How We Detect Design

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Why would life not fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true?

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.

What you don't understand is that we have knowledge that you don't have. God. Scientifically we don't know either. We don't know how God created life. Science might help show us and maybe not.

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

2.2 billion people and 32% is a good portion of the world. Among Christians there are very few and I mean few that don't believe that God created the universe and all life in it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Chlorophyll originated from life. It has no non-living source.

The energy doesn't. The energy from the sun results in negative entropy within life. That is what allows life to decrease entropy.

We also see the same thing elsewhere on Earth. The Sun's energy produces temperature gradients in the oceans and moves water uphill through the water cycle.

That's like saying turtles warm in the sun and become alive.

How does a turtle start as one cell and become a large turtle in such a short time? If a single cell can turn into a turtle in a span of a few months, why is it such a problem over billions of years?

 

[Smidlee]

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

I posted a video that support my view then you turning around and completely ignore it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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 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



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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The energy doesn't. The energy from the sun results in negative entropy within life. That is what allows life to decrease entropy.

We also see the same thing elsewhere on Earth. The Sun's energy produces temperature gradients in the oceans and moves water uphill through the water cycle.



How does a turtle start as one cell and become a large turtle in such a short time? If a single cell can turn into a turtle in a span of a few months, why is it such a problem over billions of years?

Amazing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I posted a video that support my view then you turning around and completely ignore it.

I find that is the norm.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Is the rotor system in the bacterial flagellum a real rotor system or is it an illusion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would life not fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true?

Why would we necessarily see a nested hierarchy with ID? Why would a designer put all of that extra effort in to make sure DNA fits into a nested hierarchy when it is completely unnecessary?

What you don't understand is that we have knowledge that you don't have.

Beliefs are not knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable, and you haven't been able to demonstrate any.

2.2 billion people and 32% is a good portion of the world. Among Christians there are very few and I mean few that don't believe that God created the universe and all life in it.

Just more semantics to try and cover up reality.

 

[bhsmte]

I posted a video that support my view then you turning around and completely ignore it.

Yes, you post a lot of videos, so I will post this as a rebuttal.

What do you think of Francis Collin's opinion, just curious:

1. “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God‐of-the‐ gaps allowed.
2. “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.
3. The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying” (210) of the alternatives in the science/religion debate (the others being atheism or agnosticism, young‐earth creation, and intelligent design). BioLogos “will not go out of style or be disproven by future scientific discoveries. It is intellectually rigorous [and] provides answers to many otherwise puzzling questions” (210).
   Given this, a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.

http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-and-theistic-evolution/

 

[MikeEnders]

One of the most fundamental features of DNA across eukaryotes is that the sequence falls into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution explains this.

Evolution/Darwinism does not explain DNA or life. EVOLUTION 101 - it only applies or can apply once we have it. Do you have a workable proven model for abiogenesis?

Nope you have squat. Game over

I am an atheist and I have no problem saying that I don't know how life came about.

Then the intelligent position would be to leave all options on the table and admit that design is a viable option among them (especially since non design attempts have failed for the better part of a century to explain life). Thats how science is done. It leaves viable options on the table until can be proven otherwise which means at best if you truly were scientific you would admit that design is not an illogical possible option that supports the evidence better than anything else we have at the moment . Of course admitting that the other side has a logical point would hurt your feeling too much so you run around on Christian forums telling Intelligent Design advocates and other theists they are foolish even to the point where you try to fudge that

"I dunno but its not God" is an intelligent argument

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

Which still leaves you in the overall minority so your point is pointless.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would we necessarily see a nested hierarchy with ID? Why would a designer put all of that extra effort in to make sure DNA fits into a nested hierarchy when it is completely unnecessary?

Necessarily is something you have thrown in there without a reason. I ask again, why would ID not be true if life falls into a nested hierarchy?

Beliefs are not knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable, and you haven't been able to demonstrate any.

If you go to some far off island and tell the natives there who have never seen modern life at all that there is something that exists inside them that works like a machine but you don't have the means in which to show them, does that mean you don't have true knowledge of that system?



Just more semantics to try and cover up reality.[/QUOTE]

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, you post a lot of videos, so I will post this as a rebuttal.

What do you think of Francis Collin's opinion, just curious:

1. “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God‐of-the‐ gaps allowed.
2. “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.
3. The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying” (210) of the alternatives in the science/religion debate (the others being atheism or agnosticism, young‐earth creation, and intelligent design). BioLogos “will not go out of style or be disproven by future scientific discoveries. It is intellectually rigorous [and] provides answers to many otherwise puzzling questions” (210).
   Given this, a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.

http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-and-theistic-evolution/

And this is the very reason I posted a video that you can't claimed he using the "God of the gaps". The evidence by itself points to God even when the scientist refuses to go there. This is exactly what I expect to find if God is Truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps they are failing to mention that there are no designers of new systems in nature,
specifically non-living natural elements. So the source of intelligence and design must be
supernatural as natural is ruled out.

I don't know about you, but I have very natural parents and I was produced by the very natural process of biological reproduction. Do you think you were magically poofed into being?

It's like living in LEGO city and noticing that the blocks are not bright enough to have
designed themselves and built the city as well.

Do LEGO cities come about through natural processes like humans do?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, you post a lot of videos, so I will post this as a rebuttal.

What do you think of Francis Collin's opinion, just curious:

1. “Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for crisis if advances in science subsequently fill those gaps” (p. 93). We cannot use causal action by a transcendent intelligence to explain puzzling natural phenomena. In short, no God‐of-the‐ gaps allowed.
2. “Darwin’s framework of variation and natural selection,” but especially Darwin’s picture of a Tree of Life—the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth—“is unquestionably correct” (141). Universal common descent by natural processes is scientifically non‐negotiable. The theory of neo‐Darwinian evolution cannot rationally be doubted by any educated person.
3. The best way to reconcile the propositional content of a transcendentally grounded morality with modern evolutionary theory is what Collins calls “BioLogos,” his renaming of “theistic evolution.” BioLogos is “not intended as a scientific theory” (204), but it is “by far the most scientifically consistent and spiritually satisfying” (210) of the alternatives in the science/religion debate (the others being atheism or agnosticism, young‐earth creation, and intelligent design). BioLogos “will not go out of style or be disproven by future scientific discoveries. It is intellectually rigorous [and] provides answers to many otherwise puzzling questions” (210).
   Given this, a reasonable Christian will find herself embracing theistic evolution—BioLogos—if she wishes to be heard in our current culture.

http://www.equip.org/article/no-god-of-the-gaps-allowed-francis-collins-and-theistic-evolution/

Personally he believes that God created the universe and life in it. He as even ID proponents believe that evolution occurs. There are some that disagree with his stance on Common descent but so what?

 

[bhsmte]

And this is the very reason I posted a video that you can't claimed he using the "God of the gaps". The evidence by itself points to God even when the scientist refuses to go there.

What do you think of Collins support, for the modern evolutionary theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

Necessarily is something you have thrown in there without a reason.

Then you are admitting that ID does not predict a nested hierarchy while evolution does.

I ask again, why would ID not be true if life falls into a nested hierarchy?

Why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy with ID?

If you go to some far off island and tell the natives there who have never seen modern life at all that there is something that exists inside them that works like a machine but you don't have the means in which to show them, does that mean you don't have true knowledge of that system?

I do have machines that can show structures in cells. I can show them structures inside of cells.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

What do you think of Collins support, for the modern evolutionary theory?

I wonder if you accept Collins belief in God? I haven't keep up with Collins beliefs much.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know about your, but I have very natural parents and I was produced by the very natural process of biological reproduction. Do you think you were magically poofed into being?

Excuse me for responding to a post meant for you SkyWriting but I just have to...this is a straw man. Burn it.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution/Darwinism does not explain DNA or life. EVOLUTION 101 - it only applies or can apply once we have it. Do you have a workable proven model for abiogeneis?

Nope you have squat. Game over

Abiogenesis?

Talk about moving the goalposts!!!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you are admitting that ID does not predict a nested hierarchy while evolution does.

I am admitting no such thing. I am asking you to provide a reason why ID would not create life that falls into a nested hierarchy?

Why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy with ID?

Why wouldn't we.

I do have machines that can show structures in cells. I can show them structures inside of cells.

Where is your evidence?

how?