Evidence for Design (2)

[FatBurk]

Gradyll, why don't you learn more about evolution and use your new found knowledge to argue against it?
surly if it's so wrong it has got to be easy to blow holes in it.

 

[biggles53]

nipples on men? Easy.....

"Anyway, both male and female babies are born with the main milk ducts intact--the gland that produces milk is there in the male, but it remains undeveloped unless stimulated by the female hormone, estrogen. "


in an secular article that says "male nipples are hardly vestigial"

The Straight Dope: Why do men have nipples?

as far as the rest of those, i.e. chicken with teeth etc....those are all mutation, not the original intent of the organism. So those would be the only real case of vestigial organs.

which defeats the purpose of your argument, being that

"if vestigial organs exist, God messed up"

Grady....get real...

Your argument is that living things are they way they are because they've been designed.....

Fine...then tell me why men were designed with nipples. Why whales were designed with hind limbs that aren't used. Why we get goose flesh. Why the Mexican Cave Fish were designed with eyes that don't work.

The evolutionary theory has perfectly sensible answers to these issues...

Where are yours....?

 

[OllieFranz]

are you saying that right handed amino acids can form proteins? This is obviously wrong.

And you know that I said nothing of the kind. I never mentioned amino acids at all. I merely stated the fact that existing proteins that are similar but not exactly the same can perform the same functions, even in cases (like phyto-estrogens) where their original function is totally unrelated.

And the statistical analysis is extremely biased toward the old earth, evolutionary model. Believe me, it was generous.

Observation of a fact trumps speculation of the probability before the observation.

I usually use lotteries to show this is so no matter how small a probability is calculated, and I will again if you insist, but I recently had to establish the very truth of the statement itself on another thread, and suspect I have to do that first here before I show that the size of the probability does not affect the truth of the statement.

Based on your parents' blood types, and their genes, we can predict, as an example, that there is a 25% chance that your blood type will be AB. That means that there is a 75% chance that it will not be AB. It is much more likely that you will not be AB. But then you have your blood tested, and it turns out that you are AB. It does not matter whether the chances were calculated at 10% or 100%, you are AB and nothing will ever change that.

 

[OllieFranz]

if you have 3 bottles and one contains water with sugar and the other two just water.

it is one chance in three that you would have sweet water.

does that make sense?

there is no statistical assumptions being made here.

And after you know which one has the sugar, it is the one with the sugar, and the others are the ones without. 100% certainty in all cases. After-the-fact knowledge trumps before-the-fact speculation.

 

[OllieFranz]

I didn't see the second part of your post. You illustrate your point with plant life which does not compare to animal cells. So how is this a proving of your point?

As I already stated, two different but very similar proteins, "designed" to function completely separately in wildly different biological organisms can be substituted for one another without loss of function. Even big differences are not a bar to functioning, but it can lead to complications. That is why the opiates, anabolic steroids, and other drugs are proscribed by the medical profession, except under specific guidelines and constant monitoring, and why they are often banned or highly regulated even by the secular government

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...

so not enough time ,

and not enough stuff.

therefore the only option is

it is designed that way.

You seem to be saying: "I don't understand how it could have happened, so god must have done it".

I don't see how the default position for a lack of understanding is "god did it". That isn't evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

You seem to be saying: "I don't understand how it could have happened, so god must have done it".

I don't see how the default position for a lack of understanding is "god did it". That isn't evidence.

I don't usually use a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but in this type of situation it fits. But it actually isn't an argument from silence IF there is no other reason FOR the organisms in existence, is there?

I await for your response.

 

[createdtoworship]

And after you know which one has the sugar, it is the one with the sugar, and the others are the ones without. 100% certainty in all cases. After-the-fact knowledge trumps before-the-fact speculation.

just showing basics of statistical analysis. Thats all. IF one glass has sugar and the other two do not, there is one chance in three of producing a sweet drink from a random choosing. Now taking all that we have discussed into consideration, there is very very little chance of producing even one protein successfully from chance chemistry. Not even getting into DNA we are talking simple proteins right now.

 

[createdtoworship]

And you know that I said nothing of the kind. I never mentioned amino acids at all. I merely stated the fact that existing proteins that are similar but not exactly the same can perform the same functions, even in cases (like phyto-estrogens) where their original function is totally unrelated.



Observation of a fact trumps speculation of the probability before the observation.

I usually use lotteries to show this is so no matter how small a probability is calculated, and I will again if you insist, but I recently had to establish the very truth of the statement itself on another thread, and suspect I have to do that first here before I show that the size of the probability does not affect the truth of the statement.

Based on your parents' blood types, and their genes, we can predict, as an example, that there is a 25% chance that your blood type will be AB. That means that there is a 75% chance that it will not be AB. It is much more likely that you will not be AB. But then you have your blood tested, and it turns out that you are AB. It does not matter whether the chances were calculated at 10% or 100%, you are AB and nothing will ever change that.

what in my example was speculation?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I don't usually use a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, but in this type of situation it fits. But it actually isn't an argument from silence IF there is no other reason FOR the organisms in existence, is there?

I await for your response.

Hmmm, "God of the Gaps". Had to google that to see what it meant. In other words, I'm inexperienced, be gentle!

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. It seemed you said that it was impossible for something to happen, so it must have been magic.

 

[FatBurk]

Look at the devastation around them and he's asking her if she thanks the lord??
What for? destroying all the houses in the town and killing dozens of people?? come on....
Ha! Wolf Blitzer Asks Atheist Tornado Survivor If She 'Thanked The Lord' - YouTube

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmmm, "God of the Gaps". Had to google that to see what it meant. In other words, I'm inexperienced, be gentle!

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. It seemed you said that it was impossible for something to happen, so it must have been magic.

exactly that, Without the magic. It was designed, I never said that supernatural agents were involved although they could be.

 

[FatBurk]

I never said that supernatural agents were involved although they could be.

How would we know if they were? how could we tell?

 

[createdtoworship]

How would we know if they were? how could we tell?

in 2009, Stephen Meyer argues that, "Though the designing agent
responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the
theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine
that."

once you mention supernatural elements are involved you introduce faith and religious textbooks. I am talking science only, not that the supernatural contradicts science....but that I believe it to be metaphysical or beyond the scope of science. You have BC biblical creationism which debates creationism with a hint of ID through the Biblical argumentation, and you have ID intelligent design theory, ID doesn't use the Bible at all, in fact some evolutionists are ID and are on staff at discovery institute. So anyway, they are mainly involved in science and Intelligence in the designing of the universe, many of them Christians and many of them NOT. So I try to discuss ID instead. And ID specifically states that the nature of the designer is not a subject of ID.

Now mentioning all of this, I think science does point to a super natural diety, but that theory is not ID it's more of the BC that I adhere to as well.

Some of these arguments lie in the fact that

why the soul is eternal and why hell must be as well
the weight of an empty CD is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

The mass of the CD is .8 ounce, and will remain .8 ounce regardless of whether its burned or not. It's the pattern of neg (0) and pos (1) polarity of the existing particles already on the disk that make up what we call "software", not whether the disk is empty (which it is not) or full (also, which it is not)

the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes.

a quote from an essay on information
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...3_2_96-102.pdf

time is the fourth dimension (a physical property)

so the soul is outside of time


Beyond Time and Space with Chuck Missler - YouTube


Time a Physical property - YouTube

 

[OllieFranz]

in 2009, Stephen Meyer argues that, "Though the designing agent
responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the
theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine
that."

once you mention supernatural elements are involved you introduce faith and religious textbooks. I am talking science only, not that the supernatural contradicts science....but that I believe it to be metaphysical or beyond the scope of science. You have BC biblical creationism which debates creationism with a hint of ID through the Biblical argumentation, and you have ID intelligent design theory, ID doesn't use the Bible at all, in fact some evolutionists are ID and are on staff at discovery institute. So anyway, they are mainly involved in science and Intelligence in the designing of the universe, many of them Christians and many of them NOT. So I try to discuss ID instead. And ID specifically states that the nature of the designer is not a subject of ID.

Now mentioning all of this, I think science does point to a super natural diety, but that theory is not ID it's more of the BC that I adhere to as well.

Some of these arguments lie in the fact that

why the soul is eternal and why hell must be as well
the weight of an empty CD is .8 ounce. But a completely full one is still .8 ounce. Software has no mass, but controls the way the machine operates.

The mass of the CD is .8 ounce, and will remain .8 ounce regardless of whether its burned or not. It's the pattern of neg (0) and pos (1) polarity of the existing particles already on the disk that make up what we call "software", not whether the disk is empty (which it is not) or full (also, which it is not)

the soul is just the software of the human body...it's information in the neurons

all non-material entities (e.g. information,
consciousness, intelligence and will) are massless and thus
have zero weight. Information is always based on an idea;
it is thus also massless and does not arise from physical
or chemical processes.

a quote from an essay on information
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...3_2_96-102.pdf

time is the fourth dimension (a physical property)

so the soul is outside of time


Beyond Time and Space with Chuck Missler - YouTube


Time a Physical property - YouTube

Sorry, but you can't pretend that ID is not intimately entangled in the Supernatural, and therefore not science. A natural designer would be an alien from another planet or something similar. If it is not a supernatural God, then you still have the question of how life emerged and developed in the place that our designer came from.

 

[FatBurk]

in 2009, Stephen Meyer argues that, "Though the designing agent
responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the
theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine
that."
****Edited to save space****

I will ask again, How would we know if they were? how could we tell?

Perhaps you could also explain what the 'supernatural' is?

 

[EternalDragon]

Sorry, but you can't pretend that ID is not intimately entangled in the Supernatural, and therefore not science. A natural designer would be an alien from another planet or something similar. If it is not a supernatural God, then you still have the question of how life emerged and developed in the place that our designer came from.

ID does not name or concern themselves with the designer. Much as evolution claims not to associate their theory with abiogenesis.

ID theory uses the exact same science and evidence that evolution uses.

 

[biggles53]

ID does not name or concern themselves with the designer. Much as evolution claims not to associate their theory with abiogenesis.

ID theory uses the exact same science and evidence that evolution uses.

BS............describe one mechanism by which ID could be falsified.......

 

[OllieFranz]

Sorry, no. Think it through.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, no. Think it through.

"Think", that is the key word here.

But, it doesn't solve the issue at hand, because some people can only "think" according to their individual psychological needs to want to believe in something.

So, they "think" of ways of defending their believe, of protecting it, instead of "thinking" along the lines of accepting evidence and understanding it if it goes against their belief.