Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Oncedeceived]

I guess we should wait for the evidence that discoveries have been hampered.

One such example is the a priori reasoning behind HIV and Aids research using Chimpanzees. After billions of dollars, Chimp studies provided excellent vaccines in which Chimps were protected from HIV and AIDS but they didn't work on humans. So sure were scientists that this connection of man and chimp that Chimps had to endure decades of such testing.

 

[Loudmouth]

One such example is the a priori reasoning behind HIV and Aids research using Chimpanzees. After billions of dollars, Chimp studies provided excellent vaccines in which Chimps were protected from HIV and AIDS but they didn't work on humans. So sure were scientists that this connection of man and chimp that Chimps had to endure decades of such testing.

So what has ID done? Where are the ID research papers on . . . well, ANTHING?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it wouldn't. A common designer of mammals and birds could create a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

What a designer could do and what a designer did is the issue. There would be no reason for there to be a mixture of mammal and bird features as both in Genesis are created in their own kind.

Common design makes no prediction of a nested hierarchy. Evolution does.

Yes it does in fact. The Genesis Narrative predicts kinds after kinds which looking at the evidence shows that there are kinds that came before the ones mentioned in the Narrative.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what has ID done? Where are the ID research papers on . . . well, ANTHING?

ID is a new branch of Science. We will have to see what comes from the research being done now.

 

[The Cadet]

One such example is the a priori reasoning behind HIV and Aids research using Chimpanzees. After billions of dollars, Chimp studies provided excellent vaccines in which Chimps were protected from HIV and AIDS but they didn't work on humans. So sure were scientists that this connection of man and chimp that Chimps had to endure decades of such testing.

...No, the problem was that HIV did not cause AIDS in chimpanzees. This was not spotted at first. It was not expected but not unrealistic. By contrast, research on SIV in monkeys led to significant progress in the fight against HIV by comparing the disparate species and finding which genes were highly conserved between them, then targeting those genes. Without common descent, these similarities make no sense, and targeting highly conserved genes is a downright incoherent concept.

 

[Loudmouth]

What a designer could do and what a designer did is the issue. There would be no reason for there to be a mixture of mammal and bird features as both in Genesis are created in their own kind.

There would be no reason why we would see a nested hierarchy if common design was true. Absolutely none. If there is no reason why common design would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not a prediction made by common design.

Yes it does in fact. The Genesis Narrative predicts kinds after kinds which looking at the evidence shows that there are kinds that came before the ones mentioned in the Narrative.

Why can't one of those kinds have a mixture of mammal and bird features?

 

[Oncedeceived]

...Right. Which is why the Discovery Institute has contributed significantly to fighting HIV and cancer.

...Oh wait, they haven't, because intelligent design makes no testable predictions that would falsify the theory. Please tell me one situation that the theory of "common design" could not accommodate. Please tell me one thing in biology that your god could not create. Intelligent design can accommodate these predictions, but it cannot justifiably make these predictions, because it is not well-defined and is not falsifiable.

You are just using scientific snobbery. Science is science, facts are facts. ID does make testable predictions, one such prediction was that "junk DNA" would have function. Scientific research is supporting this prediction.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are just using scientific snobbery. Science is science, facts are facts. ID does make testable predictions, one such prediction was that "junk DNA" would have function. Scientific research is supporting this prediction.

"It just looks designed" is not science and is not a fact.

 

[The Cadet]

You are just using scientific snobbery.

No, it is a relevant distinction. One of the hallmarks of real science is that it actually provides real, testable predictions and makes scientific advancements as a result. Intelligent design has been around for decades and has since made absolutely no forward movement. No practical advancements, no spreading acceptance within the scientific community, and not even a well-defined core hypothesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...No, the problem was that HIV did not cause AIDS in chimpanzees. This was not spotted at first. It was not expected but not unrealistic. By contrast, research on SIV in monkeys led to significant progress in the fight against HIV by comparing the disparate species and finding which genes were highly conserved between them, then targeting those genes. Without common descent, these similarities make no sense, and targeting highly conserved genes is a downright incoherent concept.

Could you provide your source on this. I am not aware of any papers that have shown human results from this study.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"It just looks designed" is not science and is not a fact.

Which is a straw man.

 

[Jan Volkes]

ID is a new branch of Science. We will have to see what comes from the research being done now.

You honestly believe that's true don't you?

Please what ever you do don't hold your breath, if they are anything like the creation scientists they will come up with a lot of excuses and a big fat zero, perhaps you would be better off waiting for the rapture because that's supposed to be due along any day now, although that's what the disciples were promised as well so I wouldn't count on that.
I wonder if someone might have told a few lies somewhere along the line? it's possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it is a relevant distinction. One of the hallmarks of real science is that it actually provides real, testable predictions and makes scientific advancements as a result. Intelligent design has been around for decades and has since made absolutely no forward movement. No practical advancements, no spreading acceptance within the scientific community, and not even a well-defined core hypothesis.

This is a red herring which shifts the focus away from the merits of ID arguments to the classification of those arguments. You claim it has been here for decades but research in evolution has been an enterprise spanning hundreds of years.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You honestly believe that's true don't you?

Please what ever you do don't hold your breath, if they are anything like the creation scientists they will come up with a lot of excuses and a big fat zero, perhaps you would be better off waiting for the rapture because that's supposed to be due along any day now, although that's what the disciples were promised as well so I wouldn't count on that.
I wonder if someone might have told a few lies somewhere along the line? it's possible.

I am not veering off into apologetic areas.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There would be no reason why we would see a nested hierarchy if common design was true. Absolutely none. If there is no reason why common design would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not a prediction made by common design.

Assertions are not facts. You have as of yet not given any valid reason that ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.

Why can't one of those kinds have a mixture of mammal and bird features?

Why would they?

 

[The Cadet]

Could you provide your source on this. I am not aware of any papers that have shown human results from this study.

Since you obviously have no intention of watching those C0nc0rdance videos, try this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16777597
I'm honestly a little shabby on my search terms for HIV, but it's worth looking into. Many of these discoveries not only aren't specifically predicted by ID creationism, but make absolutely no sense. A "highly conserved gene" makes no sense in creationism.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I am not veering off into apologetic areas.

No one is asking you to, I was foolish even to ask you a question knowing full well that you don't answer questions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you obviously have no intention of watching those C0nc0rdance videos, try this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16777597
I'm honestly a little shabby on my search terms for HIV, but it's worth looking into. Many of these discoveries not only aren't specifically predicted by ID creationism, but make absolutely no sense. A "highly conserved gene" makes no sense in creationism.

I'll look at the paper. I am on my way out pretty soon here and I want to read it all.

What do you mean by a "highly conserved gene" in creationism? Explain?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No one is asking you to, I was foolish even to ask you a question knowing full well that you don't answer questions.

I answer questions. Your questions...Yes, I believe that. No, I don't believe that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is a straw man.

Appearance of design is "it just looks designed".