• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Bible-Creation-Evolution (3)

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How would you determine that it is intelligently designed? Would you compare it to something that wasn't?
You were given the evidence for intelligent design. The level of integrated complexity. Refute it. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant here.



You're not getting my point. People who intelligently design computer systems to not add redundant, useless complexity. Humans have redundant, useless complexity.
Saying complexity is useless doesn't make it any less complex.

Explain why we as humans have the Vitamin C and Uric acid metabolism genes, but they are mutated and don't work? Who intelligently designed that? Because of this, we are at risk for developing scurvy.
From - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2 -
Consider Dr. Theobald’s primary example, the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene, which is one of the genes required for the synthesis of vitamin C. Assuming this is a bona fide pseudogene in humans, meaning a nonfunctional version of a gene that was functional at some point in the human lineage, it says nothing about the origin of the ancestor that possessed the functioning gene. That ancestor could have been independently created or could have descended from a creature that had been independently created. So this entire line of argument cannot do what Dr. Theobald needs it to do.
As with other vestigial structures, it is difficult to identify bona fide vestigial genes. We simply do not know enough to be able to declare definitively that any given series of nucleotides has absolutely no function. As molecular biologist Pierre Jerlstrom recently noted:
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by, e.g., editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have. (Jerlstrom, 15.)​
The possibility of an undiscovered function has become even greater with the recent sequencing of the human genome. Though humans may have as many as 300,000 proteins, it turns out that they have only about 30,000 genes.[SIZE=-1][[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]17][/SIZE] Thus, the genome is even more complex than previously believed. As J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics explained in the press conference announcing the sequencing of the human genome:
[O]ur understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes—some 30,000—supports the notion that we are not hard wired. We now know the notion that one gene leads to one protein, and perhaps one disease, is false.
One gene leads to many different protein products that can change dramatically once they are produced. We know that some of the regions that are not genes may be some of the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We now know that the environment acting on our biological steps may be as important in making us what we are as our genetic code. (Bethell, 52.)



And this doesn't change the fact that adaptation which is limited cannot produce a human in the first place.

Not "simple"..."efficient".
The integrated complexity of the current state of efficiency determines that human cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. A Corolla could have been as efficient as Leaf. Just because I don't like the Corolla doesn't mean it can be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.


You have no evidence of limits.
Already given


Our bodies are really only good at getting us through the reproductive years. After that, cholesterol kills us because we don't have an effective way of getting rid of it. Poor design.
Cars can't effectively get rid of rust. Still intelligently designed. The design of the human system determines that it is far too complex to be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.
 
Upvote 0

Lion Hearted Man

Eternal Newbie
Dec 11, 2010
2,805
107
Visit site
✟26,179.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
You were given the evidence for intelligent design. The level of integrated complexity. Refute it. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant here.

The only way to tell if something is intelligently designed is to compare it to something that isn't, right? How else can you define something as intelligently designed?

Saying complexity is useless doesn't make it any less complex.

Than this guy is more complex than us!
Polychaos dubium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
670 billion base pair genome...ours has 2.9 billion base pairs

From - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 2 -
Consider Dr. Theobald’s primary example, the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene, which is one of the genes required for the synthesis of vitamin C. Assuming this is a bona fide pseudogene in humans, meaning a nonfunctional version of a gene that was functional at some point in the human lineage, it says nothing about the origin of the ancestor that possessed the functioning gene. That ancestor could have been independently created or could have descended from a creature that had been independently created. So this entire line of argument cannot do what Dr. Theobald needs it to do.
As with other vestigial structures, it is difficult to identify bona fide vestigial genes. We simply do not know enough to be able to declare definitively that any given series of nucleotides has absolutely no function. As molecular biologist Pierre Jerlstrom recently noted:
Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by, e.g., editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have. (Jerlstrom, 15.)​
The possibility of an undiscovered function has become even greater with the recent sequencing of the human genome. Though humans may have as many as 300,000 proteins, it turns out that they have only about 30,000 genes.[SIZE=-1][[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]17][/SIZE] Thus, the genome is even more complex than previously believed. As J. Craig Venter of Celera Genomics explained in the press conference announcing the sequencing of the human genome:
[O]ur understanding of the human genome has changed in the most fundamental ways. The small number of genes—some 30,000—supports the notion that we are not hard wired. We now know the notion that one gene leads to one protein, and perhaps one disease, is false.
One gene leads to many different protein products that can change dramatically once they are produced. We know that some of the regions that are not genes may be some of the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We now know that the environment acting on our biological steps may be as important in making us what we are as our genetic code. (Bethell, 52.)



And this doesn't change the fact that adaptation which is limited cannot produce a human in the first place.​


I'm not interested in your copy/paste garbage from creationist websites. All they're basically saying is "oh, well that could have a function, so you it's unfair to say it's a pseudogene." Rubbish. This person is not demonstrating another function of the gene, but rather speculating.

The integrated complexity of the current state of efficiency determines that human cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. A Corolla could have been as efficient as Leaf. Just because I don't like the Corolla doesn't mean it can be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Your use of technobabble exceeds your understand of biology.


Already given

Not to the satisfaction of people who understand science.


Cars can't effectively get rid of rust. Still intelligently designed. The design of the human system determines that it is far too complex to be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Yawn. This is getting tiring.

AV is way more fun to talk to than you. At least he admits where his deficits in his understanding of science are.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,282
52,673
Guam
✟5,161,312.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
162
Ohio
✟5,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
That's my position. Same for the Great Pyramid. Do you have the data btw?

How do you figure that the human body is too complex to arise from naturalistic means?

You know it happens every time for every human that's ever been born, right?

All the data and evidence points towards biological evolution. All of it.
 
Upvote 0

sublime911

Newbie
Dec 4, 2010
125
4
California
✟22,780.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
In my [right to have an] opinion, God embedded this stuff in the earth, as it will be used to rebuild the earth after it is pretty-well destroyed during the Tribulation Period.

In other words, oil deposits, quartz, whatever you guys find will be used for the next dispensation.

When I see word choices like this, this just tells me you're using me to vent some kind of anger or frustration at God.

No real scientist would use words like that, unless he has a real problem with authority -- in my opinion.

I don't think you're here to learn -- as your word choice attests -- I think you're just here to vent.

Please get someone else to cater to you, or reword your question(s) with respect to God -- or I'm not interested in answering them.

I dont know any other way to put it. Your the one who believes that God screwed, im sorry "messed" with the sedimentary layer, I believe its an impact crater. And I dont not believe in God, I just have very strong doubts about the your version of the Christian one.
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I don't want to discuss anything after the first 24 hours of the universe.

Then you're in luck! It happened millions of years ago, long before the first 24 hours!

I'm trying to get you to understand what happened, and you are chomping at the bit to get me into a scientific discussion.

And it's not going to happen.

You want us to understand what happened? Fine. You can start by telling us why the evidence shows you are wrong.

You don't get it, do you, AV? When you and reality disagree, then we're going to go with reality.

Until you deal with that, you won't be able to tell us anything that contradicts reality and have us believe it.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand how people can deny the intelligent design of man.. It's incredible really.
Intelligent design of man? You are joking aren't you? Whoever designed man is a lousy designer to say the least. He gave Eagles sharp vision. Sharks unlimited sets of teeth. Tortoises longevity. Hippos incredible immune systems. Sharks total immunity to cancer. Cheetahs incredible speed. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Man? Well he made sure man looses his teeth with age while allowing his almost useless fingernails to continue growing till his death! Teeth are vital for survival while fingernails are secondary.

If I were the boss of this designer I would sack him for his total incompetence!
 
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
Intelligent design of man? You are joking aren't you? Whoever designed man is a lousy designer to say the least. He gave Eagles sharp vision. Sharks unlimited sets of teeth. Tortoises longevity. Hippos incredible immune systems. Sharks total immunity to cancer. Cheetahs incredible speed. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Man? Well he made sure man looses his teeth with age while allowing his almost useless fingernails to continue growing till his death! Teeth are vital for survival while fingernails are secondary.

If I were the boss of this designer I would sack him for his total incompetence!

Don't forget joints that wear out after a few decades of hard work!
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Don't forget joints that wear out after a few decades of hard work!
Babylon mon, dis joint don't wear none, dis is more better design dan your knee joint mon!
Fat-Ass-Joint.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Intelligent design of man? You are joking aren't you? Whoever designed man is a lousy designer to say the least. He gave Eagles sharp vision. Sharks unlimited sets of teeth. Tortoises longevity. Hippos incredible immune systems. Sharks total immunity to cancer. Cheetahs incredible speed. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Man? Well he made sure man looses his teeth with age while allowing his almost useless fingernails to continue growing till his death! Teeth are vital for survival while fingernails are secondary.

If I were the boss of this designer I would sack him for his total incompetence!
Man gave airplanes the ability to fly and at the same time designed cars which get stuck in traffic. I can also call a car a lousy design. None of this refutes the fact that the integrated complexity found in cars breaches the threshold of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Likewise, none of the above quoted even comes close to refuting the high level of complexity found in man or the fact that it easily at the current level of complexity breaches the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.
 
Upvote 0
K

knowledgeIsPower

Guest
Man gave airplanes the ability to fly and at the same time designed cars which get stuck in traffic. I can also call a car in my opinion a lousy design. None of this refutes the fact that the integrated complexity found in cars breaches the threshold of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Likewise, none of the above quoted even comes close to refuting the high level of complexity found in man or the fact that it in my opinion easily at the current level of complexity breaches the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes while being even more complex than a car.
Fixed that for you. Please don't try to present your opinions as facts it almost as dishonest as your F1 car strawman argument.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟19,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Fixed that for you. Please don't try to present your opinions as facts it almost as dishonest as your F1 car strawman argument.

The facts are there to draw a conclusion. That's how the great pyramid was determined to be intelligently designed. It wasn't based on a time machine showing design, the predictions of intelligent design ruling out every naturalistic unintelligent process which has not been presented by apyramidbuildersists ,how to conclusively calculate design, or any of the time buying tactics employed here. The integrated complexity found in the Great Pyramid is too high and specified to have emerged by chance. Then we have texts. That's basically it. If there is a case against that then present it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
162
Ohio
✟5,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The facts are there to draw a conclusion. That's how the great pyramid was determined to be intelligently designed. It wasn't based on a time machine showing design, the predictions of intelligent design ruling out every naturalistic unintelligent process which has not been presented by apyramidbuildersists ,how to conclusively calculate design, or any of the time buying tactics employed here. The integrated complexity found in the Great Pyramid is too high and specified to have emerged by chance. Then we have texts. That's basically it. If there is a case against that then present it.

You keep bringing up the pyramids. We know the pyramids and cars and ceiling fans are built by man because:
1 - There are no known natural means which would allow for such structures, unlike what the evidence shows for biological evolution.
2 - We can see people making buildings today, so we know for a fact that people make buildings. People do not assemble living things. All living things are made from naturalistic means: sexual or asexual reproduction.

The very fact that we can have sex, and make babies that look slightly different from their mom and dad is proof of genetic variation. Babies are made using natural process and babies carry varied genetic information using this natural process.

Greg: YOU ARE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,804
15,254
Seattle
✟1,194,263.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Man gave airplanes the ability to fly and at the same time designed cars which get stuck in traffic. I can also call a car a lousy design. None of this refutes the fact that the integrated complexity found in cars breaches the threshold of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Likewise, none of the above quoted even comes close to refuting the high level of complexity found in man or the fact that it easily at the current level of complexity breaches the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.


What is the threshold of purely naturalistic processes? How was it determined and what quanta are used to measure it? What is the formula for testing something to determine if it was intelligently designed or not?
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Man gave airplanes the ability to fly and at the same time designed cars which get stuck in traffic. I can also call a car a lousy design. None of this refutes the fact that the integrated complexity found in cars breaches the threshold of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Likewise, none of the above quoted even comes close to refuting the high level of complexity found in man or the fact that it easily at the current level of complexity breaches the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.
I am not questioning man's intelligence but this so called intelligent designer. Whichever way you look at it, man is a sorry bit of engineering. For an intelligent being capable of designing the whole universe; He sure did a lousy job with man. And to add insult to injury he even claimed us to be his perfect creation:confused:

I am in the engineering field and if you ask me I could have done a better job at designing man! :angel:

I mean no insult to the religious and I mean no insult to their God, but since Greg you never mention a God but an intelligent designer then I question this intelligent designer's ability to design anything intelligently. ^_^
 
Upvote 0