Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[Oncedeceived]

That's what you lack. You don't have an objective experimental methodology.

Yes, we do. WE have used incredible scientific equipment with the capability to go inside the organism and observe the working order within. We observe human like designs in structure, features, systems and functions within them.

That's not an experiment with an objective methodology. Your subjective opinions of what something looks like is not objective evidence.

It is objective methodology and absolutely shows the same design features as we see in human design. If you deny that you are denying the science that show it.

That is a subjective opinion.

No, it is objective evidence for design like humans. If you want to deny it you do so outside of the scientific community. All biologists recognize what you deny. They make claims about the evidence different than I but the evidence is what it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

'
[

I have presented the scientific method and how the design is the evidence and how it is arrived at using the scientific method. Show me where I am in error.

No, you haven't. Time and again you show how the appearance of design is a subjective opinion. Never did you produce an objective methodology, unit of measure, or a statistical analysis of the experimental results.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, we do. WE have used incredible scientific equipment with the capability to go inside the organism and observe the working order within. We observe human like designs in structure, features, systems and functions within them.

That is subjective opinion. "That kinda looks like something humans have done" is not objective evidence.

If you keep repeating this nonsense, I will no longer be responding to your posts.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Except of course when there is evidence, you will deny it.

I am not walking around in circles again with you, you think you have evidence then good for you.

 

[The Cadet]

No, it is objective evidence for design like humans. If you want to deny it you do so outside of the scientific community. All biologists recognize what you deny.

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll

As for it being objective evidence, please provide a mechanism by which to discern your "evidence" from pareidolia.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um... If we're gonna play that card, it's perhaps worth noting that the "entire scientific community" disagrees with you. They don't see design. They see an illusion of design. And they say as much. You don't get to play that card, I'm sorry.

They make the "claim" that it is an illusion. They see deliberate apparent design with a purpose and then claim that this evidence is produced by evolutionary processes but provide no evidence that these processes produced the design.

Once again, we come down to this fundamental misunderstanding at the core of all of this. Evolution is not the worldview. Evolution is the model. Just like in much of physics, gravity is not a worldview, it is a model. Do you think physicists tested Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko for gravity before they launched the probe? No, of course not, because so far, everything we've tested has gravity, and we can inductively determine that it's pretty much constant. This is the case with evolution. Evolution is nearly an inherent property of life, given that life has the characteristic of descent with modification and natural selection. We see evolution in every part of life sciences, with morphology, genetics, ERV lineages, embryology, and more all producing a clear phylogeny. We know multiple examples of complex natural systems that evolve. So when we are presented with a complex natural system, the first thought is obviously "it evolved". Just like when two objects are attracted to one another, the first thought is obviously "gravity". This is the model we use to explore most of biology, and it works.

Presupposing gravity does indeed work but we don't even understand what gravity is, it doesn't fit in when using Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity only on large scales. We can "use" gravity in all applications but that doesn't mean we know how or why gravity is gravity or how it works. The same holds true with evolution in this case. We know evolution happens but as much as we do know there are tons of things we don't.

But when you see a complex system, your first thought is "it was designed". First of all, that's a very tall claim, one that requires a whole lot of evidence. Think about what you are proposing here. You are proposing the existence of some sort of intelligent entity or entities. You are proposing as evidence for these entities that something is designed. And you are proposing as evidence that that thing is designed that it looks designed. You have no objective criteria for measuring this. You have nothing beyond "it just looks that way". But we have never established design in natural systems. We have no valid point of comparison. I mean, what's more extravagant here - the claim that some entity we know nothing about created these biological systems using some technique we don't even know is possible and left no overt trace of its own existence, or the claim that complex biological systems can occur via a mechanism that we know can produce complex biological systems!

You yourself said we can detect human design. We recognize it for what it is. We see this design in living forms. We know that human design is from the mind. It seems reasonable that the design we see in nature has the same features recognizable by design of the mind in the way humans design. The valid point of design IS human design. We can validly compare human design with that design that is observed in living organism. We don't have to have physical evidence of the human engineer to know a human engineered. The same holds true of God. We don't need the physical evidence of His existence to observe the deliberate design elements and features in all living things.

The claim that there is no evidence of the flagellum evolving is false. Of the proteins indispensable for the flagellum, only two have no known homologues. We have a thoroughly workable hypothesis of how the flagellum could have evolved in individual steps with each step giving an advantage to the host. We can see intermediaries of this lineage. So you tell me - why should we not assume that just like every other system we have examined thus far, the bacterial flagellum evolved? Why should we instead assume, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that it must have been designed?

Well right off we don't know that evolution is a process devoid of intelligence to begin with. What we have in the link you provided is a already complex system unexplained by evolution being used as the starting point. Even the ones doing the research claim they are using assumptions and giving only "plausible" evolutionary models in explaining the BF. So we don't see intermediaries of this linage but a complex system that actually has been shown to be from the BF rather than the other way around and nothing is explained as to its evolutionary origin or how it arose.

No, I'm sorry, eye evolution has been a solved issue since around 1860. And the genetics has only made it clearer. The fact that you can dredge up the Peter Duesburg of molecular biology to try to make the case that this is wrong does nothing to deflect the fact that it isn't. We know the eye evolved. We know how the eye evolved. We know the individual stages involved in eye evolution. We can trace the genetics back. We can see intermediaries today throughout all of nature. The eye is a complex biological system which evolved.

Maybe's, could have's and might have been are not a solution or explanation for eye evolution. There is nothing that specifically addresses the neurological necessities involved.

And there's the shift. "Please prove that it is not designed". No. You need to prove that it is designed. And in order to do this, you need to do better than "It looks designed to me". You need to do better than "the scientific community accepts that it kinda looks designed".

No one claims, "it kinda looks designed". You are misrepresenting what biologists are claiming. I've provided the evidence in living forms that show human like design with a purpose. That is the evidence and proves that living things do not just appear like they are designed but have the features, structures, systems and functions that are engineered in the same way we see humans engineering their own designs.

I will say this again and again until you get it. You have plenty of examples of humans designing things. You have zero verifiable examples of an "intelligent designer" designing anything. For all we know, this is a characteristic example of that intelligent designer's work:

...You see no significance in that, but maybe some other entity, some other class of being does.

You are deflecting from what we actually observe to some obscure and unidentifiable picture which misrepresents what we find in living things.

You're mistaking the natural human compulsion to see patterns where there are none for an actual event. In science, we try very, very hard to filter out natural biases like this, because, well, they're biases! They corrupt our data by filtering it through our heads. And here you offer us a piece of evidence which is completely indistinguishable from a well-known, well-established bias, and you cannot offer any reliable objective criteria by which to measure it - nothing that doesn't boil down to subjective opinion. What are we supposed to make of that?

Except that is not what we have here and what we see in living organisms. The use of the technology today takes away any false sense of bias or pattern and show exactly what these systems look like, how they are structured, how they function and how that compares to human design.

This is why we refer to it as the illusion of design. Because pareidolia is a well-known and well-established bias which causes us to see the illusion of familiar patterns where none exist. And because literally all of your "evidence" for design can be discounted as pareidolia, you have nothing to work with.

That is not what is being seen. There are no vague patterns or generalities in what is observed in living organisms. Provide how these systems are false or inaccurate by way of illusion. Scientists don't claim the appearance is false or inaccurate in the sense that it exists and appears the way it is but that evolution mimics deliberate design. If something is mimicked it has to be there in the first place or it wouldn't mimic something. The claim itself refutes your Pareidolia assumption.

This was the entire point of my thread, "How Do We Detect Design". And we've still gotten nowhere.

You have already admitted how we detect design by claiming that we can detect human design.

"You are right, and anyone who disagrees with you knows that you're right. You cannot be wrong! Everyone else who disagrees is just lying. What you believe is self-evidently true and everyone knows it (even if they say they don't)."

On one hand we have the evidence of design that can be compared to human design and recognized in the same way. That is the evidence. You and others have asserted this is a false appearance but have given no evidence to show how evolution could mimic deliberate design or has. Evidence is on my side and nothing so far on yours.

That's what Romans 1:20 says. Excuse me for not being impressed in the slightest.

I will excuse you but God says He won't. That is between you and God. My point is that we can clearly see design, we are meant to see it and recognize it and we do but man denies it and makes claims that evolution alone can explain it but give no evidence of evolution producing the design we observe in living organisms.

So let's go down the list of problems with this:

• We already know design can mimic nature in multiple ways

Except design is not mimic nature. The claim is that nature is mimicking design.

• You got the nature of that mimicry backwards

• No, you do.
• 
  

• You have not provided any evidence for design that is objectively distinguishable from a well-known, well-established cognitive bias

• Yes I have. The appearance is admitted by all in the scientific community, not from any bias. The bias is attributing it to mimicking design which has no evidence to support that claim.

• You have formed a false dichotomy (what if it's neither design nor evolution, but some other, as of yet unknown natural process?)

  Ah so now you are going to assert another yet unknown natural process? One that produces the deliberate design with a purpose? More assertion. Me=evidence and you=assertions. Where is your evidence?

• You hold evolution to a standard that simply is not reasonable

• No I hold a enterprise which is suppose to rest on evidence to supply that evidence when those who are part of that enterprise make claims about it. Claims are suppose to have evidence to support them in science.
• 
  

• You ignore the inductive power of evolution as a model

  I understand the methods and mechanisms of evolution and I do not see "power" I see the laws of physics and processes that work within them. The power comes from the laws which have no natural explanation for their origins or their appearance of design either.
• You invoke Romans 1:20

That pretty much covers it, I think.

Pretty much, it shows assertion without any support on your conclusions.

Wat. This "code" read by transcription? It's chemistry. It's not "reading" in the way we read it. The ribosome is not looking at the codon and saying, "Ah, A C G, better go code for <whatever that codes for>". These simplifying abstracts that we apply become incredibly confusing when taken too far. And that's what you've done. You've taken the analogy and mistaken it for the substance. What goes on in protein coding is like what goes on in rock formation: it's a natural process based on natural laws, and we can read a perfectly functional code into it, but that code is not inherently meaningful.

I just don't even know what to say to this.

http://limbiclab.com/2012/12/02/a-c...de-of-life-produces-the-stuff-that-makes-you/

What is DNA?
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is the language used for the blueprint of an organism. It is a digital code, in some ways similar to the sequence of 0s and 1s used in binary computer code. For example, in binary coding, the sequence 0-1-0-0-0-0-1-0 represents the letter “B” whereas 0-1-0-0-1-1-0-1 represents the letter “M”. DNA, on the other hand, makes use of 4 different chemicals called nucleotides, which code for a vast multitude of organic compounds which make us.

Perhaps valuable for future reading: www.christianforums.com/threads/the-role-of-information.7898832/

Maybe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not walking around in circles again with you, you think you have evidence then good for you.

If you want to deny it...good for you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll

As for it being objective evidence, please provide a mechanism by which to discern your "evidence" from pareidolia.

This says nothing about pareidolia. What are you doing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you haven't. Time and again you show how the appearance of design is a subjective opinion. Never did you produce an objective methodology, unit of measure, or a statistical analysis of the experimental results.

I did. You have not give anything but assertions and opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is subjective opinion. "That kinda looks like something humans have done" is not objective evidence.

If you keep repeating this nonsense, I will no longer be responding to your posts.

That is subjective opinion. "That kinda looks like something humans have done" is not objective evidence.

If you keep repeating this nonsense, I will no longer be responding to your posts.

I am the only person in this entire thread that has provided evidence and support of my claims and you and others have only provided opinion and assertions. You have no evidence that supports your claims and it is very clear. I've supplied video's with the objective evidence of apparent design with purpose having the same features as human engineers design. It is objective, it won't change if you deny it, it wouldn't have changed if we couldn't get the technology to observe it. It is objectively there and claims that it is an illusion must be supported by evidence that shows evolutionary processes can mimic deliberate design with a purpose as observed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

http://ncse.com/creationism/general/ohio-scientists-intelligent-design-poll

As for it being objective evidence, please provide a mechanism by which to discern your "evidence" from pareidolia.

You have this backward. If you think this evidence is due to pareidolia (which no biologist claims) it is up to you to show it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did.

That's a flat out lie. You didn't.

"It kinda looks designed" is not a methodology. Never has been. You are completely incapable of honest dialogue. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a flat out lie. You didn't.

"It kinda looks designed" is not a methodology. Never has been. You are completely incapable of honest dialogue. Welcome to my ignore list.

And I did. Your lack of evidence that shows the design is an illusion shows you are incapable of doing so and now you have to bow out somewhat ungraciously to save face. It is very clear.

 

[The Cadet]

whoops, not done with this one, stupid mouse

 

[The Cadet]

You yourself said we can detect human design. We recognize it for what it is.

Yes. And I also said why we can do this: because we have a massive, extensive list of things designed by humans! Because we have observed humans designing things countless times, and we have an intimate knowledge of what and how humans design. And even then we're not very good at it, often mistaking natural erosion formations for megaliths left by ancient societies (and then puzzling "how could they possibly have done that") or mistaking a carefully-designed landscape for a natural one (this happens in my father's line of work from time to time). However, in both cases, we can compare and contrast each with things we know to be designed by humans and things we know not to be designed by humans to come to a reasonable conclusion. And now you're asking us to use this same error-prone mechanism to determine what is and is not designed by an entity we know nothing about, and for whom we have no examples of demonstrated design? You don't see something wrong with this?

We see this design in living forms. We know that human design is from the mind. It seems reasonable that the design we see in nature has the same features recognizable by design of the mind in the way humans design.

Why? We know nothing about this designer.

The valid point of design IS human design. We can validly compare human design with that design that is observed in living organism.

But this design is what you are trying to prove. You are trying to demonstrate that design is observed in living organisms.

We don't have to have physical evidence of the human engineer to know a human engineered.

...Wow. That is quite the statement. Care to back it up? I mean, I don't know how you could possibly observe this, as we all witness countless examples of human engineering from a very young age. We see humans build things. We observe this at every corner. There is tons of evidence of human engineering! But if you had no access to this knowledge of human engineering, no foreknowledge of what humans make, you would not consider such things this obvious. Indeed, you might look at, say, modern weaponry and wonder what spirit created it! How do I know this? Because we have literal examples of exactly this happening! Primitive cultures with no knowledge of the depth of human ingenuity encountering human engineering for the first time and assuming it to be the work of some supernatural entity.

Hmm, where have I heard that before...

So no, without the physical evidence of a human engineer, I don't think we'd know that a human engineered any given thing.

The same holds true of God. We don't need the physical evidence of His existence to observe the deliberate design elements and features in all living things.

Of course, and once you provide an objective mechanism for determining design (by a non-descript designer whose existence we have yet to establish and whose other designs are, thus far, indeterminate), I'll agree with you.

Actually, given how Christians usually consider God, it's actually worse than that. You say you can detect God's design... But don't you also believe that the God created the entire universe? So you have no control group. There's nothing to contrast it with. So how do you detect it? Whatever mechanism you're using to detect it in the bacterial flagellum, you should be able to use that same mechanism to detect it in, say, the core of the planet, or the middle of a nebulous dust cloud.

...But of course, that's getting into specific theological ideas of what the designer is (how scientific!), and I'd like to avoid that for hopefully obvious reasons. Indeed, I'd very much appreciate it if we could all stick to designer the way Behe and co. meant it: "No really guys, we're totally not talking about the Christian God, honest, we swear!"

What we have in the link you provided is a already complex system unexplained by evolution

This is like a child in a china shop demanding to drop each and every vase before he accepts that they will, in fact, shatter when dropped! You've completely missed the point. The point being that a complex system showing off the appearance of design can evolve.

So we don't see intermediaries of this linage

You mean like the type III secretory system? Which we've known about for ages?

Maybe's, could have's and might have been are not a solution or explanation for eye evolution. There is nothing that specifically addresses the neurological necessities involved.

You don't understand the evidence for evolution and I'm not really interested in giving you a crash course on it or why it matters here.

I've provided the evidence in living forms that show human like design with a purpose.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold the phone. That's an entirely different claim and you have made absolutely no aspiration towards demonstrating purpose or even clarifying what you mean by purpose!

If something is mimicked it has to be there in the first place or it wouldn't mimic something. The claim itself refutes your Pareidolia assumption.

I have made no claims that there is no such thing as design. We see human design all the time. However, when I look at something that "mimicks" human design, there is no reason it must also be designed. Not everything is designed by humans.

You have already admitted how we detect design by claiming that we can detect human design.

I have posited a model for how we detect design in general. You obviously have a different model, but you have yet to present it in any coherent way. Please present your model for how you determine what is and is not design!

On one hand we have the evidence of design that can be compared to human design and recognized in the same way.

When have you ever observed a human designing a bacterial flagellum? Or maybe I'm just lost on what you consider "design that can be compared to human design".

I just don't even know what to say to this.

http://limbiclab.com/2012/12/02/a-c...de-of-life-produces-the-stuff-that-makes-you/

What is DNA?
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is the language used for the blueprint of an organism. It is a digital code, in some ways similar to the sequence of 0s and 1s used in binary computer code. For example, in binary coding, the sequence 0-1-0-0-0-0-1-0 represents the letter “B” whereas 0-1-0-0-1-1-0-1 represents the letter “M”. DNA, on the other hand, makes use of 4 different chemicals called nucleotides, which code for a vast multitude of organic compounds which make us.

"You, the person who actually went to college for this, know more about codes and information than I (a complete layperson) do"? Again, you're mistaking the analogy for the object of the analogy.

Also, because it's in there somewhere and I missed it: you claim it's up to me to demonstrate that your claims come down to pareidolia. No. I'm sorry. The onus to demonstrate that your results are free from bias and don't fall into the most obvious psychological biases is on you.

 

[Smidlee]

"Digital code"? Okay, first of all, DNA is not a code in any meaningful sense. We impose a code onto it. What we have is a complex mess of biochemistry that can be read out as a sequence of letters. This does not mean it itself is a code in the sense of information theory. Unless you want to redefine code to somehow include DNA, in which case no, we have countless examples of a code coming into existence through non-intelligent means. Just ask the people who use the atomic structure of rocks to pass on information.

(Also, it's not "art" that I'm appealing to as a solely human endeavor, it's "metalworking", but that's a little beside the main point I want to make here.)

DNA is a digital code as even evolutionary scientist admits that much. Did you know your eyes also sends digital code to your brain? There is even many codes in living systems.
(note he is an evolutionist)

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA is a digital code as even evolution scientist admits that much. Did you know your eyes also sends digital to your brain? There is even many codes in living systems.
(note he is an evolutionist)

It is no different than the code that makes up all matter.

2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O

 

[Larniavc]

The more we know from Science the more we see design and this is not from ignorance but from what we actually observe and know about living organisms.

Could you provide an example of an organism this is designed?

 

[Smidlee]

It is no different than the code that makes up all matter.

2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O

Notice "2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O" is a code that represent matter that is not a code. Just like "apple" is a code that represent something that is red and grows on trees.

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice "2H2 + O2 ----> 2H2O" is a code that represent matter that is not a code.

All matter is code.