Intelligent Design / Evolution

[KhaosTheory]

OK there we have it. the sum of all your wisdom. No cites, no facts, no answers of any kind! no papers, just opinion. Thread will miss ya. Good luck with that degree.

Well, do you want to respond to my post? I have cites, facts, and answers.

Or are you just going to pretend like you didn't hear me and re-post the same thing next week and still claim that no one has ever explained any of them to you?

 

[Incariol]

Ignore list? That would be a loss to the thread. Lets look at your contribution:



Now there is an educated comment. Are you one of the ones you said were working on your degree or do you have it aleady?





wow.









OK there we have it. the sum of all your wisdom. No cites, no facts, no answers of any kind! no papers, just opinion. Thread will miss ya. Good luck with that degree.

I'd miss him. His comprehension of the subject exceeds yours by orders of magnitude and he doesn't ignore and evade the people he talks to.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, despite repeatedly asking for actual evidence for ID, the entirety of the ID argument consists of "phenomenon evolution can't explain x" and "just look at all the cool stuff around us, gotta be designed amiright?" Oh, and attacking anyone asking questions as a Godless athiest.

Fair summation?

 

[idscience]

So, despite repeatedly asking for actual evidence for ID, the entirety of the ID argument consists of "phenomenon evolution can't explain x" and "just look at all the cool stuff around us, gotta be designed amiright?" Oh, and attacking anyone asking questions as a Godless athiest.

Fair summation?

Read the thread
You don't ask questions. you deny, deny, deny, disrupt and deny again. Sorry, don't play that game.

 

[Hobz]

I asked questions, I provided sources, I did all you asked, but you ignored me. Maybe my questions were getting to hard for you, or you didn't like where I was taking the debate, but the harder my questions got, the more evasive you became until you stopped responding to me totally.

You're not here to find the truth, nor to effectively debate your point of view, you're just here to further your agenda. You ignore evidence, when your points are refuted, it takes you less than the blink of an eye before you're using the same points on someone else. To put it bluntly, you're intellectually dishonest.

Before you go humiliating people about whether they've finished their degrees or not, just remember you believe in what the acedemic world considers fantasy. I'd take his word over yours on any topic.

Funny thing is, you're that out of touch with what goes on in the acedemic world, that you think copy-pasting answersingenesis.com is an excellent strategy to debate against practicing scientists. But that's fair enough, you've got to do what your education allows you to do right?

I did try to be nice, I really did.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, lets say that is true. That the people living in Jerusalem are not related to David and they have no right to the "thrashing floor" that David left to his descendants. Would that make the Bible any less true? I do not think so. The point is that Luke gives us the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus. Now, what leads you to believe that the Bible is not true? What leads you to believe that Adam and Eve in the Bible were not real people? What leads you to believe that any of the people in the Bible were not real historical people? What evidence do you have from modern science to show us that the Bible is not true and accurate?

As I've stated before, "The Bible is true" is not a valid statement. The Bible says a great many things, some of which are true (there were, indeed, Pharaohs), and some of which aren't (there wasn't, in fact, a global flood).

Why don't I believe Adam and Eve were real people? Because there's no evidence for them.

You once identified them as matrilinear and patrilinear ancestors of the Middle East, which necessarily implied that Adam and Eve didn't live in the same place at the same time. Now you identify them as generic ancestors of the Middle East, which is certainly plausible - except that there are many thousands of ancestors of the Middle East. Which ones, exactly, are Adam and Eve?

If you reduce a Bible story down to the most basic elements, you remove any contention, and it becomes trivial to agree with it. Were there two original humans from whom everyone is descended? No. Were there two humans who, along with the other thousand individuals of the time, make up the ancestral generation of the Hebrews? Yes. The former is mythical and magical and makes for a great religious story - if it could be proven, it would have impressive implications. The latter is so obvious and mundane that, if true (which it undoubtedly is), it proves nothing of interest - certainly none of the more fantastic elements of the Bible.

So, once again, it boils down to just who you think Adam and Eve were. How can I say whether I believe they were real people if you won't explain who you assert they were?

Clearly there is overwelming evidence that the Flood was not a global flood. So science seems to be more then able to get the job done. So what overwelming evidence do you have to show us that Moses was not a real person and that he did not have a real boat with real people on that boat? Why can science falsify the world wide flood, but they can not seem to falsify that Noah was a real historical person?

Because Noah, if he did exist, would have left no evidence of his existence. A global flood would have left evidence, which is why we can disprove it.

The story of Noah's Flood implies that all humans are descended from him, which necessarily implies a staggering genetic bottleneck that we could easily test for. You, however, seem to believe that Noah's Flood was a local event, making it harder to test. If there was still a genetic bottleneck, that can be tested for, and is sufficient to refute Noah's existence (or, at least, the bottleneck).

It's impossible to prove whether or not Noah existed - which is why I've never stated anything of the sort. There is no evidence he was a real person, thus, we logically must reject his existence until such time that evidence appears.

So you admit you can not discern the difference between truth and a lie or myth and truth stories about real people?

No - that's what science is for. You, not I, asserted that something can be proved to exist if no one can disprove it - you can't disprove that Elvis is still alive, so, therefore, he is still alive! This is a logical fallacy, as shown by the fact that such an argument proves pretty much anything to exist.

In reality, however, we don't say something as stupid as "You can't disprove it, therefore, I'm justified in believing it!". Logically, if there's no evidence for or against something's existence, we affirm neither its existence nor its non-existence. I don't have to disprove Adam and Eve, since the onus of proof is on you have to prove them.

Honestly, this is Logic 101...

 

[3rdHeaven]

I don't get what a atheist Wiccan is? Is that on the line of a Agnostic Pagan? Or more on the line of a Humanist. Honestly some times these self assigned titles throw me lol.

Any way it is amazing how Pagans, Humanists and Atheists can get all buddy buddy when the theme is "Lets discredit God!"

Back on topic however,

DNA is a language in that it can determine your complete genetic make up thru a very complex coding procedure that is not a accident but of Intelligent Design. It is needed. It provides a educated planned out come.

 

[Elendur]

DNA is a language in that it can determine your complete genetic make up thru a very complex coding procedure that is not a accident but of Intelligent Design. It is needed. It provides a educated planned out come.

I still don't get how you get from *It's complicated* to *It's designed*.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't get what a atheist Wiccan is? Is that on the line of a Agnostic Pagan? Or more on the line of a Humanist. Honestly some times these self assigned titles throw me lol.

When I joined this forum, I was Wiccan, hence my name. I have since lost my faith and become an atheist, hence my faith icon. My name and avatar are remnants of my previous faith, but I am no longer Pagan.

If in doubt, just ask. Why are you called '3rdHeaven'?

Any way it is amazing how Pagans, Humanists and Atheists can get all buddy buddy when the theme is "Lets discredit God!"

I see nothing wrong in human camaraderie and companionship. So long as everyone's being calm and civil, the free flow of ideas can be achieved.

Call me an optimist, but I prefer it when people get along.

Back on topic however,

DNA is a language in that it can determine your complete genetic make up thru a very complex coding procedure that is not a accident but of Intelligent Design. It is needed. It provides a educated planned out come.

On the contrary, DNA is only a 'language' if it is defined as such. You fall foul of the equivocation fallacy: you equate one definition of language (a complex code or sequence), with another (a way of communicating thoughts, feelings, and other mental aspects between individuals), and use that to infer a mind behind the 'language' of DNA.

You say that DNA determines your complete genetic make-up through a "very complex coding procedure" that is "of Intelligent Design". What evidence or rationale do you have for this claim?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I don't get what a atheist Wiccan is? Is that on the line of a Agnostic Pagan? Or more on the line of a Humanist. Honestly some times these self assigned titles throw me lol.

Any way it is amazing how Pagans, Humanists and Atheists can get all buddy buddy when the theme is "Lets discredit God!"

Back on topic however,

DNA is a language in that it can determine your complete genetic make up thru a very complex coding procedure that is not a accident but of Intelligent Design. It is needed. It provides a educated planned out come.

If DNA is a product of an intelligent designer, what is the reason for AREs then?

 

[NailsII]

Let's look at what has not been refuted. By refuted I mean proven wrong. I don't mean disagreed with as evolutionists are in disagreement with themselves on many things and that has no bearing on the truth of it anyway.

1. Irreducible complexity
2. specified complexity
3. DNA is a code, and language by any definition
4. Whale evolution
5. falsified rodhocetus reconstruction and drawings
6. Speciation (debated)
7. Collapse of the phylogenectic tree
8. Stasis of the fossil record
9. collapse of a natural origin of life
10. Serious problems with population genetics and lineages ie: whale human

Out of these few subjects touched on there has only been a few intelligent replies or attempts to address these issues. I don't have all the answers, but I sure have some serious questions. If you are too busy or not inclined to "educate" those who have real questions I don't know what to say. Maybe you could look past your personal feelings for me, and do it for the hundreds that are watching the thread.

There seems to be a handful of Atheists here who like to stir it up among the sheep, I don't stir so easily.

1. An argument from ignorance.
2. Only relevant if DNA sequences were randomly generated, which we all know would be virtually impossible.
3. DNA is a chain of molecules.
4. Why pick on whales? What's wrong with dolphins?
5. Further finds can alter conclusions based on more evidence. You actually failed to show any results were falsified, which is actually a malicious claim. You fail to even conside that someone could just have been wrong.
6. Speciation is a fact, there is nothing to debate.
7. That tree still stands tall, but may be corrected as more evidence comes in.
8. The fossil record is interesting, but only a small piece in the puzzle
9. Evolution never attempts to show the origin of life. God could have started life, and that would not falsify evolution.
10. Serious problems with understanding anything. What are you looking for, a crocoduck or something?

Even if you are correct, and evolution is made up by twisting evidence and falsifying reconstructions, it still doesn't make ID correct.
ID fails from the start because it isn't scientific because:

1. the conclusion is drawn first and then evidence is sought which confirms.
2. It is not falsifiable
3. it assumes much and answers little
4. There is almost no evidence for ID other than an argument from ignorance

I can't be bothered with this, because I think it is falling on deaf ears.

Instead of attacking, why not spend a few minutes outling the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, its predictive power and something else constructive.

 

[NailsII]

I Any way it is amazing how Pagans, Humanists and Atheists can get all buddy buddy when the theme is "Lets discredit God!"

I have religious friends who I can sit down and have a good chinwag with, we don't need a common enemy to unite us.
Are you suggesting that you could only be civil with people who agree with you on everything?

DNA is a language in that it can determine your complete genetic make up thru a very complex coding procedure that is not a accident but of Intelligent Design. It is needed. It provides a educated planned out come.

DNA sequences are no accident, I agree with you there.
That observation is a long way off needing a designer, let alone finding one.
It begs the questions - does bad design imply a bad designer?
Does an abundance of beetles suggest that the designer is particularly fond of coleoptera?
Does the existance of ruthless carnivores suggest that the designer loves bloodsports?
Does the existance of parasites and disease mean that his plan is indifferent to suffering?

 

[idscience]

I asked questions, I provided sources, I did all you asked, but you ignored me. Maybe my questions were getting to hard for you, or you didn't like where I was taking the debate, but the harder my questions got, the more evasive you became until you stopped responding to me totally.

You're not here to find the truth, nor to effectively debate your point of view, you're just here to further your agenda. You ignore evidence, when your points are refuted, it takes you less than the blink of an eye before you're using the same points on someone else. To put it bluntly, you're intellectually dishonest.

Before you go humiliating people about whether they've finished their degrees or not, just remember you believe in what the acedemic world considers fantasy. I'd take his word over yours on any topic.

Funny thing is, you're that out of touch with what goes on in the acedemic world, that you think copy-pasting answersingenesis.com is an excellent strategy to debate against practicing scientists. But that's fair enough, you've got to do what your education allows you to do right?

I did try to be nice, I really did.

Hobz, I answered your questions, rocksinthetheads questions. Everybody with relevant questions. Your problem and many others here is that you take each others words, like the few here are the sum of known wisdom.

I didn't say there were no reasonable replies. In fact, I said there were only a few. But there you go getting all emotional again, and feeling threatened.

"You ignore evidence, when your points are refuted". OH, my points were refuted? like the reply to the sex origins? where there are only 3 or 8 hypothesis, no body knows? or are you thinking of the non supported Menzke paper on IC that is possible but no pathways as to how it could happen. No one has observed it, or recreated it in a lab? Maybe that one?

Seems to me there were some good arguments against but certainly no refuting going on. Evolutionists like yourself, seem to think all anyone has to do is make up a logical possibility and that is grounds for refutiation. sorry Bubba, that isn't how science is done in the city.

I post questions and facts from scientists. You and your buddies choose to insult and take issue with me personally. That is ok. When you can't fight the message, you fight the messenger. Nothing you "smart" guys say bothers me. I answer 20 questions, then you ask the same 20 again like they were not answered. Its a game, and you not the first to play it.

Doesn't matter what I think. Unlike some here, I am not concerned with followers, or showing anyone how smart I am. I'll leave that to the young guys who almost have their degrees. That is why I (being a Christian) don't hang out on Atheist forums trying to prove I am right.

The information presented here is easily researched, and checked out. Anyone here can do some checking and decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not. Your "emotional" responses are irrelevant. People usually get angry when they are threatened by ideas. Telling people I am out of touch, don't know what I am talking about, doesn't matter. They can see for themselves. Maybe that is what threatens you and your friends I don't know.

Common descent is a smoke and mirrors show based on somebodies interpretation of evidence. Everyone here knows how well that worked for religion. Guesses, conjecture, and inference is not enough to get me to change my mind. Especially when the minds are changed so often.

There is no evidence, no facts, and no reasons that defeat an intelligent agents involvement with life as we know it. All your jumping up and down won't change that. All your insults won't change that. Rocksinmyhead said he know nothing about biology, but has no problem dismissing PhD biologists, and research biologists. No one said boo to him? Why, because he is on the right side. The hypocrisy is thick ain't it? As long as you agree with us, you can say what ever you want and we will back you, says the evolution lobby. I realize at 16% your not about to turn anyone away.

 

[idscience]

I still don't get how you get from *It's complicated* to *It's designed*.

Are you saying that not even an inference can be made from the DNA code, that there could be an intelligent causation? The only way is a closed mind.
It is called, language, code, building plans, and blueprints for a reason. DNA is recognizable as such. The only source for this type of information is an intelligent mind.

The 7th post on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7645294/ is a peer reviewed paper on DNA code. It may not prove anything but to flatout dismiss intelligence as a possibility for this programming, can only be the result of bias against intelligence.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I joined this forum, I was Wiccan, hence my name.

At one time, I thought your parents were wiccans, hence your name.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Hobz, I answered your questions, rocksinthetheads questions. Everybody with relevant questions. Your problem and many others here is that you take each others words, like the few here are the sum of known wisdom.

I didn't say there were no reasonable replies. In fact, I said there were only a few. But there you go getting all emotional again, and feeling threatened.

"You ignore evidence, when your points are refuted". OH, my points were refuted? like the reply to the sex origins? where there are only 3 or 8 hypothesis, no body knows? or are you thinking of the non supported Menzke paper on IC that is possible but no pathways as to how it could happen. No one has observed it, or recreated it in a lab? Maybe that one?

Seems to me there were some good arguments against but certainly no refuting going on. Evolutionists like yourself, seem to think all anyone has to do is make up a logical possibility and that is grounds for refutiation. sorry Bubba, that isn't how science is done in the city.

I post questions and facts from scientists. You and your buddies choose to insult and take issue with me personally. That is ok. When you can't fight the message, you fight the messenger. Nothing you "smart" guys say bothers me. I answer 20 questions, then you ask the same 20 again like they were not answered. Its a game, and you not the first to play it.

Doesn't matter what I think. Unlike some here, I am not concerned with followers, or showing anyone how smart I am. I'll leave that to the young guys who almost have their degrees. That is why I (being a Christian) don't hang out on Atheist forums trying to prove I am right.

The information presented here is easily researched, and checked out. Anyone here can do some checking and decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not. Your "emotional" responses are irrelevant. People usually get angry when they are threatened by ideas. Telling people I am out of touch, don't know what I am talking about, doesn't matter. They can see for themselves. Maybe that is what threatens you and your friends I don't know.

Common descent is a smoke and mirrors show based on somebodies interpretation of evidence. Everyone here knows how well that worked for religion. Guesses, conjecture, and inference is not enough to get me to change my mind. Especially when the minds are changed so often.

There is no evidence, no facts, and no reasons that defeat an intelligent agents involvement with life as we know it. All your jumping up and down won't change that. All your insults won't change that. Rocksinmyhead said he know nothing about biology, but has no problem dismissing PhD biologists, and research biologists. No one said boo to him? Why, because he is on the right side. The hypocrisy is thick ain't it? As long as you agree with us, you can say what ever you want and we will back you, says the evolution lobby. I realize at 16% your not about to turn anyone away.

Can we stay on topic please? I answered a few of your questions one page back. If you'd like to respond to them, we can get back on track and stop the back and forth mud slinging.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Are you saying that not even an inference can be made from the DNA code, that there could be an intelligent causation? The only way is a closed mind.
It is called, language, code, building plans, and blueprints for a reason. DNA is recognizable as such. The only source for this type of information is an intelligent mind.

The 7th post on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7645294/ is a peer reviewed paper on DNA code. It may not prove anything but to flatout dismiss intelligence as a possibility for this programming, can only be the result of bias against intelligence.

I responded to this already. Care to comment?

2. DNA is a code, and language by any definition - no it's not. I'm pretty sure we've already talked about this. A language only exists conceptually because the speaker understands what each word is a symbol for.

There are no symbols in DNA. The "language" of DNA is strictly determined by the chemical properties of it's 4 basic molecules. It has nothing to do with the subjective way we "read" the "code".

DNA is not a language | The Rational Response Squad

 

[idscience]

1. An argument from ignorance.
2. Only relevant if DNA sequences were randomly generated, which we all know would be virtually impossible.
3. DNA is a chain of molecules.
4. Why pick on whales? What's wrong with dolphins?
5. Further finds can alter conclusions based on more evidence. You actually failed to show any results were falsified, which is actually a malicious claim. You fail to even conside that someone could just have been wrong.
6. Speciation is a fact, there is nothing to debate.
7. That tree still stands tall, but may be corrected as more evidence comes in.
8. The fossil record is interesting, but only a small piece in the puzzle
9. Evolution never attempts to show the origin of life. God could have started life, and that would not falsify evolution.
10. Serious problems with understanding anything. What are you looking for, a crocoduck or something?

Even if you are correct, and evolution is made up by twisting evidence and falsifying reconstructions, it still doesn't make ID correct.

ID fails from the start because it isn't scientific because:

1. the conclusion is drawn first and then evidence is sought which confirms.
2. It is not falsifiable
3. it assumes much and answers little
4. There is almost no evidence for ID other than an argument from ignorance

I can't be bothered with this, because I think it is falling on deaf ears.

Instead of attacking, why not spend a few minutes outling the scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, its predictive power and something else constructive.

Of course it is falling on deaf ears. You are a "Life-long student of biological science" and you hand in this for an opposing position? He said, she said, I said? Your argument is pathetic.

You guys spend pages detailing what you can't be bothered dealing with? Maybe you just killing time until someone can come up with something to say? How about some real critiques? Does ANYONE know how to do that?

Somebody, somewhere, somehow, show me a paper, not an opinion, disproving "Irreducible Complexity". Cite me a paper, an experiment, an article that shows a Darwinian process has built a bacterial flagellum?
The gauntlet is down, you face is slapped. Are there any answers to this one question?​

 

[idscience]

DNA sequences are no accident, I agree with you there.
That observation is a long way off needing a designer, let alone finding one.

It begs the questions - does bad design imply a bad designer?
Does an abundance of beetles suggest that the designer is particularly fond of coleoptera?
Does the existance of ruthless carnivores suggest that the designer loves bloodsports?
Does the existance of parasites and disease mean that his plan is indifferent to suffering?

It begs nothing.

A bad designer has no relationship to evidence for a designer. As much as you would desperately change the dialog, it does not matter.

There is no source in nature that can produce programming, code, or language. DNA represents something outside itself, like language, and code.

It makes spid difference to evidence of intelligence if you agree or don't agree with how things are made.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Somebody, somewhere, somehow, show me a paper, not an opinion, disproving "Irreducible Complexity". Cite me a paper, an experiment, an article that shows a Darwinian process has built a bacterial flagellum?​

The gauntlet is down, you face is slapped. Are there any answers to this one question?​

You can't prove a negative. Either evidence supports a conclusion, or it doesn't.

You're free to accept ID/IC as you see fit. Personally, it is an appeal to incredulity, and does nothing to benefit my scientific knowledge.

If you're convinced that ID/IC is true, good on ya'. I truly hope it serves to enrich your understanding of science.