How We Detect Design

[bhsmte]

Do you know there's more science than just biology right? Do you hold biologists as the voice of god of all science?

Straw man.

Would you agree, not everyone has the skill or education to perform biological research?

 

[bhsmte]

Shifting the burden of proof. Why would it?



I already supplied that answer.



Design is the claim. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??????

With this much shifting, the clutch is going to burn out at some point.

 

[Smidlee]

Just as I thought, this thread should be in the new conspiracy section.

You know how it goes, if desperate, just claim the person that disagrees with you is not credible.

That's a two edged sword you are swing there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

No, I am claiming that even materialists and atheists see design in the systems and structures of organisms. Evolution as defined is not the issue.

"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"

This does nothing for the issue at hand, nor does it provide anything for the discussion.

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

What in ID would prohibit them?
How does evolution explain how the information is found in DNA?

 

[Smidlee]

Straw man.

Would you agree, not everyone has the skill or education to perform biological research?

Why would I disagree but I don't hold biologist as my creators.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a two edged sword you are swing there.

You have already stated that if something is believed through faith that it isn't credible. You cut yourself swinging in that direction. You then try to swing the other way and claim that science is on your side, but have to ignore the scientists. Cut yourself again.

 

[bhsmte]

Why would I disagree but I don't hold biologist as my creators.

Who said anything about creators? I asked if anyone is qualified to perform biological research?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

So do you. You don't admit that life appears designed.

 

[Smidlee]

You have already stated that if something is believed through faith that it isn't credible. You cut yourself swinging in that direction. You then try to swing the other way and claim that science is on your side, but have to ignore the scientists. Cut yourself again.

I have never deny my faith nor have I said faith is not credible as I think that would be against the rules here. I don't try to put myself above everyone else as I have to accept things on faith just like every human being does.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I am claiming that even materialists and atheists see design in the systems and structures of organisms. Evolution as defined is not the issue.

Just like we see ducks in clouds. Already explained. You have presented no evidence that these structures were designed outside of your own subjective opinions.

This does nothing for the issue at hand, nor does it provide anything for the discussion.

It shows that you can't explain the observations made in biology using ID.

What in ID would prohibit them?

The same thing that prevents God from planting fingerprints at crime scenes. Do we have to throw out forensic evidence because God could have planted the evidence?

How does evolution explain how the information is found in DNA?

Read the title of the thread. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

So do you. You don't admit that life appears designed.

Read the title of the thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

If someone such as Dawkins makes the determination that the design is not real then it is incumbent on them to show it is not real.

 

[Smidlee]

Who said anything about creators? I asked if anyone is qualified to perform biological research?

I don't put biologist above everyone else just like preachers and politicians. I have great respect for my pastor but I don't agree with him on everything.

 

[Loudmouth]

If someone such as Dawkins makes the determination that the design is not real then it is incumbent on them to show it is not real.

What evidence demonstrates that design is real? What are the scientific methodologies, units of measure, and statistical tests that support the detection of design? Or is it just, "It sort of looks designed"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

A designer would have to go out of his way to create such an hierarchy and it would have no benefit whatsoever.
In fact, only costs are associated with it.

You love to point to human-designed similarities... why don't you do it with this one?
Not a single human manufactured productline in the history of the world falls into a nested hierarchy.

Reason being that it is simply not efficient to do so.
There would be no reason to. Unless, off course, the point of doing all that extra work is deception... to make all the evidence point to the designer having nothing to do with it. To trick us in believing false things.

It's not reasonable.
Why would we need to invent such fantastical stories, when we have a perfectly sufficient explanation, supported by all the data, for which we don't need to invent anything?

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.

Knowledge is demonstrable.
Faith - based beliefs are not.

I submit that you don't have any knowledge. You have faith-based beliefs.
You can prove me wrong by demonstrating your claimed knowledge.

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.

Catholics, the majority of those 2.2 billion, accept evolution.
From the remaining billion, the majority also accepts evolution.

In fact, it's pretty much correct to state that only in the US evolution-deniers make up a good portion of christians (not a majority though).

But all that is still pretty much irrelevant.

Theists are random people with faith-based beliefs.
Among the people with the actual credentials, making them qualified to judge these scientific ideas, the consensus is evolution.

I really don't care what a random home-schooled christian has to say about it.
Just like I don't care for a medical diagnose by my gardener.

 

[bhsmte]

If I had reliable objective evidence this design was real, I would believe it.

Like; a definition of what this design is. A reliable test to determine if design is present, that is falsifiable.

Those things would come in quite handy.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't put biologist above everyone else just like preachers and politicians.

When it comes to fixing your car, do you put your car mechanic over some random person on the internet? When it comes to medical advice, do you put a board certified doctor above some random guy on the internet? Why should it be any different for a biologist?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't put biologist above everyone else just like preachers and politicians. I have great respect for my pastor but I don't agree with him on everything.

Where do you come up with this stuff.

Who said I put biologists above anyone else? I simply asked if everyone was qualified and trained to perform biological research.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is getting old.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Here you go again, you make a claim and then expect the other person to carry the burden. You made the claim it is your burden to prove. Why if ID is true would life not fall into a nested hierarchy?

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

This is ridiculous, you make the claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy and then tell me I have the burden to prove it. It is your burden.

Shifting the burden of proof. Why would we?

Your claim, your burden. Why would ID prohibit life falling into a nested hierarchy?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS????

The evidence is the design in life forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here you go again, you make a claim and then expect the other person to carry the burden. You made the claim it is your burden to prove. Why if ID is true would life not fall into a nested hierarchy?

My claim is that we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy. Dogma did a great job of explaining why, so I will quote him here:

You love to point to human-designed similarities... why don't you do it with this one?
Not a single human manufactured productline in the history of the world falls into a nested hierarchy.

Reason being that it is simply not efficient to do so.
There would be no reason to. Unless, off course, the point of doing all that extra work is deception... to make all the evidence point to the designer having nothing to do with it. To trick us in believing false things.

It's not reasonable.
Why would we need to invent such fantastical stories, when we have a perfectly sufficient explanation, supported by all the data, for which we don't need to invent anything?​

Evolution has an explanation for the nested hierarchy. ID doesn't, as your posts clearly show.

​

This is ridiculous, you make the claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy and then tell me I have the burden to prove it. It is your burden.

Never did I claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy. What I claimed is that ID can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of trillions of other possibilities.

The evidence is the design in life forms.

That's the claim. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??????