Intelligent Design / Evolution

[RocksInMyHead]

I understand that it feels right. I get that, I really do. But sometimes feelings and emotions make a horrible sieve to filter truth.

Yeah, I know. One of these days, I need to sit down and do some serious soul-searching. But we're getting off topic...

That is a most convenient positition I must say. You don't have to prove anything or disagree with the world view. The best of both worlds I guess.

I don't know how anyone can separate the God who created all things, including the natural laws, and science. He created the laws and principles governing life, and gave us the ability to discover them. He told us in Romans 1:20

• "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

To say God is outside of science is absurd. Especially for someone who claims to believe God exists.

1. Why are you bringing the Bible into a scientific discussion?

2. Anything that can't be proven lies outside the realm of science. God is a non-testable hypothesis, and therefore lies outside of science.

Intelligent Design is legitimate science, and the fact you cannot see it, is irrelevant. That is your choice, and your valid opinion. I disagree.

I've yet to see any legitimate scientific evidence for ID. Until I do, I cannot consider it legitimate science. End of story.

What is a bad Catholic? You are a child of God. With all the faults of humanity. We are all bad. Jesus came to free us from being "bad". Try to focus more on relationship with Jesus and not religion. Don't focus on the "your bad repent" and live in the freedom Christ gave us. You are free from condemnation, free from sin, free from guilt, free from punishment. Celebrate on that, not on what you were... "bad". Religion will suck the life out of you. Jesus made it all personal. Between him and us. That is why the vail split when he died. We all have access to the throne of God now. We all have a direct connection to the Father through Jesus alone.

Your double mindedness is evident in your arguments, and questioning of God's word. May I say that one is not born into relationship with Christ. God is our Father not GrandFather. As Jesus taught us, religion has nothing to do with him. The "religious" leaders of his time were not spoken of kindly by him. Christ brought freedom from religion, and relationship with him. He is the only mediator between man and God. (1 Tim 2:5)

You are arguing strenuously against ID and for evolution, yet you are conflicted about the existence of God. Don't be duped into believing minor change and similarity proves anything.

Homology/Morphology are the sciences of proving a positition. Common descent happened, so the similarities in living things must be biologically related. The more dissimilar, we will just say the further apart they are in relationship. Is that proof, science, or an inference from a previously stated position? Common descent "evidence" is not discovered, it is directed.

James tells us the double minded man is unstable in all he does. Our only source of truth is God himself. His Word who is stated to be Jesus himself. John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. "the Word became flesh." Put your faith in God alone. In His Word alone. Many times is seems wrong but it is not. How many people on opposing sides are completely convinced only they are right? Can both be right? No. One or the other can be right, or both can be wrong. Only God's word through the Spirit keeps us inline. Otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.

2 Tim 3:16; "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

1 Cor 1:18-23;
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
and discard the intelligence of the intelligent.”
"So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world’s brilliant debaters? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense."

God doesn't seem to be too impressed with human wisdom. I am sure standing before him, arguments, and rationalizing his Word to fit us will not go very far. Clearly God's Word is offensive to the human intellect.

What does any of this have to do with this thread? If you want to judge me, fine, but don't mask it with Biblical quotes. Man up and say it yourself. And honestly, personal attacks don't help your cause at all.

Furthermore, if you're hoping that this display will "turn me back to the light" (so to speak), you're mistaken. Your holier-than-thou attitude is, frankly, offensive.

Science has proven nothing in regard to common descent. Many may think it has, the Atheist must depent upon it, but it is a hope of its own. Not a fact.

You keep saying this, but I've yet to see any substance backing it up.

Again, I'll ask that you stick to the topic at hand (that being evolution vs. ID). I took the time yesterday to answer your whole post, and you decided to pick out the least-relevant thing in my response to continue discussion. I ask that you at least give me the courtesy of responding to the rest of that post.

 

[Jazer]

1. Why are you bringing the Bible into a scientific discussion?

2. Anything that can't be proven lies outside the realm of science. God is a non-testable hypothesis, and therefore lies outside of science.

Science uses the Bible all the time. The Bible is filled with truth. Archeology for example uses the Bible because the Bible is recorded history. Then the Bible is of value for people who want to study population genetics and the Neolithic Revolution. You do indeed have rocks in your head if you think there is no value in the Bible. When in fact NOTHING has as much value.

 

[Jro]

Yup, we form hypotheses and test things in the bible. Doesn't alway pan out true, so we can't rely on it as an absolutely accurate source. If its corroborated by external evidence, hey, that's chill. If not, well

Debbie Downer Noise - YouTube

 

[idscience]

It has nothing to do with what the subject is and everything to do with supporting scientific evidence.

Stephen Meyer's paper was science, had nothing wrong scientifically with it. Look what happened anyway. It had everything to do with the subject.

 

[idscience]

You keep saying this, but I've yet to see any substance backing it up.

Again, I'll ask that you stick to the topic at hand (that being evolution vs. ID). I took the time yesterday to answer your whole post, and you decided to pick out the least-relevant thing in my response to continue discussion. I ask that you at least give me the courtesy of responding to the rest of that post.

Your posts are a mile long. Maybe we could distill it down to two or three at a time. Since I have to defend against a hole tribe of atheists to and there is only one of me, I just don't have the time.

Cut and past the important three you would like comments on.

 

[Hobz]

The posts are so big, because you're so confused about most of the topics you think you know about.

You've still not defined intelligent design, and I've pointed this out so many times it's making my fingers and my patience weary. The simple fact is, without being aware of the designers tools and processes we can't test for design, as design is a function of the previous 2 parameters.

I also posted this which you seemed to miss/ignore:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If that's your proof, it's easily shown to be flawed, premise number 2 is begging the question and therefore your argument is circular. This was the whole point of my argument with an unknown and undescribable designer. If we accept your first premise, your second premise becomes:

2) DNA is created by a concious mind.

However, this is the point you're trying to prove, how can it be a premise?

I'll show you how to make it a valid premise, change it as so:

2) All codes of known origin are created by a concious mind, there is no natural process known to science which creates coded information.

However, your conclusion no longer follows, why? Because we don't know the origin of DNA or the hallmarks of an unknown designer, it's really that simple.

So if those 3 statements constitute your "proof," it's time to get back to the drawing board and replace premise numero due.
​

 

[idscience]

The posts are so big, because you're so confused about most of the topics you think you know about.

You've still not defined intelligent design, and I've pointed this out so many times it's making my fingers and my patience weary. The simple fact is, without being aware of the designers tools and processes we can't test for design, as design is a function of the previous 2 parameters.

I also posted this which you seemed to miss/ignore:

If that's your proof, it's easily shown to be flawed, premise number 2 is begging the question and therefore your argument is circular. This was the whole point of my argument with an unknown and undescribable designer. If we accept your first premise, your second premise becomes:

2) DNA is created by a concious mind.

However, this is the point you're trying to prove, how can it be a premise?

I'll show you how to make it a valid premise, change it as so:

2) All codes of known origin are created by a concious mind, there is no natural process known to science which creates coded information.

However, your conclusion no longer follows, why? Because we don't know the origin of DNA or the hallmarks of an unknown designer, it's really that simple.

So if those 3 statements constitute your "proof," it's time to get back to the drawing board and replace premise numero due.
​

I see what you are getting at and don't agree that we cannot detect design. I also am getting weary Mr. Hobz.

Here is the theory of ID.

You disagree with the premise and disagree that design can be verified or detected in nature. From that viewpoint I don't see how I can convince you otherwise.
I agree with ID that specified complexity is a good indicator of design and intelligence. AS stated many times, the nature of the intelligence in not important when detecting functional complexity.

You do not see it, I get that.

ID stands on specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and information theory as evidenced in DNA. Although there are chemical attractions between the bases and the backbone of DNA there is no relationship or force of attraction for the arrangement of the bases on the backbone. So simple chemical or physical parameters are not capable to build DNA. The answer is arguably in the language code of DNA, the information or programing of DNA.

This is also why "front loading" is a conflict with the evidence. God could not have started things from the big bang and let it ride. For my friends who take that stance.

You are going to say IC has been refuted, at which point I will say cite the evidence because it hasn't. You will probably also say specified complexity has also been refuted. I could not argue that point with you because I think it may be to new of an idea and needs more investigation. That being said, it makes sense. At least as much sense as similar things are related.

For those who don't see DNA as a digital code, or program language, then there is not much else to say on that point either.

Systems biology and emergent properties also suggest design and intelligence. Multiple components that are combined for a function greater than the individual parts is evidence of design. You do not agree. Design and function is apparent in nature. From the fine tuning of the universe to the nano machinery within the cells. The fact that engineers and scientists not only understand but are reverse engineering natures features is clearly evidence of design.

The posts are so big, because you're so confused about most of the topics you think you know about.

Well, could be because I am answering 20 points at a time. Your insult I won't address.

The simple fact is, without being aware of the designers tools and processes we can't test for design

I disagree for the reasons stated above.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is the theory of ID.

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Sorry, but there is no testable scientific theory there. The word "theory" is misused. "Definition," is a much better term for the above.

I do wonder about the last part of the definition of I.D. How exactly does I.D. explain the Cambrian Explosion? Afterall, there was life on earth billions of years before the Cambrian. Did the designer decide to step in after billions of years and tweak life on earth? How did the designer do this? Genetic engineering?

 

[CabVet]

Sorry, but there is no testable scientific theory there. The word "theory" is misused. "Definition," is a much better term for the above.

I do wonder about the last part of the definition of I.D. How exactly does I.D. explain the Cambrian Explosion? Afterall, there was life on earth billions of years before the Cambrian. Did the designer decide to step in after billions of years and tweak life on earth? How did the designer do this? Genetic engineering?

To make things worse, the first "observation" of that "theory" is not really an observation, but a conclusion: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." So they start with the conclusion and work their way to justify it.

 

[Jazer]

To make things worse, the first "observation" of that "theory" is not really an observation, but a conclusion: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." So they start with the conclusion and work their way to justify it.

Why is one Mutually exclusive of the other? Do you really believe that Evolution and natural selection is enough and that you no longer need an Intelligent Cause or Designer? Or perhaps the Intelligent Cause uses Evolution and natural selection as a part of the Creative process.

Second what is this "undirected process" idea or concept. Everything has to work within limits and that gives direction because there are boundaries. The sea has boundaries and nations have boundaries.

 

[CabVet]

Why is one Mutually exclusive of the other?

They are not, and I never said they were. What I am saying (and nobody yet has shown that I am wrong) is that there is no evidence for intelligent design.

Do you really believe that Evolution and natural selection is enough and that you no longer need an Intelligent Cause or Designer?

Evolution does not require belief. All it requires is that you look at the world around you, and you either accept it or you don't, based on the evidence that is presented to you. I accept it. There is no evidence (or need) for a designer.

Or perhaps the Intelligent Cause uses Evolution and natural selection as a part of the Creative process.

There is no evidence for this.

Second what is this "undirected process" idea or concept. Everything has to work within limits and that gives direction because there are boundaries. The sea has boundaries and nations have boundaries.

This has no relation to what is being discussed here.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Stephen Meyer's paper was science, had nothing wrong scientifically with it. Look what happened anyway. It had everything to do with the subject.

As I pointed out the first time you brought up the topic, the negative response seems to have been limited to a few individuals and one advocacy group. A number of scientists and reviewers looked at the paper and recommended it for publication despite the controversy, and it was published.

Your posts are a mile long. Maybe we could distill it down to two or three at a time. Since I have to defend against a hole tribe of atheists to and there is only one of me, I just don't have the time.

Cut and past the important three you would like comments on.

Now you're just being lazy. My posts are no longer than yours - at least half of the one I was referring to consisted of quotes from your post. There are only about 4-5 important points total in there.

You don't have time to address my relevant points, but you have plenty of time to attack my character and beliefs? Please.

 

[CabVet]

Now you're just being lazy. My posts are no longer than yours - at least half of the one I was referring to consisted of quotes from your post. There are only about 4-5 important points total in there.

I noticed that too, complaining about the length of your posts when his are equally long (or longer in some cases). I think I know why the inconsistency, your long posts actually contain information and things that he has to think about. His long posts are walls of text copied from his website, no thought required.

 

[Jazer]

This has no relation to what is being discussed here.

So there are no limits? Evolution is not limited by anything?

 

[CabVet]

So there are no limits? Evolution is not limited by anything?

Again, that has no relation to what is being discussed here.

 

[Jazer]

complaining about the length of your posts when his are equally long

I am lucky if I can get my brother to send an email with more then four or five words in it. Because he is so busy. But they have time to write out long posts?

 

[Jazer]

Again, that has no relation to what is being discussed here.

It is the discussion. So I guess you do not want to talk about that aspect of evolution. Ok, that is fine.

 

[CabVet]

It is the discussion. So I guess you do not want to talk about that aspect of evolution. Ok, that is fine.

How about you start a new topic about it and we discuss it there. And then you can take that thread off-topic too after I answer your questions.

 

[Jazer]

There is no evidence for this.

What sort of evidence should we be looking for here? When I did repair work. My whole job was to make it look like I had never been there.

 

[Cabal]

What sort of evidence should we be looking for here? When I did repair work. My whole job was to make it look like I had never been there.

Did you light people on fire if they said you didn't exist?