How We Detect Design

[Loudmouth]

How do you determine who are the REAL scientist.

Their CV's. The ones with degrees from real universities, real grants, and real peer reviewed research papers are the real scientists.

Collins has been wrong before so he could be wrong again.

Wrong about what?

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.

Why do you use faith as a derogatory term? Why do you use it to insult people? Why do you use faith as a term that is supposed to discount the truth of something?

Moreover, Collins presents the EVIDENCE for evolution in this essay:

http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

It isn't a video. It is a real essay written by a real scientist.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

What does doing science have to do with a belief in God? Scientists would go about their work the same way, whether there was a God or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I agree again.

 

[Smidlee]

What does doing science have to do with a belief in God? Scientists would go about their work the same way, whether there was a God or not.

Did you read the quote of Collins in Loudmouth posted? Collins clearly trying claim what God would or wouldn't do.
Politics , religion, science and money are all interconnected as their are the products of the human mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought this thread was about design and ID.

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

Does he agree with you that there is no God?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Smoke screen. ID can't explain the most basic observations in biology which includes the nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if ID/creationism is true.

I guess that depends on what you mean by imperfect?

Darwin explained it quite well. He wrote a whole chapter on what he meant by imperfect, and I even included a quote explaining what he meant. All you are showing is that you refuse to read the very material you criticize.

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?

I already gave you a quote explaining that.

Design is the evidence.

Design is the claim. Where is the evidence?

 

[Smidlee]

Their CV's. The ones with degrees from real universities, real grants, and real peer reviewed research papers are the real scientists.

This is exactly what the church was guilty of centuries ago as men hungry for power wanted to determine who and what is "real".

Because we have the freedom of religion now people wants to control others by controlling what is "real" science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does he agree with you that there is no God?

Red herring.

You are claiming that it is only materialism and atheism that prevents us from seeing that evolution is false. Francis Collins demonstrates this to be false. His position supports our position that those who actually understand the science fall on the side of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence.

"Eric Green at the Genome Institute has looked at this same region in many other species and, in fact, you can find this same CAPZA2 gene in everything from chimps down to zebra fishes and a lot of things in between (see Figure 4). Notice the pattern. The chimpanzee is almost 100% identical to the human, except the chimp has a deletion just before exon 2 that we do not have. Otherwise the match-up, as in most cases of human and chimp comparison, is about 98.5% to 99%. You can see that the baboon is starting to diverge. The cat and the dog and the cow all look a lot alike, and again if you look at the CAPZA2 exons, you will see that every one of those species has a nice conserved little segment there. But as you get further away to rats, mouse, chicken, two different kinds of pufferfish and then a zebra fish, about the only thing you see is the protein encoding regions, while the rest of the scattered noise goes away. Again, this is a very compelling kind of pattern in terms of what one would expect from evolution."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

How does ID/creationism explain this divergence, especially in introns?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is exactly what the church was guilty of centuries ago as men hungry for power wanted to determine who and what is "real".

Baloney. The real scientists are the ones who do science. That is all the CV is there for, to confirm that they do science.

All you are doing is admitting that you hold a position that scientists don't hold.

 

[bhsmte]

I will ask again, what does a belief in God have to do with whether a scientist does good work and has excellent credentials?

I agree with Collins conclusion regarding science, that evolution is correct and has overwhelming evidence to support it. His belief in God, is irrelevant.

If someone uses Dawkins statement on "appearance of design" as evidence, they would need to ignore his conclusion, that design is not real and there is no evidence of design.

If one can't see the difference here, it is just more of the same, denial.

 

[MikeEnders]

Amusing attempt at muddying the waters.

Amusing and lol attempt to duck under the water and hide from the facts that no one can logically claim to be almost certain of anything regarding "first life".

 

[bhsmte]

If anyone claims "intelligent design" in humans in this thread, please stand up.

After you stand, please provide a definition of this design and a reliable and falsifiable test to determine it's presence.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Their CV's. The ones with degrees from real universities, real grants, and real peer reviewed research papers are the real scientists.

Wrong about what?

Why do you use faith as a derogatory term? Why do you use it to insult people? Why do you use faith as a term that is supposed to discount the truth of something?

Moreover, Collins presents the EVIDENCE for evolution in this essay:

http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

It isn't a video. It is a real essay written by a real scientist.

Are you trying to make it seem like you and others don't rest on faith in your own positions? You do. Don't act like you are all about the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Amusing and lol attempt to duck under the water and hide from the facts that no one can logically claim to be almost certain of anything regarding "first life".

Why don't you start a thread on first life, if you want to talk about it.

It would appear this thread is about design and ID. Further attempts to muddy the waters will be noted.

 

[Smidlee]

Baloney. The real scientists are the ones who do science. That is all the CV is there for, to confirm that they do science.

All you are doing is admitting that you hold a position that scientists don't hold.

Everybody is born a real scientist.

Are you trying to make it seem like you and others don't rest on faith in your own positions? You do. Don't act like you are all about the evidence.

They are trying to put themselves in the place of God and only they can "know" who are the "real " scientist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From what I've read this is false. They can't even agree on which "evolution" actually happened. Also the voice of the majority doesn't make something more true.

The voice of the majority of experts doesn't make something true, that is correct.
However, when the voice of the majority says the opposite of random non-experts on the interwebs... well... yeah.

You testify your belief to this by calling yourself an atheist. Throughout history when you got a "extreme overwhelming majority" agreeing to something, especially dealing with man's origins, politics is usually involved.

Right, right.....

Millions of biologists accross the globe agree on evolution "cuz politics". Sure.

 

[bhsmte]

Everybody is born a real scientist.

What about a; plumber, school teacher, cop, fireman?

They may disagree with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am admitting no such thing.

You still can't produce a single reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if ID is true.

I am asking you to provide a reason why ID would not create life that falls into a nested hierarchy?

Shifting the burden of proof. You need to explain why we would necessarily see a nested hierarchy.

Why wouldn't we.

Shifting the burden of proof. Why would we?

how?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS??????

 

[bhsmte]

Everybody is born a real scientist.

They are trying to put themselves in the place of God and only they can "know" who are the "real " scientist.

Define "scientist".

 

[Smidlee]

The voice of the majority of experts doesn't make something true, that is correct.
However, when the voice of the majority says the opposite of random non-experts on the interwebs... well... yeah.

I'm a creationist so are you claiming the majority on the internet are creationist?

Right, right.....

Millions of biologists accross the globe agree on evolution "cuz politics". Sure.

Politics, religion , sciecne and money is all interconnected.

 

[bhsmte]

The voice of the majority of experts doesn't make something true, that is correct.
However, when the voice of the majority says the opposite of random non-experts on the interwebs... well... yeah.



Right, right.....

Millions of biologists accross the globe agree on evolution "cuz politics". Sure.

Maybe this thread should be in the new conspiracy section?