A reader writes to mention this program:
BioLogos INTEGRATE is a resource for exploring biology from a Christian worldview. It presents consensus science in conversation with biblical faith. Designed for classroom teachers and home educators, INTEGRATE can be used alongside any biology curriculum, or even on its own. The content emphasizes virtues such as wonder, humility, and wisdom. It also addresses common questions and concerns related to bioethics, creation care, origins, and other topics. INTEGRATE helps Christian young people grow in their faith in Christ, as they develop a deeper love and stronger understanding of the world God has made. Integrate
Consensus science? In an age of Sokal hoaxes and scandals and wars on math, and science, where the “consensus” is slowly morphing toward destruction?
But yup. And with a straight face too.
In the real world, this is not the time to be buying into “consensus” but to be advocating reform.
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
See also: “Avalanche” of retractions of research papers on spider personalities. It will be interesting to see what impact the retractions have on claims about the evolution of animal behavior.
Like every other characteristic of organizations, this was described sharply and completely by Parkinson.
The law of convergence: When an organization reaches a certain size, it converges to the current fashion and loses the UNIQUE purpose that drove its founders to start an organization.
Yet it has given us nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, insulin, heart transplants, chemistry, agricultural practices, safe air transit, … I think I will stick with the current scientific process until something better comes along.
.
How many of those things required the socio-political assumption that matter is all there is, Ed?
None of them.
@Upright Biped
True. None. But materialism is a cult. Critical thinking is not welcome.
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/
UB
Neither does evolution, so I fail to see your point.
.
No you don’t.
@Ed George #2
And vaccines. Don’t forget vaccines.
They work way better than prayer.
.
Edward Jenner was a theist, by the way.
Non-overlapping magisteria.
Vaccines –> to stimulate the immune system.
Prayer –> to stimulate spiritual life.
@Truthfreedom #9
“Non-overlapping magisteria”
Aren’t YOU the overlap?
“Ed George”
The “current scientific process” has nothing to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with materialism, naturalism nor physicalism.
@ET #11
That a process is “blind and mindless” has nothing to do with whether it can create something new.
Sunlight and water vapor are blind and mindless, but together they can create a rainbow.
CHECKMATE, ET !!!!!
@13 Pater Kimbridge
What does exist in ‘Nature’ that it is not “blind and mindless”? (So you can make this comparison?)
Regarding the non-overlapping magisteria, was that a serious question?
Edward Jenner wasn’t just a theist, he was a Christian who worried people wouldn’t recognize that god had work through him to provide the vaccine
Alex Fleming was a Catholic and all he provided was antibiotics
And Louie Pasteur was a Christian type that did so sciency stuff too
Turns outs science provided their contributions and certainly not them or their world view
Aaron1978
But wouldn’t a better question be why god felt it necessary to design viruses that have killed millions of people in the first place?
Snowflakes and wind get together and then they create snow drifts.
EG
It’s always a good idea to learn about God’s design and the divine order.
Well there’s a lot of different reasons why God would create something like that, viruses are not random and there is no such thing as blind random processes everything follows rules
Viruses have been known for quite some time to be essential to creating bio diversity between species
Furthermore, just because something doesn’t make sense to us at this point, doesn’t mean it won’t make sense to us later on down the line
So what might seem as something horrific now actually might’ve been useful later down the line
Point in case the black plague produced people that are immune to HIV
There also seems to be some other things that shaped our history right afterwards those events that got us to where we are today
But thats the way I look at it, just because I don’t understand its function at this point doesn’t mean I won’t later, nor does it mean that it didn’t have a purpose or reason for existence in the first place
Human beings living endlessly and without limitation is just as bad, if not worse, than a virus that kills a large group of people, endless life with no death comes with its own brand suffering.
Ps. One virus might kill a million people Edward Jenner’s vaccine has saved close to 3 millions of people,
And we have been able to progress further and faster because of that discovery. And we are better for it
Ed George and those like him tend to ignore process for consensus. The scientific method requires something to be observed and replicated. Macro-evolution has never been observed. Not one person can point to a single experiment to show successful replication. Pointing at fossils and micro-evolution has nothing to do with macro-evolution. No matter how many ways it’s phrased, or how animated they get, there is still no actual evidence to support their theory.
Biologist Richard Lenski spent 30 years studying e. Coli, which started in 1988. They were looking for evidence of macro-evolution and watched over 60,000 generations, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to humans. The reason he shut it down was the lack of a single generation that was genetically something different from e. Coli. He was searching for evidence to support his belief and failed.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-a-30-year-experiment-has-fundamentally-changed-our-view-of-how
The key point is that science cannot indicate that sunlight and water vapor operate from mindless processes, or even that they are blind and mindless entities themselves.
That’s why it is not possible to know that evolution is blind and mindless (assuming that it even occurs as described).
Pater K:
Sunlight and water vapor exist because they were intelligently designed. Blind and mindless processes did not create either.
Acartia Eddie, strawman maker:
Who says that is what happened? Why can’t it be that random changes in the viruses did that- caused them to be lethal?
The “current scientific process” has nothing to do with evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with materialism, naturalism nor physicalism.
That is just a fact. And I understand why it upsets some people who post here.
BR
We have never observed plate tectonics creating a mountain either. We have never observed an electron. Why do some find it necessary to apply a burden of proof to evolution that they don’t apply to other fields of science?
“Why do some find it necessary to apply a burden of proof to evolution that they don’t apply to other fields of science?”
Ed,
Which burden of proof do you always require?
Andrew
Acartia Eddie:
And at the rate they are moving it may not have.
Science mandates that the claims be testable. The existence of electrons can be tested. It is NOT our fault that the claims of unguided evolution cannot be tested.
But then again you do not seem to understand science.
Pater Kimbridge @ 12
That can only be discerned by a soul with a mind in a body with eyes?
@20 Silver Asiatic
Then, why do they (evolutionists) insist? Are they ignorant? Or just evil?
Probably both?
It seems to me that *fuzzy* terminology (“natural selection”, “randomness”, “deep time”) is being used as a gaslightning technique?
“Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic in which a person, to gain power and control, plants seeds of uncertainty in the victim. The self-doubt and constant skepticism slowly and meticulously cause the individual to question their reality.
*”‘Evolution or you are mentally insane!”*
Well all I have to say is that when a theory Requires you to abandon your perception as an illusion, that there might be some wrong with that theory
Richard Dawkins had to set the narrative that the appearance of design in nature is an illusion, and it bothered me a lot that he had to set that narrative in the first place
AaronS1978
But if we didn’t abandon our perception as an illusion we would still believe that the earth was the centre of the universe.
I don’t believe we abandon our perceptions when we discovered that the world Was not the center of the universe and that our solar system was heliocentric
I would say that’s more in line with just being mistaken or having misinterpreted the Bible
In fact it was a Catholic Cleric Copernicus that brought it up followed by telescopic evidence from Galileo
Now on the flipside the theory of evolution challenges the very perception which we perceive our entire world
We have to abandon the very thing that we used to interpret the world, it is the very thing that enables us to do science
So if our perceptions were user illusions based for fitness survival, then we honestly wouldn’t have discovered that our solar system was Heliocentric and we couldn’t do science, science couldn’t rescue us from that, science is only as good as the user doing it.
By the way Jerry Coyne knows that science is only as good as the user, It’s why he absolutely despises religious people doing science
Apparently both Ed George and AaronS1978 think that it is proven beyond all doubt that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe.
I have two questions for them, Number one, just what is your empirical proof that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe? And number two, if the earth is NOT he centre of the universe then just where is the centre of the universe?
BA77
Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why.
Don’t know
“Any Astrodynamics 101 text book will explain why.”
That is not an answer, That is a dodge.
Contrary to what you believe, there is no empirical proof that you can appeal to to prove that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe,
Contrary to popular opinion, Copernicus never did prove that the geocentric model was wrong:
As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
And as George Ellis stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And even as Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer a sun centered universe over a earth centered universe:
As Einstein himself noted,,,
Here are a few more notes to that effect,
In fact, anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that line up with the earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.
Thus, there is actually a principled reason, based on empirical observation, to once again consider the earth and solar system as being ‘central’ in the universe.
We do not have enough information to know for certain which galaxy lies at the center of the universe, which means our either is or it is not. What we do have is enough information to determine the severe flaws in evolution. Scientific theories require something observable and testable. The e. Coli experiment that lasted 30 years was meant to accomplish both. Over 60,000 generations of e. Coli were observed, which is the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to humans, and at the end they still had e. Coli. Not once did they see any mutations they anyone can point to as evidence.
BA77 why is heliocentric wrong and why does it matter to the idea of God or a creator? Wasn’t based off of the interpretation that earth was God’s Throne? Thrones are not often at the center but at the end so that the king may observe all who enter.
Second of all Ed George wasn’t dodging anything, there are wealths of info on the topic. I wouldn’t know where to begin on that
Again I’m not arguing with you but why?
BA77 God’s throne is wherever God wants it to be and we as a species being privileged is not depended on where we are placed in the universe
Earth can be where ever, it doesn’t subtract from our unique privilege and spot in the universe. We are were we need to be
@ AaronS1978:
The problem with this narrative is that evolutionists deprecate the same tool on which they rely to navigate the world: the human brain/ intelligence.
It is like having an unfaithful partner telling you: “love, you can not trust me, but you ‘ll have to trust me!”
Nothing good can come out of it.
It is a relationship doomed to fail from the very beginning.
– If we are told our perceptions are illusions, then we are entering self-defeating territory: the tool that “cheats on me” (my brain) is the tool that has to rescue me from itself!
– If we can not trust our brains, why is it that we have achieved so much progress?
EG, sorry but I live with a volcano that is a product of plate tectonics, observable as shifts and quake patterns etc. That has put up about three mountains here in the past several centuries. Two or so within the past 25 years. 3000 fit is by definition a mountain. KF
TF, you are raising issues that are key and need to be attended to but predictably will not be taken as seriously as they should. Take heart. KF
AaronS1978, in regards to providing actual empirical proof for your claim that the earth is not central in the universe, you state,
Not to be rude, but you agreeing with Ed George should be a VERY huge clue for you that you just may be wrong in your claim! 🙂
You guys are imagining evidence that you simply do not have. You DO NOT have ‘wealths of evidence’. You have ZERO evidence. Period!
The quotes I provided in 35 by Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, Fred Hoyle, Albert Einstein and Max Born should have at least given you pause to reconsider your claim. Especially the quote from Albert Einstein since he himself is the author of General Relativity.
In so far as General Relativity itself is concerned, it is left completely open for whomever is ‘subjectively’ making a model of the universe to arbitrarily decide for themselves what is to be considered central in their model of the universe:
As far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
And again, here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains the recently found ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system.
Thus, there is actually a principled reason, based on empirical observation, to once again consider the solar system in general, and earth in particular, as being ‘central’ in the universe.
Thus again, both you and Ed George, contrary to what you both may believe, simply have ZERO evidence for your belief that the earth is not central in the universe. Much less do you have ‘wealths of evidence.’
Whereas, on the other hand, I can appeal to the anomalies in the CMBR, as well as the large scale structure of the universe itself, to support my position.
More detailed notes that overturn the Copernican principle, are here:
@42 Kairosfocus:
I know it, but I will persevere 🙂
– What is this me that has a brain he/she “can not trust”?
– If I “can not trust”my brain: what “should I trust” instead?
Acartia Eddie:
No, it will not. The people who wrote the books can’t even scientifically explain how the earth came to be the way it is.
This is just the first start from a quick Google search these are articles supporting and showing that the heliocentric model is what is correct, This is not to also include visible outlet evidence using telescopes satellites and actually orbiting our planet
Suppose you can argue in the opposite opinion saying it’s a matter of how are you look at it
http://solar-center.stanford.e.....uiz6c.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/earth-orbits-the-sun-physics/amp
https://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html
https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.00689
AaronS1978- There is a huge difference between the solar system and the universe. Heliocentric refers to the solar system.
No no I know
No maybe I misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar system
Now maybe Im misunderstanding ba 77 What is the referring to a universal heliocentric model because I am referring only to the solar system
AaronS1978, none of your purported evidence proves that it is the Earth that is in motion in the universe and not the rest of the universe that is in motion around the earth,
Again, as far as General Relativity itself is concerned, I can arbitrarily choose ANY position in the universe to be the ‘still center’ of the universe that is at rest, and construct my model of the universe around that arbitrarily chosen point of rest.
As George Ellis pointed out, you cannot exclude the earth as the still center of the universe by observation, but ‘can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…’
Shoot, even individual people, as the following article makes clear, can be considered to be central in the universe according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
,,, In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
To further empirically establish humanity’s centrality in the universe in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
Whereas Dr. William Dembski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle.
Verse:
First off I made no direct claim, which I find it annoying that you start off all of you post with I claim, please do not put words in my mouth,
The only thing I said to a direct claim was Ed didn’t dodge you and it is astronomy 101 which Ed did say
Second, it was a quick google search which I don’t believe you read anything I posted you simply dismissed it out of hand and declared that everything I posted doesn’t prove anything, then you repeated what you have posted in previous post on the subject from other threads
Now as I stated to ET I might have misunderstood you because I’m speaking solely of the solar system NOT the universe.
You are right there is almost NO WAY to know for sure that we aren’t the center of the universe, but if you say we are not orbiting the sun, this were I will clearly object, and there is multitudes of evidence supporting this, from pictures, video, mathematical models, physics, and the fact that so far that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the larger
No need to get huffy AaronS1978, when you claim that the sun can be given a privileged frame of reference since “that’s how gravity works, smaller masses will orbit the larger” you are disagreeing with General Relativity (our best mathematical description of gravity) not with me.
Again, according to General Relativity, ANY place in the universe can be arbitrary chosen to be the still center of the universe and the rst of the universe can be modeled around that arbitrarily chosen point.
KF
Are you suggesting that mountain ranges are the result of volcanos? Geologists might disagree with you.
EG, I am specifically pointing out that as a matter of empirical fact we can and do observe the creation (and destruction) of mountains on the scope of years to centuries. A mountain, being understood as an elevation of the land above base level, of at least 1,000 feet. In addition, with instruments we can and do observe the moving of this island, e.g. a swelling of six inches or thereabouts as magma rose from depth. Further to this, instrumentation and mathematical analysis allows us to observe the shape and processes of the associated island arc subduction zone, moving at rates comparable to the growth rate of a finger nail. Moving up to experimental vs observational vs historical [in sense of deep past reconstruction] sciences, there is a reasonable rule deriving from Newton that we should not ascribe to the unobservable distance or past forces and capabilities not seen to act with similar effect in the present. Lest, science becomes captive to speculative ideologies dressed up in lab coats. In short, I am calling for nuance in light of relevant facts. KF
PS: This is of course directly relevant to attempts to infer that in the deep past blind chance and mechanical necessity created language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery for the living cell; an instance of what I abbreviate as FSCO/I. There is but one known causally efficacious force shown to do such. Intelligently directed configuration. That is based on trillions of observed cases and search challenge on gamut of sol system or observed cosmos for config spaces of order 500 to 1,000+ bits.
PPS, a volcanic island arc can be understood as a mountain range emerging from the ocean floor, off to a side of a subduction zone; but flooded by the sea to typically several thousand feet. BTW there is talk that within this century a new Island is reasonably likely to emerge due to Kick ’em Jenny off Grenada — sea flooding does not materially alter the dynamic of heated materials rising to the surface and erupting or even exploding . . . andesitic rocks (named for composition directly comparable to materials in — the Andes). I think there is talk of a continental mass off Australia in similar terms of flooded continent. Indonesia is of course a similar volcanic zone to the EC, and IIRC the Aleutians.
PPPS: Just thought, look at Wiki:
KF
Nice tangent. The Rockies, Himalayas, Andes, etc. Are not the result of volcanos. The current theory, which nobody here is questioning, is that they are formed by subduction and uplifting caused by plate tectonics. We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution) but nobody has observed a mountain being formed by this process (analogous to what you call macro evolution). Yet, nobody here is questioning mountain formation by this process, but they question evolution. That is requiring a different burden of proof for a process that doesn’t violate your biased worldview, than one that does.
EG, any responsible discussion of a phenomenon needs to be factually adequate. It so happens that for the past 28 years I have lived with a ramping up then an eruption and its aftermath, including build-ups, collapses, being woken up in the night by a roar leading to a 70 kft plume and the like. It means that I am specifically familiar with a class of mountains that are in fact in some cases rapidly built and/or destroyed. That’s why I intervened above by way of an augmenting note. Going further, your attempt to suggest an analogy between mountain building and formation of body plans fails utterly: to form a novel body plan, starting with the first, an island of function has to be found by traversing a sea of non-function. This starts with protein fold domains, thus with DNA. The unwarranted assumption of a like simple accumulation of incremental changes is radically false to fact. However, all of this is further inadvertently revealing in light of other current misadventures on your part in other UD threads . . . e.g. what is your answer regarding minimal facts and the lessons of Plato. KF
KF
That is just nonsense. Incremental mountain building, which is responsible for most mountain ranges, is analogous to the micro to macro evolution proposition. You have either seen both, or not seen both.
Acartia Eddie:
That is complete nonsense and proves that you don’t know anything about biology. You have to be either a complete fool or a desperate and insipid troll to make such a nonsensical claim.
Acartia Eddie is both.
Next up, a pile of rocks that gets bigger because the cliffs above are eroding is like developmental biology.
The problem is there isn’t any testable mechanism for macro-evolution. It can’t be simulated. And what we do observe in no way supports the claim of macro-evolution.
The speed at which it happened has been questioned.
But that is moot as only a desperate and insipid troll would try to compare geology to biology. Enter Acartia Eddie
EG,
you unfortunately doubled down on an error.
Here, by an obviously false analogy between mountain building [effectively, get a big pile of rock] and creation of an entity with functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I]. To pick up the pile of rocks analogy, while incremental piling up can and does account for a mountain, only an extremely ill informed person would argue that such accounts for rocks organised to form say a slab roofed house with rooms, passages,entry ways, 90 degree corners, plumb and straight walls, etc. A good illustration is, if half your pile of rocks collapses (or explodes as with Mt St Helens 40 years back), you have a smaller mountain. If half your house collapses, you do not have a functional house.
The reason for this intuition is that we recognise functional organisation requiring intelligently directed configuration and distinguish this semiotic and purposeful process from dynamic-stochastic processes. That’s why since Plato, we have contrasted the natural [ = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity] from the ART-ificial.
The reason why there is even a debate on this, is that there is the imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism on matters of origins, through what we may term the Monod-Lewontin-Mahner-NSTA/NAS lockout. You and other inveterate objectors have been conspicuously silent in response to the recent headlining of Monod’s 1971 TV interview, building on his 1970 book, Chance and Necessity.
Just to remind:
In the book, he had written:
I challenge that it is a historically, logically warranted premise of the scientific method — even, on assumption for sake of argument that there is any such one size fits all and only scientific inferences method and demarcation criterion [there isn’t!] — that we may not infer to design on empirically warranted signs. A better understanding of science is that while we typically focus on the dynamical and/or stochastic (the “natural”), we may validly infer to ART-ificial as a relevant causal factor when signs point that way. Forensic sciences are valid sciences, similarly, archaeology. In the latter, practitioners routinely distinguish natural phenomena from archaeological on relevant signs. In the former, we often hear of accident, suicide or murder. We see, accident vs arson. We distinguish, earthquake or tornado from burglary.
So long as an intelligent agent is possible, it is reasonable to investigate whether empirical signs point to agent action. And, on trillions of cases, FSCO/I is a reliable sign of such intelligent action. In the case of the living cell, that appears in its general organisation but particularly in D/RNA, where we see coded, 4-state algorithmic information. This manifests language, functional organisation to achieve stepwise progress to a target outcome [creation of particular protein chains coming from thousands of deeply isolated fold domains . . . islands of function . . . in AA sequence space] and purpose. Those are hallmarks of design.
The core challenge for origin of life [OoL] and for origin of novel body plans {OoBP] has always been the origin of required complex, functionally specific information. You have absolutely no warrant that such algorithms can be built by always functional small stepwise increments. Indeed, the deep isolation of fold domains in AA sequence space [which already has assumed solutions to the peptide bond and chirality issues] makes such incrementalism implausible. The relevant analogy is not hill climbing on a vast continent of function but the blind search for deeply isolated islands on respurces inadequate for credible success. It is readily shown that a sol system of 10^57 atoms or an observed cosmos of 10^80 where relevant reactions may happen at rates 10^12 to 10^15 per second (and Org Chem rxns tend to be slow) will not be able to significantly search a config space of 10^150 to 10^301 elements. Where as searches are subsets of a set, search for a golden search is looking in the exponentially harder sets of scope 2^[10^150] to 2^[10^301].
Blind search is not a reasonable answer to what knowledgeable intelligence routinely produces. The text of your own posts [as opposed to random text strings and/or mechanical, repetitive patterns] is an apt case in point.
At this point, after this has been pointed out for years, the clinging to failed analogies you show above is a strong sign that you have no valid answer.
Cell based life uses language and algorithms, long before we came on the scene.
We know the only credible source of language, codes, algorithms and execution machinery, design.
Only, that does not fit with the imposed a prioris of evolutionary materialistic scientism.
Doubling down simply shows that the imposition is an ideological commitment and a key to the agendas being desired.
Fatal cracks in the foundations of evolutionary materialistic scientism stand exposed.
KF
ET, on observation over the past 25 years, I have questioned the notion that mountains are ALWAYS formed by slow cumulative increments. When it comes to island arcs with magma that is not runny like that of Hawaii, erupted materials pile up to build mountains over months, and such can collapse far more quickly than that. I have no doubt that slow-acting mountain building and erosion occur, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. It is fascinating to see the reactions to facts I have literally seen and heard [and sometimes have had to put on a dust mask and sweep away]. KF
Ed George @ 57 states:
“We have measured small scale uplifting (analogous to what you call micro evolution)”
Those measurements are observable and can be replicated, unlike macro evolution. Every theory must be based on what is observed and can be replicated. Macro evolution has never been observed and has never been replicated. It is not science, but philosophical in nature. Science requires observation and replication to be a valid theory.
Ed George
From your posts, it appears you agree that macro evolution has not been observed and has not been replicated. There are 6 steps to the scientific method.
1. Make an observation or observations. – Darwin did do this.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information. – Darwin did this.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis. Darwin did this.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced. – This has never been done by anyone.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary. – This has never been done by anyone.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. – This has never been done by anyone.
Without steps 4 – 6, it cannot be considered a valid theory.