Natural selection v Intelligent design

[bhsmte]

All it would take for a reasonable person to be persuaded of purposeful, intelligent, yes elegant, design, would be to peruse "Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body".

You mean this intelligent design that is prone to disease, relatively poor eye site compared to some animals, increased danger of choking because we breath through the same opening we eat. This list goes on and one of the flaws.

 

[paulm50]

Ideally you would like to think that would be the case with science. But unfortunately there are humans behind science who are subject to a host of other motivations and influences that can divert their good intentions and ideals. Whether its religious people or scientists its all the same. They are human beings who can misrepresent things. Its not the religion itself or the science but the people behind it.

Scientists dont always catch others out and there is an inherent tendency to allow certain things to slip. Its the system and its like governments who know that some injustice or misrepresentation is being made but dont want to know about it because it will force them to have to deal with situations that may upset people or institutions that hold sway over them. Its like a club that only allows a certain way of thinking and anything different is frowned upon. There is a certain element of faith in what evolutionists believe as well as some things are based on assumption.
http://theconversation.com/scientists-falter-as-much-as-bankers-in-pursuit-of-answers-21136
Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

You write as if this is a level subject. When in fact it's so one sides it's impossible to present evidence from outside the bible of most of it until Jesus. All we know about him is a few few writings from Roman Historians.

When science gets it wrong, scientists find out, it's very hard to hide mistakes as people build on others work. As Pshun points out, they get caught.

When the bible is found to be wrong, fundamentalist dismiss it. Refusing to accept it can be wrong. Show us where scientist have got Archeology in the Middle East, evolution and Darwinism wrong. As far as the bible is concerned that all that matters.

If you want I can show you where people translating the bible got creation of the Universe wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Indeed it is not admitted by many but it is a fact. Many articles peer reviewed and accepted and published have later been discovered by non-members of the review committee in these fields to be full of misstatement, fudged data, and outright fraud and only upon pressure from the non-committee criticisms were papers and articles retracted. In these cases it is usually other more honest scientists who bust these charlatans but the issue for me is the 5 or 6 not caught or missed for the every one that gets caught....

In 2012, R Grant Steen of Medical Communications Consultants, out of Chapel Hill, NC, pointed out that “Scientific papers are retracted for many reasons including fraud (data fabrication or falsification) or error (plagiarism, scientific mistake, ethical problems). Growing attention to fraud in the lay press suggests that the incidence of fraud is increasing.”

So in fact, cases of scientific fraud are increasing not decreasing. Allegedly there were 8 times as many fraudulent presentations discovered and retracted in 2009 than in 2006. This means that as more of these frauds are being exposed, the greater the fervency to commit more seems to be occurring. In other words, some scientists are intentionally determined to do whatever is necessary toconvince, shape, and engineer, public and professional opinion that they will even lie and misrepresent data. For every one they catch (and even trying to catch them is only something new) four or five escape notice and IMO brainwash us (we believe it is sound because it is published in a Peer Reviewed Journal).

In an article from the “National Institute of Health” we receive this report (EMBO Rep. 2007 January; 8(1): 1). “Fraud in our laboratories?”, by Frank Gannon, who informs us that “With depressing regularity, the media continue to uncover cases of scientific fraud... although the scientific community regards publicized cases of fraudulent behavior as exceptional and deviant from accepted scientific standards—fraud is an inevitable component of today's research.”

So how many “finds” and “determinations” believed in today, are actually the result of these spurious interpretations, fudged statistics, and/or doctored data? How many have escaped notice and now plague the modern mind? More than have been caught I assure you. He states these people are not above disregarding and not reporting data that is contrary to their own alleged conclusion. How many or which ones can we or should we consider factual beyond a reasonable doubt?

In another article titled, “Scientific fraud and the power structure of science” (Prometheus, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 1992, pp. 83-98), author Brian Martin tells us, “One of the most common misrepresentations in scientific work is the scientific paper itself (see P. B. Medawar, 'Is the scientific paper fraudulent? Yes; it misrepresents scientific thought', Saturday Review, 1 August 1964, pp. 42-43). It sometimes presents a mythical reconstruction of what actually happened. All of what are in retrospect mistaken ideas, badly designed experiments, and incorrect calculations are omitted. The paper presents the research as if it had been carefully thought out, planned and executed according to a neat, rigorous process, for example involving testing of a hypothesis.

"The misrepresentation in the scientific paper is the most formal aspect of the misrepresentation of science as an orderly process based on a clearly defined method (see John A. Schuster and Richard R. Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986).” So in effect, “No scientist publishes all the raw data…Inappropriately done (usually according to someone else's assessment), this process can be called cooking, trimming, fiddling, fudging or forging the data.”

Sadly when this occurs the story you are told, that the press goes crazy with, that textbooks may represent as established fact, are in fact hogwash but yet we believe them all unquestionably as students. Never accept or reject solely on the basis of the premise that "it is sound if accepted and published in Peer Reviews Journals".

Paul

I agree well said.

 

[stevevw]

You write as if this is a level subject. When in fact it's so one sides it's impossible to present evidence from outside the bible of most of it until Jesus. All we know about him is a few few writings from Roman Historians.

When science gets it wrong, scientists find out, it's very hard to hide mistakes as people build on others work. As Pshun points out, they get caught.

When the bible is found to be wrong, fundamentalist dismiss it. Refusing to accept it can be wrong. Show us where scientist have got Archeology in the Middle East, evolution and Darwinism wrong. As far as the bible is concerned that all that matters.

If you want I can show you where people translating the bible got creation of the Universe wrong.

It depends how you look at it. In some ways I have found presenting any evidence that has the slightest connection to religion is quickly rejected. Even when the people involved are experts in their fields and they may be correct. They dont even get the chance to present their case most of the time. There have been many cases where pressure and unfair treatment has been placed on people working in science fields and organizations because they dared to speak up against what was being presented.

There are many occasions when scientists get it wrong especially with evolution. But like religion they dont admit its wrong they just change the rules of the game. The amount of times they have found new fossils which have changed the dates of others fossils has been enormous. Its OK to say thats what science does but when they made the original predictions they claim they are right and never qualify it with we could be wrong. If you read prehistoric books or listen to any docos you will hear a whole lot of made up stuff that is presented as fact. It has never been verified but is assumed. But later when evidence comes out to show they were wrong it is swept under the carpet.

There are countless examples where archeologists have made a fossil into something it wasn't only to been found out later. They read a lot of things into a bit of old crumbling bone. Sometimes its more about getting a name for yourself and discovering the next great fossil than truth. We all know what people think of religion. Its been pointed out many times that they have covered up stuff in the past. But we dont hear it much from the evolutionists side. They can be just as dogmatic and above reproach as anyone.

 

[pshun2404]

When one looks at the evidence around and inside us. The coccyx, appendix, dead scent glands, our gills, etc. Proof of humans evolving from fish, to mammals, to monkeys to Humans. The evidence is all there.

Science, the ability to get it wrong, admit it, correct and go forward.
Religion never ever accept mistakes, never admit it, never correct and never go forward.

That list is hillarious! Thanks....

 

[pshun2404]

Dead matter does not possess the innate information necessary to produce the array of organized information packed structural and functional variation of the simplest life forms

Dead matter is not autocatalytic (it does not start doing things on its own, it MUST BE acted upon)

The principle of causality states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.

Dead matter never organizes itself under its own power.

Dead matter does not produce living things (it can do nothing on its own)

It is logical therefore to infer some past action by an intelligent cause simply because of the presence of such an information packed effect… (info packed and regulating effect necessitates an info packed and regulating cause)

Information does not create itself…and blind chance has zero information. The Universe we see is very lawful and in many ways and places guided by reliable principles. Laws govern they do not make or form or create anything. Laws exist. Their cause therefore must also be lawful.

Information theorists are more and more moving toward intelligence in design (explore the Pre-Coded Equilibrium model) because whenever probabilities are configured (even using the most liberally defined conditions and factors) the probabilities against a Universe (especially life) evolving by chance is beyond zero probability mathematically in a 20 billion year old Universe.

Question: “Well then why then does the atheist insist on such an incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?

Answer: Because without it they cannot remain an atheist!

 

[paulm50]

It depends how you look at it. In some ways I have found presenting any evidence that has the slightest connection to religion is quickly rejected. Even when the people involved are experts in their fields and they may be correct. They dont even get the chance to present their case most of the time. There have been many cases where pressure and unfair treatment has been placed on people working in science fields and organizations because they dared to speak up against what was being presented.

What evidence? Because when it comes to evolution, the evidence against Genesis is huge.

There are many occasions when scientists get it wrong especially with evolution. But like religion they dont admit its wrong they just change the rules of the game. The amount of times they have found new fossils which have changed the dates of others fossils has been enormous. Its OK to say thats what science does but when they made the original predictions they claim they are right and never qualify it with we could be wrong. If you read prehistoric books or listen to any docos you will hear a whole lot of made up stuff that is presented as fact. It has never been verified but is assumed. But later when evidence comes out to show they were wrong it is swept under the carpet.

Show us the evidence that proves Genesis.

There are countless examples where archeologists have made a fossil into something it wasn't only to been found out later. They read a lot of things into a bit of old crumbling bone. Sometimes its more about getting a name for yourself and discovering the next great fossil than truth. We all know what people think of religion. Its been pointed out many times that they have covered up stuff in the past. But we dont hear it much from the evolutionists side. They can be just as dogmatic and above reproach as anyone.

But the bible doesn't even include these animals. Or anything like them. As for dogmatic LOL.

 

[paulm50]

Dead matter does not possess the innate information necessary to produce the array of organized information packed structural and functional variation of the simplest life forms

Dead matter is not autocatalytic (it does not start doing things on its own, it MUST BE acted upon)

The principle of causality states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause.

Dead matter never organizes itself under its own power.

Dead matter does not produce living things (it can do nothing on its own)

It is logical therefore to infer some past action by an intelligent cause simply because of the presence of such an information packed effect… (info packed and regulating effect necessitates an info packed and regulating cause)

Information does not create itself…and blind chance has zero information. The Universe we see is very lawful and in many ways and places guided by reliable principles. Laws govern they do not make or form or create anything. Laws exist. Their cause therefore must also be lawful.

Information theorists are more and more moving toward intelligence in design (explore the Pre-Coded Equilibrium model) because whenever probabilities are configured (even using the most liberally defined conditions and factors) the probabilities against a Universe (especially life) evolving by chance is beyond zero probability mathematically in a 20 billion year old Universe.

Question: “Well then why then does the atheist insist on such an incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?

Answer: Because without it they cannot remain an atheist!

The discovery of DNA puts your theory in the bin. Embryos aren't dead, a bone in our body isn't dead. So how do you explain dinosaurs?

Question: “Well then why then do the faithful insist on such an incredibly improbable explanation for the universe?

Answer: Because without it they cannot remain faithful.

Read the original version of Genesis, written in Ancient Hebrew, to see what they said about the Universe. The later version was changed when they realised it was very wrong.

 

[paulm50]

The problem is blind faith believers apply a level of scrutiny on science they will never apply on the bible.

Genesis is wrong about the creation in the order it happened, the first thing was the big bang, so the Universe came first, not lights in the sky. A collection of Suns and Planets Stone Age Men had no concept of.

It makes it happen in a series of days, the separation between one day and the next. There's no mistaking this for anything other than a 24 hour day. But many do try to twist that.

The first people in the Middle East weren't Humans. They were a branch of the Hominid family. The fist Humans were a group of Africans walking out of Africa and succeeding.

For 500,000 years were Hunter Gatherers, by the time farming arrived, Home Sapiens and Neanderthals were mixing in Europe and having children.

By the time Cain left Adam and Eve, there were other communities. No explanation for them in the bible.

Noah is an older story than Judaism and there's no evidence of a great flood, the size of his boat was to small to carry anything but a tine percentage of the 3,000,000 species we have on Earth today.

Moses. No evidence of an exodus. None whatsoever. The seven plagues are natural events.

The problem the Fundamentalists have is all they can work from is a very limited book. Trying to fill between the lines to make what's very wrong, seem plausible.

And yet when it comes to parts they don't like, they can drop them like a stone. If Genesis is 100% right, the old laws are right, Jesus said we should keep them. When did he say otherwise?

 

[pshun2404]

When it comes to evolution, the evidence against Genesis is huge.

Yes I suppose a literal interpretation is what you mean regarding chapters 1-4 (maybe 6 in the opinion of some). After all Genesis is not supposed to be a textbook, nor a scientific explanation. It is a generalization meant to be communicated to an ancient people in a way they would comprehend. It describes a series of cycles through which God brought all things into being (forget the time thing that YECs insist on). In Genesis we see the development or becoming of the Universe and humankind as a series of progressive processes…first the cosmic ordering and development of planets and stars, then regarding a specific planet the development of seas and dry land, then the first life of two kinds becoming in the seas. One set of forms of creature and plantlife directly created and then in the Hebrew God commands the seas to bring forth kinds (species) like those already there, then land creatures and plants are created first and then He commands the earth to bring forth kinds (species)…the words “after their own” are not there in the Hebrew only the post Greek/Roman translations…then humankind whose bodies are made of the same elements of the earth…then a second creation of other animals that have nephesh (soulish qualities…affection, preference, lower order intelligence, etc.) and so on....

Show us the evidence that proves Genesis.

The glitch in this reasoning comes from the word “proves” because what one accepts as “proof” is subjective. One cannot expect to “prove” or even understand super, supra, or beyond natural by purely materialistic means. This would be like a being who has only existed inside one little corner of a box with limited perceptual abilities, who only knows things only as they are relative to their self, trying to explain and or understand or describe outside of the box or even how the box got there.

But the bible doesn't even include these animals. Or anything like them.

Yes it does…behemoth and leviathan are examples, however the Bible does not purport to have all knowledge OR all truth. It purports that what it says is true (that’s quite different). So even when it reports say Peter’s lie (that he did not know Jesus) it is not the lie that is the truth (God forbid) but it is true that he lied. There are many, many, things that are true that the Bible does not address because it is only about man’s condition and how it can be remedied. For example 2 things plus 2 things are 4 things all total….the Bible never mentions anything about this but that does not mean it is inadequate or that the axiom is not true…it is simply irrelevant to the purpose of this library (biblios).

If a biologist came to a certain conclusion regarding some fact, and over time more than 29 others, some from different fields, in different nations, came to the same conclusion you would probably buy into it without question. This is exactly what the Bible is…..a conclusion reached by as many from as many walks of life on different continents over 1500 years (many having empirically tested the protocols) and all deriving the same conclusion.

So just because the Bible (a library of different authors) does not tell us all there is to know about all things (which no source or knowledge does) does not mean they are not real according to the Bible. Like when Job Cousteau tells us the Lord speaks about the recesses (trenches) of the deep (the oceans) or about the fountains of the deep, we believed they were there even though it took 1,000s of years for science to finally catch up. We were called crazy by many but yet there they are and now they are common knowledge formerly only spoken of as from an outside source at a time no one could possibly have known about them. So see there are some interesting truths within it but it is not meant to contain ALL truths (because they are irrelevant to its purpose).

 

[pshun2404]

The discovery of DNA puts your theory in the bin. Embryos aren't dead, a bone in our body isn't dead. So how do you explain dinosaurs?

On the contrary they prove it. How did DNA develop and where and from what? The atheist believes it became from dead matter....the law of causality refutes that possibility, the laws of probability refute that possibility, the nature of information refutes that possibility....now you can waste your time with endless pages quoting those who support the erroneous idea but that does not prove a thing. The high level of encoded information instruction in DNA regarding form and function in living things requires a cause equal in information/instruction capability. It does not exist outside of living things. If life is an effect in creatures in this Universe then life had to be in the cause and dead matter is not alive, therefore dead matter on its own cannot be the cause of living things.

 

[paulm50]

When it comes to evolution, the evidence against Genesis is huge.

Yes I suppose a literal interpretation is what you mean regarding chapters 1-4 (maybe 6 in the opinion of some). After all Genesis is not supposed to be a textbook, nor a scientific explanation. It is a generalization meant to be communicated to an ancient people in a way they would comprehend. It describes a series of cycles through which God brought all things into being (forget the time thing that YECs insist on). In Genesis we see the development or becoming of the Universe and humankind as a series of progressive processes…first the cosmic ordering and development of planets and stars, then regarding a specific planet the development of seas and dry land, then the first life of two kinds becoming in the seas. One set of forms of creature and plantlife directly created and then in the Hebrew God commands the seas to bring forth kinds (species) like those already there, then land creatures and plants are created first and then He commands the earth to bring forth kinds (species)…the words “after their own” are not there in the Hebrew only the post Greek/Roman translations…then humankind whose bodies are made of the same elements of the earth…then a second creation of other animals that have nephesh (soulish qualities…affection, preference, lower order intelligence, etc.) and so on....

Show us the evidence that proves Genesis.

The glitch in this reasoning comes from the word “proves” because what one accepts as “proof” is subjective. One cannot expect to “prove” or even understand super, supra, or beyond natural by purely materialistic means. This would be like a being who has only existed inside one little corner of a box with limited perceptual abilities, who only knows things only as they are relative to their self, trying to explain and or understand or describe outside of the box or even how the box got there.

But the bible doesn't even include these animals. Or anything like them.

Yes it does…behemoth and leviathan are examples, however the Bible does not purport to have all knowledge OR all truth. It purports that what it says is true (that’s quite different). So even when it reports say Peter’s lie (that he did not know Jesus) it is not the lie that is the truth (God forbid) but it is true that he lied. There are many, many, things that are true that the Bible does not address because it is only about man’s condition and how it can be remedied. For example 2 things plus 2 things are 4 things all total….the Bible never mentions anything about this but that does not mean it is inadequate or that the axiom is not true…it is simply irrelevant to the purpose of this library (biblios).

If a biologist came to a certain conclusion regarding some fact, and over time more than 29 others, some from different fields, in different nations, came to the same conclusion you would probably buy into it without question. This is exactly what the Bible is…..a conclusion reached by as many from as many walks of life on different continents over 1500 years (many having empirically tested the protocols) and all deriving the same conclusion.

So just because the Bible (a library of different authors) does not tell us all there is to know about all things (which no source or knowledge does) does not mean they are not real according to the Bible. Like when Job Cousteau tells us the Lord speaks about the recesses (trenches) of the deep (the oceans) or about the fountains of the deep, we believed they were there even though it took 1,000s of years for science to finally catch up. We were called crazy by many but yet there they are and now they are common knowledge formerly only spoken of as from an outside source at a time no one could possibly have known about them. So see there are some interesting truths within it but it is not meant to contain ALL truths (because they are irrelevant to its purpose).

Read the original version.

 

[paulm50]

The discovery of DNA puts your theory in the bin. Embryos aren't dead, a bone in our body isn't dead. So how do you explain dinosaurs?

On the contrary they prove it. How did DNA develop and where and from what? The atheist believes it became from dead matter....the law of causality refutes that possibility, the laws of probability refute that possibility, the nature of information refutes that possibility....now you can waste your time with endless pages quoting those who support the erroneous idea but that does not prove a thing. The high level of encoded information instruction in DNA regarding form and function in living things requires a cause equal in information/instruction capability. It does not exist outside of living things. If life is an effect in creatures in this Universe then life had to be in the cause and dead matter is not alive, therefore dead matter on its own cannot be the cause of living things.

DNA proves we came out of Africa and all of us, other than Africans are related to one family. A second and maybe third Hominid species to walk out of Africa. Add those that never made the journey and it's clear we evolved. So your Adam and Eve theory is wrong, very wrong. It also proves we mated with Neanderthals, long before we became farmers. Even Bronze Age Man could understand the concept of hunters. If DNA is dead, it no longer exists, which is why there's none from Dinosaurs that reliable. Until we discover a way to make it live again.

Yes the information in DNA is what makes us all different and what we are, like it does every living creature, alive or long extinct. It may not exist outside living things, but that's silly. Ask any doctor or mortician. All this information wasn't dumped into all the species at one time, it evolved by trial and error. We have a tailbone, gills that adapted into ears, etc.

Dead matter can be the cause of living things. Leave a loaf of bread for a week and see how life's created. Leave it there 1,000,000 years and see what it becomes.

As for Ancient Man thinking fossils they found were dragons, just a small mistake. Made by many races, the Chinese are still fond of their dragons, and China is full of fossils. Thinking that explains all the species that came before us, is absurd. Thinking it explains Dinosaurs from tiny ones like Compsognathus (chicken size) to Argentinosaurus (88–110 tons) and a vegetarian. Is silly and if Man had been around at the time. There would be a lot more dinosaur DNA and bones not fossils.

 

[stevevw]

What evidence? Because when it comes to evolution, the evidence against Genesis is huge

Genesis is mans description of Gods creation. It doesn't mean this is exactly how it happened. It's is not meant to be a science explanation. We have to understand the stories in the context of how people saw things some 3 or 4 thousand years ago. They couldn't have known what we know today so there is a totally different way of thinking here. So why should we be trying to put 21st century meanings into these texts.

But one thing that does ring true in the genesis story is that there has to be a supreme being who must have been responsible for bringing something from nothing and life from non life. Because not even the greatest minds with all the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years can work that one out and never will. Even the scientists agree that the universe must have had a beginning. So something greater than the universe and life must have been responsible for that beginning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genesis is mans description of Gods creation. It doesn't mean this is exactly how it happened. It's is not meant to be a science explanation. We have to understand the stories in the context of how people saw things some 3 or 4 thousand years ago. They couldn't have known what we know today so there is a totally different way of thinking here. So why should we be trying to put 21st century meanings into these texts.

But one thing that does ring true in the genesis story is that there has to be a supreme being who must have been responsible for bringing something from nothing and life from non life. Because not even the greatest minds with all the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years can work that one out and never will. Even the scientists agree that the universe must have had a beginning. So something greater than the universe and life must have been responsible for that beginning.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[stevevw]

Argument from ignorance.

So your saying there is an explanation for how something comes from nothing and how life comes from non life. Its not an argument from ignorance because we can use the very reasoning and logic that science uses to see that its impossible.

 

[durangodawood]

....Dead matter never organizes itself under its own power.....

The power comes from the sun.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So your saying there is an explanation for how something comes from nothing and how life comes from non life. Its not an argument from ignorance because we can use the very reasoning and logic that science uses to see that its impossible.

No, I'm pointing out your fallacy.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm pointing out your fallacy.

what is the fallacy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

what is the fallacy.

Argument from ignorance.