(November 28, 2018 at 3:51 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: I think further revision is necessary.

Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID dies

ID is no fad.  They are entering into a new phase of ID where they experiment and test their hypotheses.

Quote:Great article.  Thanks for sharing.

Too bad it's not

(November 28, 2018 at 3:53 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:Great article.  Thanks for sharing.

Too bad it's not

The article was really good.  Did you read the entire thing?

(November 28, 2018 at 3:53 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:51 am)Amarok Wrote: Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID dies

ID is no fad.  They are entering into a new phase of ID where they experiment and test their hypotheses.

Id is a fad and it's doing nothing of the kind it's begging for money , Writing pop books , and fapping off on blogs trying to latch itself onto the work of real scientists .The movements been a total and abject failure .

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:55 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:53 am)Amarok Wrote: Too bad it's not

The article was really good.  Did you read the entire thing?

Read it and posted criticism of why it's challenge to Macro evolution and is the opinings of the ignorant

(November 28, 2018 at 3:56 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: ID is no fad.  They are entering into a new phase of ID where they experiment and test their hypotheses.

Id is a fad and it's doing nothing of the kind it's begging for money , Writing pop books , and fapping off on blogs trying to latch itself onto the work of real scientists .The movements been a total and abject failure .

It's been around for a while now and I am sure atheists were saying the same thing then as they are now.  They are in this new phase at the Discovery Institute.

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:56 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:53 am)CDF47 Wrote: ID is no fad.  They are entering into a new phase of ID where they experiment and test their hypotheses.

Id is a fad and it's doing nothing of the kind it's begging for money , Writing pop books , and fapping off on blogs trying to latch itself onto the work of real scientists .The movements been a total and abject failure .

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:55 am)CDF47 Wrote: The article was really good.  Did you read the entire thing?

Read it and posted criticism of why it's challenge to Macro evolution and is the opinings of the ignorant

Oh, I didn't see your comments on there.  I will have to check what you wrote.

(November 28, 2018 at 3:51 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: I think further revision is necessary.

Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID and it's pop science books fade into nothing .

They are having to change the entire foundation due to findings in the past decade. It's on it's way out.

Quote:It's been around for a while now and I am sure atheists were saying the same thing then as they are now.  They are in this new phase at the Discovery Institute.

Being around as an utter failure and atheists (scientists ) are state ting the same facts as before and no they are doing the same thing they were 8 years ago nothing changed they are just as stuck as they always have been

---

Quote:They are having to change the entire foundation due to findings in the past decade. It's on it's way out

Nope the foundations are stronger then ever and more diverse then ever . People have been doomsaying Evolution for 100 years and they are always proven wrong . Id on the other hand is struggling to find a foundation and so far the ones it's tried have come to not or can't find any consensus even among it proponents.

---

By the way i find it funny i'm accused of "worshiping biologists " when ID proponent latch onto any big name scientist and milk them for legitimacy .

---

As for all quantum thrown around colour me not impressed "oh my god quantum physics can impact biology  therefore magic "

---

Also i love the fact the Religious latch on to Penrose when he rejects the idea of god even if he accepts vague pesdo religious idea's

(November 28, 2018 at 2:46 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 1:37 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: @Everena:

Indeed, Prof. James M. Tour was a signator to Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal?

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, 
graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. 


It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no one understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. NO ONE

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “No,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."


I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

And this is from his website:

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.

I have written a long article on the origin of life: http://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.” Note that since the time of my submission of that commentary cited above, articles continue to be published on prebiotic chemistry, so I will link to my short critiques of a few of those newer articles so that the interested reader can get an ongoing synthetic chemist’s assessment of the proposals: .

Quote:I'm familiar with his biographical information as well as his article on two experiments in abiogenesis. However, you did not answer my question. Namely, has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal? The petition he signed concerned Darwinism, not abiogenesis.

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.

Quote:No, I love Penrose. He has spent a big part of his career proving atheists wrong about artificial intelligence and consciousness

I love how she acts like Penrose is somehow unchallenged . I don't even think he would go this far .

(November 27, 2018 at 3:12 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 26, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Everena Wrote: God always has been and always will be.

(November 27, 2018 at 5:58 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote: Really? Can't you see the problem with the above statement?

No and our souls always have been and always will be and there is no problem with that either.

Just typing shit (sometimes in bold) and then walking off doesn't help.. Show me some evidence for the existence of a soul for example.

(November 26, 2018 at 1:38 pm)Everena Wrote: Food exists by the same process we exist? What process is it that created food and all conscious life on this planet?

You know the answer to this already, stop deflecting away from providing me with any evidence for an eternal creator.

Quote: Sorry, there is an intelligent creator. DNA+food+consciousness= God

DNA+food+consciousness+Everena= God