work's category.
Remember our view is macroscopic no matter how far down we go and the universe has an almost mandelbrot setup in some functions then we add the whole superspace interactions let alone our own interdimensional and parallel reality interactions which add far too many factors to ever be expressed in a nice unified form.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Only what I reasoned out in my head one day while sitting on the dunny dealing with a case of constipation,

So, that would be a no. Einstein has the math. You don't. Guess who's more credible.

a reply to: Phage

Einstein abandoned his unified theory, he is also no longer top dog since quantum theory has taken over, Einstein also NEVER disbelieved in God, check it out, then there are what I see as anti Semitic claim's that he stole or was inspired by some other ideas he came across while working in that patent office but I discount those and being partially of Semitic ancestry myself I also hate anything anti Semitic which was probably the motive behind those idea's that he stole his theory.
His WIFE had the mathematics' and frequently fixed his equation's?.
I like the guy though he was probably a little autistic and would lose his key's frequently as well as other potential indicators often put down to absent mindedness.

Hey Archimedes was apparently in the bath before history Screwed him over don't ya know.

a reply to: LABTECH767

he is also no longer top dog since quantum theory has taken over

Is that right? Tell me. How does quantum theory deal with spacetime. Oh, wait. It doesn't. Sort of like how the theory of evolution is separate from the origins of life.

Tell me, how has general relatively been demonstrated to be wrong. Oh, wait.

Ignoring your ad hominem attempts toward Albert.

a reply to: Phage


Oh dear phage you really don't seem to know what you are talking about now, Quantum theory is about space time and let's be totally correct here it does not replace Einstein's' flawed general relativity but fixes it somewhat or rather patches it since you can't remove and replace the entire model.

If you want to understand space time you have to understand it at the fundamental level and that mean's interactions at both the micro and macro cosmic level.

There are however people eminently more qualified than you or myself whom have been arguing this tooth and nail for decades and are still doing so, so don't expect either of us to be able to nail that lid down.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Quantum theory is about space time

No, it isn't. It's about matter and energy at very small levels.
Neither space, time, or gravity. And certainly not evolution.

a reply to: neoholographic

The thing that never made sense to me is that so many people on EITHER side of the argument seem to think that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

a reply to: MteWamp

Excellent reply, they are NOT mutually exclusive.

There is even a whole creationist school that believe the earth IS billions of years old and that human's existed before the Eden colony was established but that they were somehow different or less advanced than the Eden human's.

Pre-adamite theory it was used wrongly during the victorian period by racist and racial supremacists to justify slavery and exploitation of human being's based on there ethnicity and skin color etc but the principle if we can get past the abuse of the idea still resonates today.

Let's be fair Eden, the Primordial island of the Egyptian's etc is a colony founded by a great being with advanced knowlege and power, those there are created from this being or in the image of this - these being's and then expelled or taken out of the seed colony to colonise the rest of the planet.

I am a Christian myself so don't need God to be an alien but he is Extra Terrestrial? if more extra dimensional or extra universal in my belief.


@Phage your argument is becoming reciprocal and you are missing the point to understand the macroscopic you have to understand the microscopic universe they are NOT mutually exclusive and the Macroscopic universe is built on the microscopic one.

a reply to: neoholographic

Isn't the theory of evolution that 'if you bang your head against a wall enough, your children will be born with bony plates in their head'?

a reply to: neoholographic

They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet

Yes! That's the intellectually honest position. Especially for the 'big questions'!

If we don't know the answer, then we state it as such, and then explore further for those answers.

Science is about that discovery. Religion gives a full-stop promise that those big questions have been answered, and it does so on a very weak foundation.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: neoholographic

They say, we don't know or we don't have any answers yet

Yes! That's the intellectually honest position. Especially for the 'big questions'!

If we don't know the answer, then we state it as such, and then explore further for those answers.

Science is about that discovery. Religion gives a full-stop promise that those big questions have been answered, and it does so on a very weak foundation.

Does it?

a reply to: LABTECH767

There is even a whole creationist school that believe the earth IS billions of years old

Okay. That doesn't help the account of Genesis or its' reconciliation with modern scientific findings.

It doesn't matter how old Christians think Earth is. Genesis states Earth existed prior to all the stars in the Universe. So then how on 'Day 3' is there thriving plant life??

Those Creationist schools could say the Earth is a trillion years old or 1 day old, and it wouldn't reconcile the grave error of placing Earth's existence prior to all the stars.