As an Intelligent Design believers, i believe life forms are engineered ( not sure if absolutely everything are engineered but there are many examples ) . This fits with the way Engineers have been working with Biologists recently as ID proponent Dr. Brian Miller stated .
Here's a compilation of things in life that Isaac Newton & other ID believers are engineered :
1. Hammerhead Shark : the most sensitive Electrosensing in the Animal Kingdom
Minute 11:10 to 13:43
2. Phacops' super-advanced eyes
*Phacops lived some 300-400 million years ago
Minute 11:40 to 14:00
3. the Accuracy of Self-Replication/Reproduction : 99,99 %
* with Seymour Garte, a christian Biochemist who worked as a Professor at Rutgers University
* he believed in Evolution
Min. 13:30 to 16:54
4. The Human Brain : can store up to 2.5 million ( 2.500.000 ) Gigabytes of information/memory
13. Echolocation/Sonar Technology in Animals ( Whales, Bats etc. )
Source : https://evolutionnews.org/2017/04/echolocation-solved/
* by Cornelius G. Hunter, graduate of Univ. of Illinois - Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology . Adjunct Professor at Biola Univ.
14. Hummingbird's flight capability :
Source : Ted-ed video YT
15. Pre-Programming in Cave Fish, Bacteria, etc.
Ref. : - Stephen Meyer : Theistic Evolution ( in YT )
- Brian Miller : the Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology ( YT )
* Research on Bacteria prob done by James Shapiro ( UChicago Biologist ), and Randy Guliuzza of Institute of Creation Research on Cave Fish
16. Cells ~ Embedded Computing Systems
Ref. : Brian Miller - the Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology ( YT )
* Research done by Gregory Reeves & Curtis Hrischuk * Advanced Life-forms have trillions of Cells ( 1 trillion = 1.000.000.000.000 )
Source : Biochemist Michael Behe's Secrets of the Cell series video ( YT Part 1 )
* Michael Behe is a UPenn alumni & a Professor at Lehigh University
17. Information in the DNA to make proteins which are essential for life & the information which instructs the development of life
Ref : Stephen Meyer on the John Ankerberg show pt. 5 ( YT )
18. Incredibly Sophisticated dGRNs ( developmental Gene Regulatory Networks ) which is like an Integrated Circuit :
Sources : - Stephen Meyer's Theistic Evolution & Darwin's Doubt presentations ( YT )
- Brian Miller's Dig & Delve Q & A session ( YT )
19. Marvels much more complex than Iphone - Biologist Douglas Axe talks about Worm & Firefly :
Source : IDQuest channel ( YT, "A Marvel More Fascinating Than Your iPhone" )
20. Bee and Spider Orchids : exquisite mimicry of Insects in Plants/Flowers
Source : Natural History Museum video ( YT, "the bee orchid, Ophrys apifera" )
-your doubts about the mainstream evolutionary theory (highly critiqued and bashed academically btw) are null because our assumptions, derived from nit picked observations, are true and it doesn't matter that we fall into a circular fallacy because we have evidence which proves what we assume based on highly debatable varying and controversial figures.
- we base our judgement on transient evidence and still form a dogmatic conclusion because we don't understand how science works as a growing progressing framework, even if we do, we still persist on assuming it will feed their assumption which again amount to assumptions .. We don't give a crap about abstract logic because anything that feeds against our atheistic cultist agenda is heretical.
I personally do.
Because there's alot of genes we share with even rats hence why they are used for testing same goes with chimps but to a much larger extent
there's also a shared anatomy between the different species, yknow eyes,legs,heart and pretty much every other major body part is shared
I dont think we would have the same bone structuring as animals if we were not animals ourselves
I'm sure you're capable enough to do that yourself.
While you do so, please look up if scientific theories are factual explanaitons or progressive explanaitons that aren't concrete and are based on uncertainties .
And since you are a staunch proponent of ape-human evolution being inevitable due to the "evidence". If it turns out that scientific theory don't reflect facts then this is only working against your calim /allusion of its factuality, which you can obviously change later to just being "a likely possibility" and making excuses then whiningabout how dumb i am to not be accepting a mainstream scientific theory
Which would only prove my point about such evolution cultist bigots who smear folks for disagreeing to something that remains assumptive even by definition and a mere explanaiton based on current limited evidences.
I'm sure you're capable enough to do that yourself.
While you do so, please look up if scientific theories are factual explanaitons or progressive explanaitons that aren't concrete and are based on uncertainties .
And since you are a staunch proponent of ape-human evolution being inevitable due to the "evidence". If it turns out that scientific theory don't reflect facts then this is only working against your calim /allusion of its factuality, which you can obviously change later to just being "a likely possibility" and making excuses then whiningabout how dumb i am to not be accepting a mainstream scientific theory
Which would only prove my point about such evolution cultist bigots who smear folks for disagreeing to something that remains assumptive even by definition and a mere explanaiton based on current limited evidences.
I'm sure you're capable enough to do that yourself.
While you do so, please look up if scientific theories are factual explanaitons or progressive explanaitons that aren't concrete and are based on uncertainties .
And since you are a staunch proponent of ape-human evolution being inevitable due to the "evidence". If it turns out that scientific theory don't reflect facts then this is only working against your calim /allusion of its factuality, which you can obviously change later to just being "a likely possibility" and making excuses then whiningabout how dumb i am to not be accepting a mainstream scientific theory
Which would only prove my point about such evolution cultist bigots who smear folks for disagreeing to something that remains assumptive even by definition and a mere explanaiton based on current limited evidences.
I'm sure you're capable enough to do that yourself.
While you do so, please look up if scientific theories are factual explanaitons or progressive explanaitons that aren't concrete and are based on uncertainties .
And since you are a staunch proponent of ape-human evolution being inevitable due to the "evidence". If it turns out that scientific theory don't reflect facts then this is only working against your calim /allusion of its factuality, which you can obviously change later to just being "a likely possibility" and making excuses then whiningabout how dumb i am to not be accepting a mainstream scientific theory
Which would only prove my point about such evolution cultist bigots who smear folks for disagreeing to something that remains assumptive even by definition and a mere explanaiton based on current limited evidences.
Idk.
I'm not sure if god exists, if evolution is real, etc.
Some things I just don't know. And I'll never know.
But trying to make an answer my self isn't consoling. So I just leave those thoughts alone.
The dude literally laid down universal common ancestry, made assumptions about it, and proceeded to calle a scientific theory a FACT
Like what's the point even? "Oh Bleak Look At this dude making calims and his claims are facts so don't ignore facts " do actually think this is an appropriate and academic way to discuss this topic?
Just quoting a video of an explanaiton from a random narrator with 0 credentials in the topic.
If you had read a research on the matter you'd understand they never claim factuality for a reason, because they know assumptions and involved
The most you can do is beat around the bush like Zenos7 and not deal with the point
"A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact."
If you use logic my guy..
Something that makes sense due to a well constructed explanaiton ≠ its a universal fact and reality because it has comprehensible and elaborate explanaitons
If you ask any academic biologist Darwinism, the theory you are championing as a fact, is being critiqued on an academic level concurrently in major academic institution
The whole fundamental idea of darwanism " the survival of the fittest gene" or whatever.. Is inaccurate and cannot explain human sociology
Here is concise explanaiton to why and this gentleman has the expertise to back it up he's doing PhD in Philosophy of Biology as we speak, unlike the youtuber you quoted who has no active credentials in this realm https://youtube.com/shorts/-F6kYEhh_xM?feature=share
Here're another video (5 minutes) of him explaining why similarity throughthe mechanism of natural selection just makes theory more probable which is premised upon assumptions and doesn't make it factual
I did my due courtesy watching that lullaby 😂😂 it was presented well bht it is what it is there are problematic aspects go it but hopefully you go through these video and understand a bit or 2 about this heated topic
BOOOOOOGUS
you beat around the bush with the definition to avoid facing the fact that scientific theories aren't facts and can evolve and change
You don't seem to be even addressing it.. you call me a flat earther but damn for someone this arrogant you sure never deal with the point and rather choose to remain vague with your definition of whatever a scientific theory is to your crooked understanding.
The dude literally laid down universal common ancestry, made assumptions about it, and proceeded to calle a scientific theory a FACT
Like what's the point even? "Oh Bleak Look At this dude making calims and his claims are facts so don't ignore facts " do actually think this is an appropriate and academic way to discuss this topic?
Just quoting a video of an explanaiton from a random narrator with 0 credentials in the topic.
If you had read a research on the matter you'd understand they never claim factuality for a reason, because they know assumptions and involved
The most you can do is beat around the bush like Zenos7 and not deal with the point
"A theory never becomes a fact. It is an explanation of one or more facts. A well-supported evidence-based theory becomes acceptable until disproved. It never evolves to a fact, and that's a fact."
If you use logic my guy..
Something that makes sense due to a well constructed explanaiton ≠ its a universal fact and reality because it has comprehensible and elaborate explanaitons
If you ask any academic biologist Darwinism, the theory you are championing as a fact, is being critiqued on an academic level concurrently in major academic institution
The whole fundamental idea of darwanism " the survival of the fittest gene" or whatever.. Is inaccurate and cannot explain human sociology
Here is concise explanaiton to why and this gentleman has the expertise to back it up he's doing PhD in Philosophy of Biology as we speak, unlike the youtuber you quoted who has no active credentials in this realm https://youtube.com/shorts/-F6kYEhh_xM?feature=share
Here're another video (5 minutes) of him explaining why similarity throughthe mechanism of natural selection just makes theory more probable which is premised upon assumptions and doesn't make it factual
I did my due courtesy watching that lullaby 😂😂 it was presented well bht it is what it is there are problematic aspects go it but hopefully you go through these video and understand a bit or 2 about this heated topic
BOOOOOOGUS
you beat around the bush with the definition to avoid facing the fact that scientific theories aren't facts and can evolve and change
You don't seem to be even addressing it.. you call me a flat earther but damn for someone this arrogant you sure never deal with the point and rather choose to remain vague with your definition of whatever a scientific theory is to your crooked understanding.
not a constructive criticism i must say lol . Religious agendas? lol granted my beliefs are rooted in my religion do you have anything other than that to criticise .. like my points for example.. there is a stunning ad hominem i see here
like " you have religious reasons hence your points are invalid "
thats quite the lack of wisdom
evolution as an empirical process is a fact
but human-chimp common ancestry isn't
and even universal common ancestry isn't
any such cliam made is made on an assumption to construct explanation
just because something has a well elaborate explanation doesn't mean its a concrete fact at best its an acceptable explanation which can be disregarded
a scientific theory is not a fact black and white
i'm just saying folks have the right to deny some idea that isn't even concrete let alone complete and has fundamental assumptions in it like "assuming common ancestry", "homology ", "natural selection is the only proper mechanism deriving evolution " ,"there are only naturalistic explanations ".
to say that its a fact shows ignorance and coupled that with arrogance you get Darwinists.
i don't wanna argue with you on this it doesn't seem like it'd be going anywhere
but here's the gist of what is scientifically valid coming from an academic professional in the realm himself as he quotes sources. its a 10 minute video
hope you have the time, patience and the judgment to proceed with this
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
