How We Detect Design

[bhsmte]

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

Why would I have to accept his belief in God, to respect his scientific credentials and the work he has done as a world renowned geneticist?

 

[MikeEnders]

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

Thats accurate. Its coming in pieces. It takes decades in most cases to overturn a dogma (as they say Science correcting itself) but you can already see major scientists questioning and rejecting elements of evolution that have been taught to the public for years

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution.

With studies in epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, molecular convergence etc many of the dogmatic claims made by darwinist are beginning to unravel. They of course will hang on to their dogma for years to come but the real questiosn are arising and pieces of the dogma are unravelling already.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Right, I wonder what bshmte thinks of Collin's belief in God? You know what he will say? He will say it gives him comfort.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution then evolution.

That is such a cop out.

We have presented you with multiple OBSERVED mechanisms which includes but not limited to natural selection, speciation, mutation, and genetic drift. What mechanisms of design have you offered? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

When Darwin wrote the Origins Of Species evolution could explain how life could look as it did. It could provide a general explanation to why life was as life was then. I think that if Darwin had the information and technology today, the lack of transitional fossils and resources we have today even he would doubt about the ability of natural selection to create it all.

Really? Darwin wrote an entire chapter called "On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record" in "The Origin of Species" as to why we don't see numerous and fine gradations of transitional fossils, and he is still correct today. The reason we have an imperfect fossil record is because we have an imperfect geologic record.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

"We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created."

Perhaps you should . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK.

The problem is that I have seen no evidence that can explain that evolution can provide evidence that the design seen in the structures and functions in living organisms can be produced by evolution alone.

And shifting the burden of proof once again. Even if evolution were false, you would still have zero evidence for ID.

See this is your problem. Real scientists working in the field do see it. Those who have a bias towards materialism say it is an illusion and those who have a bias towards design believe it is true design. Regardless of what interpretation is placed upon it, all see the appearance of design.

Where is your evidence that design is real?

 

[[serious]]

Loudmouth was implying that non-life became life in this way. Are you as well?

You are misunderstanding him. Loudmouth is educated enough to know that the first life was almost certainly chemotrophic, not phototrophic. Photosynthesis evolved later leading to the oxygen crisis. He popped in after a chain of conversation that touched on entropy, leading to the obvious point that we have a massive ball of energy fueling all those entropy decreases we see in life. The origins of life are a separate issue from evolution and both are separate from the entropy red herring.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would I have to accept his belief in God, to respect his scientific credentials and the work he has done as a world renowned geneticist?

You are misrepresenting him if I am misrepresenting Dawkins because it is the same thing. He doesn't believe that there is no God.

 

[bhsmte]

Thats accurate. Its coming in pieces. It takes decades in most cases to overturn a dogma (as they say Science correcting itself) but you can already see major scientists questioning and rejecting elements of evolution that have been taught to the public for years

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution.

With studies in epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, molecular convergence etc many of the dogmatic claims made by darwinist are beginning to unravel. They of course will hang on to their dogma for years to come but the real questiosn are arising and pieces of the dogma are unravelling already.

Do any of the scientists that have doubts about the significance of the role of natural selection, still agree that evolution happens?

 

[MikeEnders]

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

Nope you switched to "consensus' rather than talk evidence. Poor try

 

[Smidlee]

Why would I have to accept his belief in God, to respect his scientific credentials and the work he has done as a world renowned geneticist?

From what I can remember of Collins arguments he basic makes the case he doesn't believe God would do something so evolution did it.
IIRC Collins have admit he was wrong about junk DNA.

You seem to make the mistake a few in my church makes. They act if someone votes or stand against something that the pastor is for it means you are against the pastor or not respecting his office.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought this thread was about design and ID.

Would challenge anyone to show me how I misrepresented Collins, or retract that CLAIM.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

Real scientists disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope you switched to "consensus' rather than talk evidence. Poor try

?????????????????????

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are misunderstanding him. Loudmouth is educated enough to know that the first life was almost certainly chemotrophic, not phototrophic. Photosynthesis evolved later leading to the oxygen crisis. He popped in after a chain of conversation that touched on entropy, leading to the obvious point that we have a massive ball of energy fueling all those entropy decreases we see in life. The origins of life are a separate issue from evolution and both are separate from the entropy red herring.

Well thank you so much for your imput serious, I am educated "enough" to know the principles and conditions on earth and the earliest life forms that are held in the fossil record. I am not as sure as you are that he wasn't implying a life from non-life scenario. If not fine.

 

[bhsmte]

From what I can remember of Collins arguments he basic makes the case he doesn't believe God would do something so evolution did it.
IIRC Collins have admit he was wrong about junk DNA.

You seem to make the mistake a few in my church makes. They act if someone votes or stand against something that the pastor is for it means you are against the pastor or not respecting his office.

You then disagree with Collin's scientific findings then and what he concludes from the evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

Real scientists disagree.

How do you determine who are the REAL scientist. Collins has been wrong before so he could be wrong again.

You then disagree with Collin's scientific findings then and what he concludes from the evidence?

Like you wrote this thread is not about what Collins believe. Just like that video I posted I can accept his science but doesn't have to accept his faith in evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

From what I can remember of Collins arguments he basic makes the case he doesn't believe God would do something so evolution did it.

"I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

It isn't just "materialists" and atheists who are saying this. It is Christian scientists as well. Do you really think God would create a nested hierarchy of transposons and ERV's just to fool us?

IIRC Collins have admit he was wrong about junk DNA.

Given your record thus far, I think we will need to see some direct quotes.

 

[MikeEnders]

You are misunderstanding him. Loudmouth is educated enough to know that the first life was almost certainly.

Absolute - obvious fudge worthy - illogical - needs help - weak - drop down and can't get up - uneducated in itself nonsense. You cannot possibly claim to be almost certain about anything in regard to "the first life" since no one has any certain evidence about it. this is what darwinists do - FAKE that they have evidence they don't have. FAKE that they have certainty when they don't and in this case substitute unproven theories, guestimates and conjectures as approaching certainty.

If you have solved the issue of abiogenesis to the point of mentioning anything about certainty then stop hanging around here and go collect your Nobel award.

take a bow for the most ridiculous fudge of certainty posted on CF

 

[Smidlee]

"I mentioned the ancient repeats we share with mice in the same location showing no conceivable evidence of function, diverging at a constant rate just as predicted by neutral evolution. One could only conclude that this is compelling evidence of a common ancestor or else that God has placed these functionless DNA fossils in the genome of all living organisms in order to test our faith. I do not find that second alternative very credible. After all God is the greatest scientist. Would he play this kind of game?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

It isn't just "materialists" and atheists who are saying this. It is Christian scientists as well. Do you really think God would create a nested hierarchy of transposons and ERV's just to fool us?



Given your record thus far, I think we will need to see some direct quotes.

It's so simple that a caveman can understand it. Just as an atheist can accept Collin's "science" and reject his belief in God so can I accept Collin's "science" and reject his belief in evolution.

Note that quote above is not scientific but Collins idea of what God would or wouldn't do. That's a religious statement.

 

[bhsmte]

Absolute - obvious fudge worthy - illogical - needs help - weak - drop down and can't get up - uneducated in itself nonsense. You cannot possibly claim to be almost certain about anything in regard to "the first life" since no one has any certain evidence about it. this is what darwinists do - FAKE that they have evidence they don't have. FAKE that they have certainty when they don't and in this case substitute unproven theories, guestimates and conjectures as approaching certainty.

If you have solved the issue of abiogenesis to the point of mentioning anything about certainty then stop hanging around here and go collect your Nobel award.

take a bow for the most ridiculous fudge of certainty posted on CF

Amusing attempt at muddying the waters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is such a cop out.

We have presented you with multiple OBSERVED mechanisms which includes but not limited to natural selection, speciation, mutation, and genetic drift. What mechanisms of design have you offered? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Your position is the cop out. You provide evidence for general applications of evolution and claim you have provided evidence for the specific information we are asking for.

Really? Darwin wrote an entire chapter called "On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record" in "The Origin of Species" as to why we don't see numerous and fine gradations of transitional fossils, and he is still correct today. The reason we have an imperfect fossil record is because we have an imperfect geologic record.

I guess that depends on what you mean by imperfect?

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

"We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created."

Did Darwin write his thoughts in the book that he felt we just hadn't found them as of yet and that in the future we would find many transitional fossils to confirm his theory? Yes or no?

Perhaps you should . . . oh, I don't know . . . ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK.

See above.

And shifting the burden of proof once again. Even if evolution were false, you would still have zero evidence for ID.

I never claimed that evolution was false. See you don't even understand the argument being made.

Where is your evidence that design is real?

Design is the evidence.