When Love Takes Over vs Intelligent Design

Journey Inside The Cell vs when love takes over - David Guetta feat Kelly Rowland When Love Takes Over

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Journey
• Inside
• The
• Cell
• Signature
• in
• the
• cell
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Darwinism
• evolution
• creation
• Stephen
• Meyer

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"when I merely say I am unconvinced of ID"

You have asserted many times that you are "unconvinced of ID" , yet you have not stated, despite repeated requests, what it would take to convince you of ID. Our awareness of the extreme complexity and order in living systems grows daily. Things look more and more designed. Is there really a threshold of complexity that would cause you to loose faith in naturalistic approaches, or can you tolerate any level of complexity?

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"You are lying. Please stop doing that."

In order to lie, a person needs to know the truth for certain. I am not absolutely certain that you are a skeptic, who is commited to materialism, who rejects the possibility of ID apriori and who sees the world through naturalistic blinkers etc, but you give every appearance of being so by your statements. Forgive me if I am mistaken on this. You can call me wrong, but refrain from the fallacious adhominem accusations of lying please.

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"You are lying. Because I have explained that I dont assume naturalism,"

Well what are your alternatives to naturalism????????????????????­????

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"I am unconvinced of ID you list off a bunch of super complex stuff and assert that the only possible reason I could have for not presuming your conclusion is that Im some sort of dogmatist,"

I am saying that you are heavy on rhetoric against ID, but light on any explanation / details for how the unfathomable complexity of life might have evolved without ID. You're reluctant to set aside your prior commitment to materialism and admit to the extremely suggestive evidence for ID

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapi

"Because if you are any indication this is completely untrue"

ID is open in the sense that it recognises the indispensable role of natural processes, rather than denying them. Dogmatic naturalism denies the possibility of ID, and will be a science stopper in any case where ID really did play a historical role. Darwinists are locked into a narrow apriori perspective where everything that happend in the development of life, must be explained purely in terms of chance and necessity

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"show me exactly where that had a positive impact on his research."

Simple. Newton approached the universe as something that really did have a "blueprint", and more importantly, one that humans had the mental capacity to uncover. This gave him, and the entire scientific comminity, the basis on which to go looking for it, and to overcome setbacks and difficulties. The same ID perspective continues to underwrite and drive science today.

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"Scientists, mimmicking conditions of the early earth have managed to cause RNA to spontaneously generate (and self replicate)."

I am not happy to accept an assertion here. Where is your evidence for this? Look into the details behind the claims, and you will find that nothing of the sort happened.

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"The RNA world hypothesis has been confirmed fairly well "

Then why do ardent materialists need to appeal to the existence of the multiverse, in order to marshall the probabilistic resources necessary to account for the first self replicating DNA strand. The entire OOL field is in paradigm crisis at present. That's why Darwinists are desperate to dissociate themselves from its failures. Nothing is "fairly well confirmed" about any of it.

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSapien

"I was unconvinced of your positive assertion when you just rattled off a bunch of super neat and complex elements....THATS what I am refering to."

I am not demanding that you accept ID, in the light of what we have learned about the unfathomable complexity of life. I merely ask you to admit the hopless failure of the current orthodox naturalistic explanation for that complexity i.e. Darwinism, and the fact that ID is known to be causally adequate to explain said evidence.

[IDtaksovr]

@GallusSa

"Evolution explains why birds have the genes for making teeth, why we find birds with sarupod features and dinosaurs with feathers, but no frogs with feathers"

The problem is that depending on which genes you follow, it is possible to arrive at several contradictory "trees of life". Darwinists are starting to realise that the holy grail of zeroing in on a unique / tree has been a mirage. Massive anomalies have been found, that need to be explained away by convergent evolution etc