INTELLIGENT DESIGN is the science of our age. The false...
-
Salam,
In our age INTELLIGENT DESIGN has started 2 emerge as a fact in all scientific obsservations made n expose the cruel, evil, absurd n fraudulkent Darwinistic claims of the theory of evolution. Have u ever thght y evolutionists become so red faced whenever they hear abt Intelligent Design. Coz they dont want ppl 2 see the truth. They have established this theory of atheism since years now 2 keep ppl under their control n 2 obtain Power n Wealth. Such r the egocentrical n meterialistic ppl in this world. But now the time has come 2 expose them n they can do nothing 2 stop the ID movement. The site can be found at
http//www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Darwin himself saidIf it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. --Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
N this has been shown by countless experiments over n over again n also by the complexity of structure of the DNA. Evolutionists also claim tht the probability of the DNA resulting by chance is misleading. They make absurd n twisted statement like
...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one . This is true,but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
Just look at these absurd n twisted statements. First it is claimed tht yes DNA cannot form by purely chance. This statement itself is rubbish n i can see more sense in the Trinity concept than this. If something is NOT formed purely by chance it means some intelligent source assisted in it, logically. then the claim goes on 2 say this aid was the laws of physics. I ask can any sane person tell me whether the 'laws of physics' r an intelligent entity? See thts y i dont trust evolutionists at all. All they talk is grabage n they r a disgrace 2 science. Creationsim(ofcourse not tht based on the Bible) but tht GOD is behind all creation makes perfect scientific sense. Also if a boeing 747 cant emerge as a result of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard by chance so cant DNA n infact thew chances 4 something complex like DNA 2 form by chance r indeed much less. No laws of physics have aided in forming even buildings like the pyramids whose probability of formation is much greater than of the simplest cell. I ask y? Again there is no reasonable answer. GOD Bless!
-
OK you've stated that ID is the theory of the day.
Now can you tell me how to use Intelligent Design in my research? Because you said that evolution is false therefore I shouldn't use evolutionary arguments to guide my research. So I assume ID has better thing to offer than evolution.
FYI, I'm not an atheist.
-
OK you've stated that ID is the theory of the day.
Now can you tell me how to use Intelligent Design in my research? Because you said that evolution is false therefore I shouldn't use evolutionary arguments to guide my research. So I assume ID has better thing to offer than evolution.
FYI, I'm not an atheist.
Khi- If ur not an atheist then u shld never talk abt evolution since this theory is based on atheistic principals. It is totally incompatible with belief in GOD n modern science. When u talk abt ID u have GOD in ur mind all the time u do ur reaearch which gives u a pure n caring heart 4 others instead of a Darwin n Hitler racist approach tht the humans just go on egoistically caring only 4 their own survival n making no sacrifices 4 others. In fact this can mean ruin 2 a society. Evolution is false n is a deceit so it can offer u nothing but desruction. It gives more power 2 the wealthy ppl who fool the ignorant public. On the contrary the Truth can offer u a lot. If u want 2 see more on wht Darwin's theory of evolution had done 2 society go n see the clip 'THE DISASTERS DARWINISM BROUGHT TO HUMANITY' at
http//www.harunyahya.com/m_video_index.php
I think u never watched any of those clips. Until u see them n the quotes of reknown evolutionists in them u cannot understand my viewpt. So plz do tht. GOD Bless! -
But you still don't tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. You tell me to use ID to make moral judgements i.e. do research for the good of the people. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses.
ps I've been through the HY site since it was around ca. 3-4 years ago, and saw a lot of his videos. Of course that's not comparable to doing actual science in the lab and field. I prefer evidence (although, given it's a subjective illusion in my head, you'll see them differently) to opinion.
-
But you still don't tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. You tell me to use ID to make moral judgements i.e. do research for the good of the people. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses.
ps I've been through the HY site since it was around ca. 3-4 years ago, and saw a lot of his videos. Of course that's not comparable to doing actual science in the lab and field. I prefer evidence (although, given it's a subjective illusion in my head, you'll see them differently) to opinion.
Khi- Ok tell me how can a false theory like evolution be help 2 science? It doesnt make any sense. One claim that is frequently repeated by evolutionists is the lie that the theory of evolution is the basis of biology? Those who put forward this claim suggest that biology could not develop, or even exist, without the theory of evolution. This claim actually stems from a demagogy born out of despair. The philosopher Professor Arda Denkel, one of the foremost names in Turkish science, makes the following comment on this subject
For instance, it is quite wrong to suggest that "Rejecting the theory of evolution means rejecting the biological and geological sciences and the discoveries of physics and chemistry." Because in order to make such an inference (here a modus tollens) there need to be some propositions regarding chemical, physical, geological and biological discoveries that imply the theory of evolution. However, the discoveries, or statements of them, do not imply the theory. Therefore, they do not prove it."23
It is enough to look at the history of science to realise what an invalid and irrational thing it is to claim that "evolution is the basis of biology." If the claim were true, it would mean that no biological sciences had developed in the world before the emergence of the theory of evolution, and that they were all born after it. However, many branches of biology, such as anatomy, physiology, and paleontology, were born and developed before the theory of evolution. On the other hand, evolution is a hypothesis that emerged after these sciences, which Darwinists are trying to impose on these sciences by force.
A similar method to that employed by evolutionists was used in the USSR in Stalin's time. In those days communism, the official ideology of the Soviet Union, considered the philosophy of "dialectical materialism" to be the basis of all the sciences. Stalin had ordered that all scientific research should conform to dialectical materialism. In this way, all books on biology, chemistry, physics, history, politics, and even art had introductory sections to the effect that those sciences were based on dialectical materialism and the views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
However, with the collapse of the USSR this obligation was lifted, and books returned to being ordinary technical, scientific texts containing the same information. The abandoning of such nonsense as dialectical materialism did not leave science in the shade, but rather lifted pressure and obligations from it.
In our day, there is no reason why science should remain tied to the theory of evolution. Science is based on observation and experimentation. Evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothesis regarding an unobservable past. Furthermore, the theory's claims and propositions have always been disproved by science and the laws of logic. Science will suffer no loss, of course, when this hypothesis is abandoned. The American biologist G. W. Harper has this to say on the subject
It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged? 24
In fact, quite to the contrary, science will progress in a much faster and healthier manner when it is freed from the insistence of a theory full of dogmatism, prejudice, nonsense, and fabrication.
GOD Bless! -
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
-
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
Khi The details r given at
http//www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Go check it out. GOD Bless! -
Peace Idmkhizar,
While I'm always an advocate of "to each his own", I must say that your approach in peddling your opinion is a bit imprecise, to say the least.
Statements like, "the majority of scientists don't believe in evolution", or
"in our age INTELLIGENT DESIGN has started 2 emerge as a fact in all scientific obsservations made", are hardly solid, evidenced, or even believable.I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but general blanket statements like those above result in self-sabotaging your credibility. Just some friendly advice. wink
Additionally, Charles Darwin never, to the best of my knowledge, publicized his theological beliefs or lack thereof. Nor did he even claim his theory was perfect- far from it. In his infamous book, "Origin of Species", he wrote
"nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organisms and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations?." And to think that the eye could evolve "by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
If anything, these are the words of a humble being, not the rantings of a lunatic, as you've made him out to be.
Granted, Darwin was way off the mark on many of his conclusions, including race heirarchy, but he was not the monster creationists make him out to be. Whether you agree with evolution or not, his contributions to science have undeniably been paramount, and as a naturalist, he went against the orthodox Christian grain in a way few others of his time were capable of.
Finally, the idea that evolution and creationism cannot peacefully co-exist within the same theory is simply wrong. The theory of evolution, alone, is incomplete, as even Darwin admitted this. Creationism actually fits in quite well with evolution. In fact, the latest DNA evidence points to a common origin, the proverbial "Eve". We are all branches of the same tree, as evolution describes, and as creationism describes.
Peace,
Tay -
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
Khi The details r given at
http//www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Go check it out. GOD Bless!Checked it out, only find critiques of evolution and public education suggestions. No clear technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses I can use. I'm a scientist, not a politician or school teacher. Since it was you who said ID is better and evolution is bad, I assume you are well versed in ID (like your knowledge of quantum theory) so why don't you try describing ID's scientific contents to me?
-
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
Khi The details r given at
http//www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Go check it out. GOD Bless!Checked it out, only find critiques of evolution and public education suggestions. No clear technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses I can use. I'm a scientist, not a politician or school teacher. Since it was you who said ID is better and evolution is bad, I assume you are well versed in ID (like your knowledge of quantum theory) so why don't you try describing ID's scientific contents to me?
Khi- How can evolution be useful 2 u? Remember the concept tht in nature the fittest survive is also only partly true. There r animal species which greatly care 4 each other. However there r instances in which the slowe running deer or sick animals lack behind. However this NEVER causes them 2 evolve fromone species 2 another like Darwin claimed. It has no evolutionary power. How can a deceit n a fraud be useful 2 u. GOD Bless!
-
Peace all,
The following text is extracted from the book ?the God and the Science? of Jean Guitton (philosopher), Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (mathematician and physicist)
A living cell is composed from about twenty amino acids which form a "compact chain". The function of the amino acids depends, on 2000 specific enzymes. The biologists calculated the probability for a thousand different enzymes come close according an ordered way until to form a living cell (during an evolution of several billions years) is about 10 exponent 1000 to 1. The chance is equal to zero.
Another example If the assembly of the nucl?otides induces ? by chance ? the formation of an RNA molecule usable, it would have been necessary to the nature to multiply the test during at least 10 exponent15 years which is equivalent to 100 thousand times of our universe age (15 x10 exponent 9).
One of the questions which is treated in this book is the relationship between the consciousness and the matter.
Sorry for my bad english.
-
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
Khi- How can evolution be useful 2 u? Remember the concept tht in nature the fittest survive is also only partly true. There r animal species which greatly care 4 each other. However there r instances in which the slowe running deer or sick animals lack behind. However this NEVER causes them 2 evolve fromone species 2 another like Darwin claimed. It has no evolutionary power. How can a deceit n a fraud be useful 2 u. GOD Bless!
Again you only adress evolution. I don't need that, you've done that several times here. But let's suppose that I decide to use ID in my research, which currently is, by the way, comparative morphology of termite worker mandibles.
What technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses can I get from the scientific Intelligent Design theory?
I ask for a positive response. That's it. Come on Khizar, surely you know something about ID like you know about quantum theory?
-
No I don't ask for you to explain that evolution is bad, wrong, etc. You already did that several times. I'll ask again
Tell me how to use the scientific ID theory in my research. People use theories like the Germ Theory of Disease or Radioactivity in research to help them set experiments and explain observations. I ask for technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses. Surely you are more knowledgeable in the theory of intelligent design than me?
Khi- How can evolution be useful 2 u? Remember the concept tht in nature the fittest survive is also only partly true. There r animal species which greatly care 4 each other. However there r instances in which the slowe running deer or sick animals lack behind. However this NEVER causes them 2 evolve fromone species 2 another like Darwin claimed. It has no evolutionary power. How can a deceit n a fraud be useful 2 u. GOD Bless!
Again you only adress evolution. I don't need that, you've done that several times here. But let's suppose that I decide to use ID in my research, which currently is, by the way, comparative morphology of termite worker mandibles.
What technical arguments, principles, predictions, experiments, hypotheses can I get from the scientific Intelligent Design theory?
I ask for a positive response. That's it. Come on Khizar, surely you know something about ID like you know about quantum theory?
Khi- The ID developement is relatively knew so i cant yet tell u everything ragarding it. However ID sees n appreciates the incredibly complex structure of living cells which cannot be formed by chance. How it will be beneficial? We will see GW in the near future. But since this science is based on truth instead of forgery it shld be more advantageous, dont u agree? GOD Bless!
-
Then I'll just wait and see.
-
Then I'll just wait and see.
Khi- Maybe this cld be part of an answer 2 ur qs
Dembski discussed this point recently
?But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term ?junk?. Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as ?junk? merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how ?non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.? Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.?
Taken from http//www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
GOD Bless! -
Hello IMDkhizar,
I have no reverence for no man or woman. I never rely on any one man or women either but you do. Harun Yahya seems to have muddled your reason. I rely on my own God-given reason and do not base my understanding on refutations published on websites. I prefer to read the source material and decide for myself the validity of the arguments.
If you have read my last post then you will know that I have read both Micheal Behe's Book "Darwin Black Box" on his thesis of "irreducibly Complexity" and Richard Dawkins "Blind Watch Maker". As an objective indivdual I can see that both have good arguments. Behe's theisis has become a Creationists club to beat the Evolutionists. Even Harun Yahya uses Behe's arguments in a simpler form. But If you had read Behe's book then you would have realised how much Behe acknowledges the Darwinian Principles of Evolution. His contention is that Molecular Evolution is not accounted by Darwininism and any sensible person with an objective mind can see that Behe has a good arguments in this.
I urge you to read the source material instead of giving links to websites that does the refutations. If you can't be bothered to read the original works then please refrain from posting this nonsense that Harun Yahya espouses... Be an individual and rely not on any one man. Do your own work and then you might understand a little of the nature of Evolution...
Regards,
-
Hello IMDkhizar,
I have no reverence for no man or woman. I never rely on any one man or women either but you do. Harun Yahya seems to have muddled your reason. I rely on my own God-given reason and do not base my understanding on refutations published on websites. I prefer to read the source material and decide for myself the validity of the arguments.
Khi- I also do tht. Im not interested in HY personally either since hes a sunni n im a Quran Aloner alhamdulillah. I just like u refer 2 the material which they present n i can see a lot of truth in there which i cant see in evolutionists arguments. Also u were the one who showed me the website of Dawkins n so i showed u some refuting him. I also gave me my very own reason which astoundingly when matched those given on the sites i presented n thts be4 i visited them. The reason was the save function adopted in the program n tht the goal is already defined. This then shows tht intelligence was behind tht prog so it is nothing by chance. The whole thing is therfore a deceit.
If you have read my last post then you will know that I have read both Micheal Behe's Book "Darwin Black Box" on his thesis of "irreducibly Complexity" and Richard Dawkins "Blind Watch Maker". As an objective indivdual I can see that both have good arguments. Behe's theisis has become a Creationists club to beat the Evolutionists. Even Harun Yahya uses Behe's arguments in a simpler form. But If you had read Behe's book then you would have realised how much Behe acknowledges the Darwinian Principles of Evolution. His contention is that Molecular Evolution is not accounted by Darwininism and any sensible person with an objective mind can see that Behe has a good arguments in this.
Khi- So u at least admit tht both have good arguments. 2ndly if HY takes some statements fro Behe n others ic no prob there 4 he analysed it n believes it 2 be the truth. This ofcourse again doesnt mean all of Behes statements need 2 be correct. I even showed u a quote from an EXevolutionist who is a biologist, Dr Gary Parker. If Behe acknoledges Darwinian Principles of evolution tht complex forms evolved fro simpler ones by chance then i diagree with him. If u r talking bt natural selection principle of Darwin then tht actually refutes Darwinism since NS has been shown 2 be destructive n never constructive i.e. it deletes info from the genes n does not add any info. No evolutionists has ever shown on the basis of random mutations n natural selection shwoiwing an increase in the gene quote. This is one of the qs tht puzzles them most.
I urge you to read the source material instead of giving links to websites that does the refutations. If you can't be bothered to read the original works then please refrain from posting this nonsense that Harun Yahya espouses... Be an individual and rely not on any one man. Do your own work and then you might understand a little of the nature of Evolution...
Regards,
Khi- Forget abt HY. I showed u many other articles. The best one which i went through 2day is
www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
It seems u didnt read tht. GOD Bless! -
Hello IDMkhizar,
Again I urge to read the books instead of reading refutations on websites.
Regards,
-
Hello IDMkhizar,
Again I urge to read the books instead of reading refutations on websites.
Regards,
Khi- Wht do u think only evolutionists have books. Creatinists wrote many too. I cannot spend my time reading each n every book from either side. Tht wld e a waste of time. Howver im open 2 address the pts at hand. GOD Bless!