Evidence for Design (2)

[bhsmte]

I can supply Behe's entire testimony if you want. You will see for yourself, in context how he was forced to admit that ID is not science, and that if the definition of science were changed to include ID, astrology would also be included.

Gradyl wouldn't like that very much.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Complex organic structures do not design themselves from the bottom up. From simple to complex. Intelligent designers do that.

So does evolution.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Is that your way of getting around God's word? "Think for yourself"?

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

That includes you and me.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

I don't agree with some of the ideas of ID theory. Just as I don't agree with some the the ideas of evolution theory. It doesn't make either a lie. Open your eyes to God's words and think with the Holy Spirit.

In order to agree or disagree with the ideas of evolution theory, you would to understand it, and so would have to have put in a large amount of study in the specific area of science where you disagree. Have you done that?

As for opening my eyes with god's word, and thinking with the holy spirit, I have no problem with doing that. So far god hasn't spoken to me or filled me with the holy spirit, so I guess I'll have to continue not believing in him.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

you WANT ID to depend on the supernatural so you can set up a nice strawman. It doesn't however, and you are perturbed by this. (BC depends on the supernatural not ID)

Actually, a court (with a Christian judge I believe), found that ID was a form of Christianity, and therefore an attempt to bring god into the classroom.

 

[EternalDragon]

So does evolution.

You only have faith in the scientists that tell you they think evolution can build complex structures with enough time and chance. There is no factual proof for it.

I don't think you realize that to be alive as you are there are numerous complex systems, working together, that all have to be already present.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You only have faith in the scientists that tell you they think evolution can build complex structures with enough time and chance. There is no factual proof for it.

You are completely incorrect. All of the structures that ID claims are too complex to pop into existence can be shown to have developed through evolution from simpler structures.

It works like this:

1. ID proponents claim a structure is too complex to have popped into existence, and thus must have been "intelligently designed".

2. Scientists show how that structure developed from simpler structures.

3. ID proponents realize they were proven wrong.

4. Go to step 1.

I don't think you realize that to be alive as you are there are numerous complex systems, working together, that all have to be already present.

I do. I've studied biology at university. You learn a lot about evolution there, and how the complex structures of today came from much simpler structures in the past through evolution. The cool thing is there is evidence galore to take you through all the stages. Amazing stuff.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

well that original quote I gave was a little outdated, see irreducible complexity has been overwritten with a new idea......specified complexity. DNA is a great example. See DNA if evolved would be useless unless the language was invented to read and write to build proteins. The language is almost more intricate than the DNA itself. Say you didn't read english. Then this post would be gibberish. It's useless but since you and I have agreed that "ENGLISH" is the accepted language here to speak, we can now communicate. Not that other languages are not welcome but the simply would not communicate to the vast majority here who are english speakers. Same thing with DNA it would evolve by chance having 100% right handed amino acids bonding in some liquid somewhere (which was not watery or it would fail), and somehow making itself come together by chance chemistry of only right handed amino acids. Taking all of this, it still would be useless without a language, a language with much more writing and language than 100's of libraries of books. In one DNA double helix.

this is an example of CSI.

So evolution of traits, features and complex functions is fine as long as you can wedge your designer into the origin of life gap.

 

[Davian]

You only have faith in the scientists that tell you they think evolution can build complex structures with enough time and chance. There is no factual proof for it.

I don't think you realize that to be alive as you are there are numerous complex systems, working together, that all have to be already present.

Where did you read that? Or did you just make that up?

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, a court (with a Christian judge I believe), found that ID was a form of Christianity, and therefore an attempt to bring god into the classroom.

I don't know a lot about the dover case details, but they were misled. There is a lot of information online about it.

try here
Intelligent Design the Future

here
Intelligent Design the Future

and here
Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of <i>Kitzmiller v. Dover</i> Not Holding Up Well - Evolution News & Views

 

[createdtoworship]

I can supply Behe's entire testimony if you want. You will see for yourself, in context how he was forced to admit that ID is not science, and that if the definition of science were changed to include ID, astrology would also be included.

I would like that, thanks ollie. I am sure you won't like what I find out either.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I don't know a lot about the dover case details, but they were misled. There is a lot of information online about it.

try here
Intelligent Design the Future

here
Intelligent Design the Future

and here
Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of <i>Kitzmiller v. Dover</i> Not Holding Up Well - Evolution News & Views

Who was misled? Me, or the judge?

Those articles are from biased sites, so I would never consider them reliable sources, or use them in a paper. The name of the site is "evolutionnews.org". That is a deceitful name, because this site is clearly about intelligent design news. Why would I believe anything posted at a site that is blatantly and purposefully deceitful?

From browsing those articles, their main thrust seems to be trying to convince the reader that ID is true. AFAIK, the judge didn't allow ID into schools because ID was an attempt to have the Christian bible taught in school.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not a quote mine. There's no quote. You can't quote mine without an actual quote. That's why it's called 'quote mining'...because there's a quote. That's mined. From a source. No quote - no quote mine.

Also, I'd like to point out that you're (erroneously) accusing someone of quote mining, when you actually have a legit quote mine in your signature, one that's been pointed out to you numerous times and yet you refuse to change.

wait, until He provides that actual material. Until then HE is guilty as charged.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know a lot about the dover case details, but they were misled. There is a lot of information online about it.

try here
Intelligent Design the Future

here
Intelligent Design the Future

and here
Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of <i>Kitzmiller v. Dover</i> Not Holding Up Well - Evolution News & Views

I would think you would investigate the Dover case to educate yourself. Or is it, you don't want to acknowledge what happened in an environment, where evidence had to be presented and witnesses were under oath?

 

[createdtoworship]

You haven't actually answered the question. Telling me that DNA is an example of CSI doesn't tell me how CSI is detected, or how it's objectively measured in any real fashion. Claiming that something has 'high levels' of CSI implies that there's some way to tell how much CSI something has, that there are units involved, standards of measurement, a way to objectively test for it and get the same results. Otherwise, it's like saying an object has 'high levels of prettiness'. It doesn't actually mean anything.

have you read actually any of the links posted, obviously not. I suggest scrolling, and reading. Thank you for your time.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are completely incorrect. All of the structures that ID claims are too complex to pop into existence can be shown to have developed through evolution from simpler structures.

It works like this:

1. ID proponents claim a structure is too complex to have popped into existence, and thus must have been "intelligently designed".

2. Scientists show how that structure developed from simpler structures.

3. ID proponents realize they were proven wrong.

4. Go to step 1.


I do. I've studied biology at university. You learn a lot about evolution there, and how the complex structures of today came from much simpler structures in the past through evolution. The cool thing is there is evidence galore to take you through all the stages. Amazing stuff.

Yes, they can "show" it on paper but they have never seen it, tested it nor repeated it. Nature does create simple and then on up to complex structures.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would think you would investigate the Dover case to educate yourself. Or is it, you don't want to acknowledge what happened in an environment, where evidence had to be presented and witnesses were under oath?

to be honest, bluntly....

the conversation has not dictated that I need to educate myself (not worth the extra effort)

(thats not a compliment)

but I don't feel bad because I have proof that people on here don't read my links, listen to podcasts I post etc etc, simply because they don't like the title of the Blog, etc.

 

[createdtoworship]

Who was misled? Me, or the judge?

Those articles are from biased sites, so I would never consider them reliable sources, or use them in a paper. The name of the site is "evolutionnews.org". That is a deceitful name, because this site is clearly about intelligent design news. Why would I believe anything posted at a site that is blatantly and purposefully deceitful?

From browsing those articles, their main thrust seems to be trying to convince the reader that ID is true. AFAIK, the judge didn't allow ID into schools because ID was an attempt to have the Christian bible taught in school.

I say similiar things when I don't actually want to do any homework regarding what was said. BUt what I know it also means is this....laziness. As we all know now that you didn't read a shred of that link, nor listened to a shred of that podcast (s).

 

[createdtoworship]

So evolution of traits, features and complex functions is fine as long as you can wedge your designer into the origin of life gap.

It was a hypothetical. No amino acid can choose 100% right handed amino acids in a watery substance and bond itself. It is very near impossible. I mean the chances are like one chance in 1 times 10 to the 100th power. But I cant remember the real number so I rounded down. I believe it was in the 300's not the 100's but could be wrong.

basically obsurd to believe, or a miracle, or both.

evolution of DNA simply did not happen by mere chance any more than I can walk on water ( a miracle).

 

[bhsmte]

to be honest, bluntly....

the conversation has not dictated that I need to educate myself (not worth the extra effort)

(thats not a compliment)

but I don't feel bad because I have proof that people on here don't read my links, listen to podcasts I post etc etc, simply because they don't like the title of the Blog, etc.

Of course its not worth the effort, because it would derail the agenda. Why would you waste time learning about the testimony of an ID proponent when they are under oath and a little more likely to be truthful?

 

[biggles53]

I would like that, thanks ollie. I am sure you won't like what I find out either.

Knock yourself out, truth seeker.......

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 10, AM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 10, AM: Michael Behe (continued)
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 10, PM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 10, PM: Michael Behe (continued)
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, AM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, AM: Michael Behe (continued)
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 11, PM: Michael Behe (continued)
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe (continued)
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, PM: Michael Behe (continued)