INTELLIGENT DESIGN is the science of our age. The false...
-
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!
-
In a nutshell I examine mandibles ('jaws') form different termite species, tracing their 2D shape, converting it to vectors, run them through a statistical analysis and see for correlations with their diet or relatedness.
-
In a nutshell I examine mandibles ('jaws') form different termite species, tracing their 2D shape, converting it to vectors, run them through a statistical analysis and see for correlations with their diet or relatedness.
Thank for your reply, very interesting. Did you already published some of your results?
Excuse my ignorance, can you tell me about the applied aspect of your research?
The God bless
-
Please don't say that. I've just officially started last week oops although I had done some preparations before. I haven't published any results, but I will publish after I am done.
And the practical application... To be honest, I'm still trying to think of a good one. But I can say that this is part of trying to understand termites as an ecologically important organism in tropical environments. Termites literally recycle felled trees, you know, and they're part of the nutrient cycle in forest ecosystems.