How We Detect Design

[Smidlee]

That is simply false. NO biologist agrees with this statement in anyway.

They seem to ignore what scientist have discovered in the last 10 years and rely on Talkorigins too much.

"On the one hand it's extremely well organized, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organized stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I've stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that's built by an engineer a million times smarter than me. The more that I search for principles beyond the ones we've already learned, the more I am overwhelmed with the feeling that this stuff was built by aliens."

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence is all over this thread.

Sound familiar?

 

[bhsmte]

They seem to ignore what scientist have discovered in the last 10 years and rely on Talkorigins too much.

What has science discovered in the last 10 years?

 

[Smidlee]

What has science discovered in the last 10 years?

More Information and design in living systems. Genetics codes within codes. So much so they they have shifted from using Darwinism mechanics which is bottom- up to engineering mechanics which is a top-down view.

 

[bhsmte]

More Information and design in living systems. Genetics codes within codes. So much so they they have shifted from using Darwinism mechanics which is bottom- up to Reverse engineering which is a top-down view.

Do you believe the consensus of Phd biologists would be the evidence that supports evolution, has strengthened in the last 10 years, or weakened?

 

[Smidlee]

Do you believe the consensus of Phd biologists would be the evidence that supports evolution, has strengthened in the last 10 years, or weakened?

If you are referring to Neo-Darwinism there is no doubt the last 10 years have weaken it. In fact there biologists looking for a "different " evolution in order to explain away the loads of information in living systems that has been discovered in the last 10 years.

Consensus of biologists will probably not change to the new evidence until many of the hardcore Neo-Darwinist die out.

 

[bhsmte]

If you are referring to Neo-Darwinism there is no doubt the last 10 years have weaken it. In fact there biologists looking for a "different " evolution in order to explain away the loads of information in living systems that has been discovered in the last 10 years.

Neo Darwinism was first termed in 1895 and is not generally accepted as the proper term for the modern theory of evolution.

So, I ask again, would you say the consensus of Phd biologists/geneticists, feel the evidence for the theory of evolution, has strengthened or weakened in the last 10 years?

 

[Smidlee]

Neo Darwinism was first termed in 1895 and is not generally accepted as the proper term for the modern theory of evolution.

So, I ask again, would you say the consensus of Phd biologists/geneticists, feel the evidence for the theory of evolution, has strengthened or weakened in the last 10 years?

I know this is false since biologist even refers to that term. (Random mutation plus NS) As history has showed the consensus of a group of scientist only changes to new evidence after many of the hardcore believers of the old theory dies out. Thus consensus doesn't mean anything.

Consensus only matter to those who wants to make science their religion.

 

[bhsmte]

I know this is false since biologist even refers to that term. (Random mutation plus NS) As history has showed the consensus of a group of scientist only changes to new evidence after many of the hardcore believers of the old theory dies out. Thus consensus doesn't mean anything.

Consensus only matter to those who wants to make science their religion.

You then hand pick people, who say things you like?

 

[Smidlee]

You then hand pick people, who say things you like?

I hand pick someone who admits he hates what he sees and still give evolution lip service. Of course I have no problem accepting that living systems were built by someone a million times smarter than man.

 

[MikeEnders]

Evolution explains why life looks the way it does.

thats a whole lot a nonsense. Evolution tells you how life may evolve once you have it it does nothing , zip , nada to tell you why life at it most fundamental level looks the way it does (dna)

come back when you read up

That "so?" is a flat out denial of the evidence.

that retort is a flat out fudge that the evidence supports atheist on the issue of life. Watching an atheist try to pretend he's got squat by way of abiogenesis (the real issue) is great entertainment though

You are a minority among a minority.

Oh the irony...an atheist claiming a theist is in the minority. sometimes you just have to grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the moment.

 

[bhsmte]

I hand pick someone who admits he hates what he sees and still give evolution lip service. Of course I have no problem accepting that living systems were built by someone a million times smarter than man.

Yes, some do indeed hate reality.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, some do indeed hate reality.

The reality he hates is the complex design of living systems. At least he honest enough to admit that designs in living system are real.

" Our understanding of the precise coiling and uncoiling of the DNA molecule, or the way that one molecule can literally walk almost robotic along the tightrope of another molecule, continue to show us again and again, this molecular clockwork is real and pervasive.'

 

[MikeEnders]

Do you believe the consensus of Phd biologists would be the evidence that supports evolution, has strengthened in the last 10 years, or weakened?

Attention....warning. Please duck your heads

Goal post move.....Goal post move......beep beep beep.

Consensus claim over discussion of evidence

 

[Oncedeceived]

More Information and design in living systems. Genetics codes within codes. So much so they they have shifted from using Darwinism mechanics which is bottom- up to engineering mechanics which is a top-down view.

I agree. When we couldn't see into the systems and subsystems with in even the cell itself it was a plausible scenario that evolution was all there was creating life (for those who didn't know God) but now we can see inside and what we find are engineered like systems that have other engineered like systems that all have to have exactly what they have to function at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

thats a whole lot a nonsense. Evolution tells you how life may evolve once you have it it does nothing , zip , nada to tell you why life at it most fundamental level looks the way it does (dna)

One of the most fundamental features of DNA across eukaryotes is that the sequence falls into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution explains this. I have yet to see a creationist explain why we would necessarily have a nested hierarchy if ID/creationism is true.

that retort is a flat out fudge that the evidence supports atheist on the issue of life. Watching an atheist try to pretend he's got squat by way of abiogenesis (the real issue) is great entertainment though

I am an atheist and I have no problem saying that I don't know how life came about. The problem is that theists pretend the supernatural is the default position. It isn't. No one has evidence of how life started. 100 years ago we didn't have evidence of other galaxies, either.

Oh the irony...an atheist claiming a theist is in the minority. sometimes you just have to grab a bag of popcorn and enjoy the moment.

A minority of people world wide are Christians. Among Christians, creationists are a minority.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you believe the consensus of Phd biologists would be the evidence that supports evolution, has strengthened in the last 10 years, or weakened?

I would say that those PhD biologists are weakening their belief in natural selection's power in the diversity of life.

 

[bhsmte]

Attention....warning. Please duck your heads

Goal post move.....Goal post move......beep beep beep.

Consensus claim over discussion of evidence

Nope, the question was directly related to a claim the poster made about scientific discoveries in the last 10 years.

Nice try though.

 

[bhsmte]

The reality he hates is the complex design of living systems. At least he honest enough to admit that designs in living system are real.

" Our understanding of the precise coiling and uncoiling of the DNA molecule, or the way that one molecule can literally walk almost robotic along the tightrope of another molecule, continue to show us again and again, this molecular clockwork is real and pervasive.'

The reality who hates? Can you be more specific and give examples?

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree. When we couldn't see into the systems and subsystems with in even the cell itself it was a plausible scenario that evolution was all there was creating life (for those who didn't know God) but now we can see inside and what we find are engineered like systems that have other engineered like systems that all have to have exactly what they have to function at all.

We also see ducks in clouds. Doesn't make them real ducks.