Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

Considering you seem to run away from scientific ways to describe your designer and test it, I guess I see which category best fits.

I have been honest and explained the reasons why it is not necessary to explain who the designer is when it comes to proving design itself. I have also explained several times that moving the debate into proving a faith in God or even that some alien race may have been the designer is fruitless as we are dealing with something beyond the scientific verification. So how am I running away from something I have already explained. I think you just want to move things into that area because its easier for you to deal with. You can then use the good old arguments that go along with the God v science debate.

What is your alternative interpretation, and how does it better fit the observed evidence?

If you havnt got that after 50 odd pages of debate then I cant explain things any better. If you go back over the posts you will find my position stated many times. Besides I dont have to have an alternative interpretation to prove design in life and that evolution doesn't account for whats happening. To answer the OP question the laws of nature came from design.

I have a hard time taking this sort of thing seriously. Does this rhetoric pass muster in creationist circles?

Why you use the very same logic. Out of all the pages we have debated I must have posted 20 plus scientific papers and articles to support what I am saying. You have posted very little and just rebutted things with your own opinions which dont hold any credibility because you havnt supported your opinion with anything to decern whether it is true or not.

I just find it interesting that none of the sources you think are an authority on what should be replacing evolution actually agree with your idea for a replacement.

I havnt given any idea for replacement so how can you say that. As far as design is concern you will have to go back and either read or re-read those papers because there were some that specifically talked about evidence for design in life such as the engineering papers. Others talked about how the genetic evidence points to preset and determined mechanisms for how life is created and changes. Still others talk about some of the difficulties evolution theory has in explaining how new life forms are created through random mutations and natural selection. Some of the papers I have used may still support the overall idea of evolution theory but dont agree with Dawins ideas. I think you are homing in on anything that may support your ideas of evolution and rejecting the rest or at least not explaining and supporting why that is so.

So you say, but none of the people you're quoting as experts seem to do so.

Thats an extreme claim considering I have posted many papers. I could go back and find several that do and prove you wrong. Any statemnet that claims none or all can be easily disproved by just finding 1 paper that does let alone many. Heres a few to remind you
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197

 

[stevevw]

Your argument appears weak. Birds, for example, can and have evolved into different species of birds. The fact they are all birds does not deny the reality of "macro-evolution." Yes, there has been disagreement over what constitutes a species. That also means the definition you are using could be called into question and it can also mean that there are more species than we thought. Are they really but different breeds of dogs or are they really different species? A very large dog cannot mate with a very small pone. Now, being unable to mate is taken as one sign of being a separate species.

Yes birds have evolved into different birds but they are all still birds. The ability to vary those birds is the results of pre-existing genetic info that can vary size, color ect and there is no indication of any different shapes evolving into a different type of animal. There is no argument against that sort of evolution by anyone. Its when some take that and extend it to beyond a type/species level and then assume this happens all the way to turning a dino into a bird or a dog like creature (Pakicetus) into a whale. If we are talking about how a creature can morph from one type of animal to another for which Darwin's evolution theory claims then species alone doesn't explain things. As you and many have acknowledged species is too ambiguous and up for interpretation. Birds are birds and though there are different birds in which some have determined different species they are still all bird shapes. They are not becoming reptiles or visa versa. Thats the important criteria and not someones idea of what constitutes a separate species. To many different birds just means there is an awful lot of variation for birds in general just like dog breeds or any other animal ie cats, rats, bats ect.

 

[stevevw]

Someone's fibbing :

"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
Micheal Behe

Funny how the story changes when there are actual penalties for not telling the truth.

Someones not paying attention. I have re posted some a couple of posts back and if you go back through the posts I have posted others which you have either missed or not bothered to read and therefore dismissed beofre even reading them which shows you have already made up your mind no matter what the evidence may show.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes birds have evolved into different birds but they are all still birds. The ability to vary those birds is the results of pre-existing genetic info that can vary size, color ect and there is no indication of any different shapes evolving into a different type of animal. There is no argument against that sort of evolution by anyone. Its when some take that and extend it to beyond a type/species level and then assume this happens all the way to turning a dino into a bird or a dog like creature (Pakicetus) into a whale. If we are talking about how a creature can morph from one type of animal to another for which Darwin's evolution theory claims then species alone doesn't explain things. As you and many have acknowledged species is too ambiguous and up for interpretation. Birds are birds and though there are different birds in which some have determined different species they are still all bird shapes. They are not becoming reptiles or visa versa. Thats the important criteria and not someones idea of what constitutes a separate species. To many different birds just means there is an awful lot of variation for birds in general just like dog breeds or any other animal ie cats, rats, bats ect.

No, you are not quite following what I said. The fact that birds are birds does not negate the fact that birds have evolved into different species. Evolution does not assume that a dino turned into a bird or visa verse. There are many intermediate steps here. That is what you are forgetting.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Yes birds have evolved into different birds but they are all still birds.

This one is funny. So, according to you, and unlike the palaeontologists, Archies were just perching birds with no transitional features...Unlike ostriches, Archies had a bony tail (like dinosaurs)...but, somehow, Archies were not transitional between dino's and birds....And like ostriches and chickens, certain species of pregnant female egg laying dino's and Archies had medullary bones. What a coincidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have been honest and explained the reasons why it is not necessary to explain who the designer is

Why are you assuming it is a who? What in your concept of design requires it to be a who? Why can't it just be a what?

If you're going to avoid giving any details about what the designer is then you need to stop pretending that it has to have any specific attributes.

I have also explained several times that moving the debate into proving a faith in God or even that some alien race may have been the designer is fruitless as we are dealing with something beyond the scientific verification.

At least you understand what you're proposing isn't scientific in the least.

So how am I running away from something I have already explained.

By refusing to answer any questions about the nature or mechanisms of the alleged design - a design you've admitted you can't identify. You bring it up and hint at it and then run away when asked for any details about what it is you're talking about.

you havnt supported your opinion with anything to decern whether it is true or not.

Except for the quotes you omitted from the papers you're quote mining from, of course. You know, the ones which show that your interpretation of those papers has little to nothing to do with the content of them. The fact you continue to ignore those posts speaks quite loudly.

I havnt given any idea for replacement so how can you say that.

You've been talking an awful lot about a supernatural designer to just turn around and pretend you aren't. What are you trying to hide?

As far as design is concern you will have to go back and either read or re-read those papers because there were some that specifically talked about evidence for design in life

Scientific papers talking about intelligent design by a supernatural creature? I don't believe you.

Thats an extreme claim considering I have posted many papers. I could go back and find several that do and prove you wrong

Feel free, if you can.

Heres a few to remind you
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197

Which of these say that natural selection doesn't happen and needs to be replaced as a scientific concept? Please be specific.

 

[KCfromNC]

Someones not paying attention. I have re posted some a couple of posts back and if you go back through the posts I have posted others which you have either missed or not bothered to read and therefore dismissed beofre even reading them which shows you have already made up your mind no matter what the evidence may show.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Behe's the one saying that ID is just creationism in disguise - and given his role in the movement you'd think he'd know.

 

[KCfromNC]

This one is funny. So, according to you, and unlike the palaeontologists, Archies were just perching birds with no transitional features...Unlike ostriches, Archies had a bony tail (like dinosaurs)...but, somehow, Archies were not transitional between dino's and birds....And like ostriches and chickens, certain species of pregnant female egg laying dino's and Archies had medullary bones. What a coincidence.

Pretty soon he'll be telling you that all species are related to one another and can be fit into a nested hierarchy based on observing the patterns in those inherited traits. But that's just crazy-talk, obviously.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Pretty soon he'll be telling you that all species are related to one another and can be fit into a nested hierarchy based on observing the patterns in those inherited traits. But that's just crazy-talk, obviously.

Noooo. Don't say that! Linnaeus was always wrong about every part of the classification of the life we see around us! He made a few minor mistakes, but he was always wrong! About everything. And he didn't even know about the Satanist Evolution Theory! Crazy talk.

 

[Derek Meyer]

I have been honest and explained the reasons why it is not necessary to explain who the designer is when it comes to proving design itself.

The designer? Why not many designers?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Behe's the one saying that ID is just creationism in disguise - and given his role in the movement you'd think he'd know.

Yeah, wasn't it Behe who testified in court that, according to his definition of 'science', the column in newspapers called 'The stars can tell' can be classified as 'science'?

 

[Derek Meyer]

I have been honest and explained the reasons why it is not necessary to explain who the designer is when it comes to proving design itself.

No, you haven't been honest at all. Why a designer? And not many designers? And why a who and not a group of 'who's? And why not a 'who' called nature?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Which of these say that natural selection doesn't happen and needs to be replaced as a scientific concept? Please be specific.

More than that. Which of those papers stevew mentioned that genetic variation and natural selection need to be replaced as a scientific concept? Stevew, please be specific.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Theistic evolution is not creationism.

Of course it is, natural, atheistic or non-theistic evolution is not creationism. Theistic Evolution is very much Creationism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That is true about the term 'creationism." However, many of us would prefer not to be called "creationists," as this term is so closely identified with creation-science people.

Yes most everything comes down to how you define the meaning of the worlds. There are a lot of words in the Bible that are not so easy to define and for many words we would need a whole book to explain them. As John says: "I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.". (John 21:25) Dr Gerold Schroeder gets into a discussion on this. University library contain hundreds of thousands of book that cover a very small aspect or part of Evolution. Even a million books on the subject of Creationism and you are only starting to begin to understand what God has done.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes birds have evolved into different birds but they are all still birds.

Humans and chimps are still both primates, as was our common ancestor.

Humans and bears are still both mammals, as was our common ancestor.

Humans and fish are still both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor.

Humans and amoeba are still both eukaryotes, as was our common ancestor.

Using your definition, the evolution of amoeba and humans, as well as all other eukaryotes, from a common ancestor was microevolution.

The ability to vary those birds is the results of pre-existing genetic info . . .

Different species of birds have different DNA, not the same DNA.

Its when some take that and extend it to beyond a type/species level and then assume this happens all the way to turning a dino into a bird or a dog like creature (Pakicetus) into a whale.

Those are all mammals, so that would be microevolution by your definition.

If we are talking about how a creature can morph from one type of animal to another for which Darwin's evolution theory claims then species alone doesn't explain things.

Everything from humans to chimps to bears to fish to amoeba are all the same type of animal. They are all eukaryotes.

Birds are birds and though there are different birds in which some have determined different species they are still all bird shapes.

Eukaryotes are eukaryotes though there are different eukaryotes in which some have determined are different species, but they are still all eukaryote shapes.

They are not becoming reptiles or visa versa.

Birds and reptiles are both amniotes. They are the same type of animal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it is,

I just showed you that it wasn't. Theistic evolution involves the natural process of evolution which is not a part of creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes most everything comes down to how you define the meaning of the worlds.

You would have to use a different definition than what people actually use in order for theistic evolution to be creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Someones not paying attention. I have re posted some a couple of posts back and if you go back through the posts I have posted others which you have either missed or not bothered to read and therefore dismissed beofre even reading them which shows you have already made up your mind no matter what the evidence may show.

How many times have I showed you that the human lineage has acquired just 3 genes since the common ancestor shared with all other primates? How many times have you ignored it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Thats an extreme claim considering I have posted many papers. I could go back and find several that do and prove you wrong. Any statemnet that claims none or all can be easily disproved by just finding 1 paper that does let alone many. Heres a few to remind you
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

I have addressed this paper many, many, many times. Why do you ignore it?

In that paper, they mutated a beta-lactamase gene. How did they determine that the protein had no function? They tested it against ONE substrate. Just one. There are literally billions of possible substrates, yet they only looked at a single substrate.

How can you claim that a protein has no function when you only test it against one substrate?