Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Blackwater Babe]

I would like to answer you but I wouldn't want to get reported again. Seems there are those here who can dishout what they like but are pretty soft themselves.

If you were to ACTUALLY provide evidence of ID, as repeatedly requested, no one will report you.

If you just go off on a silly name calling, flaming tangent, they may.

If you just post yet more evolution debunking and "I can't believe this wasn't designed, therefore, designer" arguments, well, that won't get you reported either. Although I bet it will frustrate the snot out of all the people who have been asking for evidence FOR ID for the last 60 pages.

 

[idscience]

This thread has turned into quite the atheist magnet. What is this, a dozen now?

 

[idscience]

If you were to ACTUALLY provide evidence of ID, as repeatedly requested, no one will report you.

If you just go off on a silly name calling, flaming tangent, they may.

If you just post yet more evolution debunking and "I can't believe this wasn't designed, therefore, designer" arguments, well, that won't get you reported either. Although I bet it will frustrate the snot out of all the people who have been asking for evidence FOR ID for the last 60 pages.

I guess you haven't read the thread? OH, I better be careful... three are posts of evidence, I believe the last ones were 558, and 559. but, I would like to get a couple answers myself.

My thread my rules. A dozen of you, and only one of me. Why should you ignore my questions and demand I answer yours?

• "If you just post yet more evolution debunking and "I can't believe this wasn't designed, therefore, designer" arguments, well, that won't get you reported either."

See, it this kind of rhetoric that keeps me digging into the falsehoods of common descent. You haven't been reading. The problems with common descent have nothing to do with believing it wasn't designed. My posts have been very detailed and specific unlike any of yours. I realize these little zingers are the result of frustration in not being able to reply to the problems in your hypothesis intelligently, that is, with evidence.
Also, design is inferred from observation and experimentation. One criteria is, if mutation and selection can't do it, and it appears it cannot do much, then something else must be considered. When you take off the handcuffs of evolution and see functional complexity, and networked information systems, it is easy to infer intelligence and design.

When hard line God haters like Dawkins sees apparent design and has to ignore it, and Crick has to tell all biologists to ignore it, there may be something to it. Now before one of you sensitive souls calls Dawkins and gets him to report me for calling him a God hater, let me quote him.

• "Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unplesant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
  — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

If you just go off on a silly name calling, flaming tangent,

Must you evolutionists be so dramatic. My responses have all been loving, so far.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I guess you haven't read the thread? OH, I better be careful... three are posts of evidence, I believe the last ones were 558, and 559. but, I would like to get a couple answers myself.


My thread my rules. A dozen of you, and only one of me. Why should you ignore my questions and demand I answer yours?

• "If you just post yet more evolution debunking and "I can't believe this wasn't designed, therefore, designer" arguments, well, that won't get you reported either."

See, it this kind of rhetoric that keeps me digging into the falsehoods of common descent. You haven't been reading. The problems with common descent have nothing to do with believing it wasn't designed. My posts have been very detailed and specific unlike any of yours. I realize these little zingers are the result of frustration in not being able to reply to the problems in your hypothesis intelligently, that is, with evidence.
Also, design is inferred from observation and experimentation. One criteria is, if mutation and selection can't do it, and it appears it cannot do much, then something else must be considered. When you take off the handcuffs of evolution and see functional complexity, and networked information systems, it is easy to infer intelligence and design.


When hard line God haters like Dawkins sees apparent design and has to ignore it, and Crick has to tell all biologists to ignore it, there may be something to it. Now before one of you sensitive souls calls Dawkins and gets him to report me for calling him a God hater, let me quote him.

• "Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unplesant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
  — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

Must you evolutionists be so dramatic. My responses have all been loving, so far.

So... "its really complicated, therefore designer" and "evilution is wrong because..." thats what I'm seeing

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Dr. Ewert received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 1976. He is a microbiologist, and operated a research laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia for almost twenty years. His research is in the immune system, viruses, and cellular biology, and is supported by National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Agriculture grants.

An Immunologist Explains Why the Immune System Isn't an Example of Darwinian Evolution
Audio Interview Pt1

The Intelligent Design of the Immune System

Audio Interview Pt2

Post 558, a "debunking of evolution/its really complex, therefore creator", NOT evidence for ID.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Yes, we agree.

We cannot be sure no. There have been considerable experiments on the limits of random chance, and there seems to be problems. This is one reason evolutionary processes are tested by ID scientists. To find the limits and or falsify ID.

I am not saying ID has been proved. Both ID and common descent have reasons for inference. ID has problems, but so does common descent. In the video below starting @ 30:00 minutes defines possible, feasible, infeasible, probable, and impossible. It gets into the probability of a single cell origin. I am suspect of their calculations. Frankly I don't think that number is accurate. Even though I don't believe one did, I will concede that the numbers used for this are usually the outer extreme example.




Maybe you will find this video interesting, maybe not.

• Programming of Life (An exploration of microbiology, information science, and the origin of life.)

Programming of Life - YouTube​

This is 52 second clip from Craig Venter talking about the relationship beteen DNA and computer programming code.​

Craig Venter on Cell's Computer Software and Hardware on Vimeo​

Post 559, ditto.

 

[idscience]

Post 559, ditto.

You see what you want to see. You are free to disagree with the peer paper writer if you like, that is your privilege.

 

[idscience]

For those interested, most of the relevant posts are listed on the OP of this thread.

 

[idscience]

Purpose, function, complexity, building instructions, regulation and operating code, all point to design, and Intelligent Cause.

Nano machines are becomming the new science. Reverse engineering biological machines, and systems is a new frontier in science. The fact that computer scientists, network scientists, and engineers recognize and understand some of these biological features is an indication they were indeed designed. Not proof, but certainly an interesting consideration to the open minded scientists.

Drew Berry: Animations of unseeable biology - YouTube​

The Inner Life of the Cell - YouTube​

Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube​

 

[idscience]

Post 558, a "debunking of evolution/its really complex, therefore creator", NOT evidence for ID.

Your oppostion is so flawed. How do you not see it?
ID is invalid because of evolution debunking? Like not having (in your view) a better explanation some how negates all the arguments against common descent?
Nothing in science says another idea has to be right, for some idea to be wrong. How messed up are you? All that a hypothesis needs to be wrong is a falsification, not a better idea.

Evidence for common descent can falsify ID, If the experiments don't prove common descent viable, some other explanation has to be considered. ID or what ever. This fallacy that some one has to prove a better idea before common descent can be shown wrong is ridiculous.

I don't have to show anything, or prove anything about ID to show mutations and selection are not supported by the evidence to produce every life from one single original cell. Sorry, just ain't so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm no scientist or evolutionist but it seems to me a very basic problem has occurred. Shouldn't god be proven to exist first before imposing the possibility that he had a hand in the creation of life. Does it make logical sense to create an entity to answer these questions (the origin of life) then use the origin of life as proof the entity exists?

It seems to me that its a particular type of circular logic. God created all life, therefore I know god exists because there is life.

You can't answer for how life started, either.

The best you can do is say 'abiogenesis.'

You say 'abiogenesis,' we say 'God.'

Either way, don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion,' and expect us to agree.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

You see what you want to see. You are free to disagree with the peer paper writer if you like, that is your privilege.

Its not a peer paper, its a youtube clip!

 

[IzzyPop]

I sure can understand why you guys are getting gun shy from the trouncing common descent is taking and why you want to change the subjects so bad.

I thought common descent was a fact as certain as gravity? You guys should be having fun posting paper after paper showing how everything I have been pointing out does work? Why hasn't there been One? Why all the personal attacks on me, my religion, and God?

Surely, you have something to defend your positions with?

I took issue with whale evolution, Boom, that's gone
I took issue with IC and the flagellum, Boom, that's gone

Lots of rhetoric from you all, but nothing in the way of evidence. The best evidence against the flagellum I had to supply to you. What does that say?

IC points to ID,
DNA, information code, language, networks also ID

After 150 years of doing nothing for common descent, it is time to look outside the atheist box. There have been some substantial evolutionary discoveries though, lets name a couple.

4 wings on 2 working, 2 not, on fruit flies
Light moths seem to turn into dark moths
drug resistant bacteria
the big one, nylon eating bacteria

None of the above have anything to do with common descent anyway. Not bad for 150 years of evolution only research.

Well, there is also the mess the phylogenetic tree (trees) are in too. stasis in the fossil record, fake human transitions, fake whale transitions, living fossils, and amusing explanations like "stabilizing selection". Impressive, how about Junk DNA being the biggest mistake in the history of biology?

• "From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA." (ABC television)

150 years and still not one piece of empirical evidence for common descent. Certainly non on this thread, just hopes and faith time can do it, even if population genetics says it cannot. Lots to be proud of and support there, no wonder you want to get off the subject. I would too with a track record like that.

See, that is exactly what I am talking about. I say that I want proof of I.D. and you go off on a rant against evolution. Let us suppose for a minute (and this is just a rhetorical device, not an admission of anything) that evolution is false. Why does I.D. get to step into it's shoes? What proof is there that I.D. is the truth?

 

[Jazer]

150 years and still not one piece of empirical evidence for common descent.

There is lots of evidence for common descent. The generations in our Bible is based on common descent.

 

[Davian]

...
Must you evolutionists be so dramatic. My responses have all been loving, so far.

Slee Z myers has a ...

Indeed. Just an interpretation of 'loving' that I was not previously aware of.

 

[Split Rock]

Your oppostion is so flawed. How do you not see it?
ID is invalid because of evolution debunking? Like not having (in your view) a better explanation some how negates all the arguments against common descent?
Nothing in science says another idea has to be right, for some idea to be wrong. How messed up are you? All that a hypothesis needs to be wrong is a falsification, not a better idea.

Evidence for common descent can falsify ID, If the experiments don't prove common descent viable, some other explanation has to be considered. ID or what ever. This fallacy that some one has to prove a better idea before common descent can be shown wrong is ridiculous.

I don't have to show anything, or prove anything about ID to show mutations and selection are not supported by the evidence to produce every life from one single original cell. Sorry, just ain't so.

What you do need to show, is that evolution Cannot have produced every life from the original cells. You have not done this.

 

[jpcedotal]

What you do need to show, is that evolution Cannot have produced every life from the original cells. You have not done this.

Why assume evolution is true? You (nor anyone else) have not proven that fact That is the central problem...evolutionists want Creationist to prove something false that has never been proven true. That is your god...

EVOLUTION is your RELIGION...

What you need to show is that God can not create the physical world in 6 days.

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

What you do need to show, is that evolution Cannot have produced every life from the original cells. You have not done this.

Somehow he already thinks that common descent has been falsified. Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to get anywhere by asking him to show us an example of this.

He's probably just going to copy/paste some ancient debunked article from a creationist website.

The funny thing is not only have we not found evidence against common descent, but we've found modern evidence SUPPORTING it.

My two favorites are:

1. DNA Sequencing -where we can use sequence comparison to show where we are in relation to other species. For example, we are 1.2% divergent from chimpanzees, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons, and so on.

2. Endogenous retroviruses or ERVs -where remnants of ancient viral infections are passed on to the next generation; and since this is so rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of this in two different species suggests common ancestry.

 

[Davian]

I'm no scientist or evolutionist but it seems to me a very basic problem has occurred. Shouldn't god be proven to exist first before imposing the possibility that he had a hand in the creation of life. Does it make logical sense to create an entity to answer these questions (the origin of life) then use the origin of life as proof the entity exists?

It seems to me that its a particular type of circular logic. God created all life, therefore I know god exists because there is life.

You can't answer for how life started, either.

It appears to me that you have claimed to have an answer.

The best you can do is say 'abiogenesis.'

Sure, and I posted a few notes on this here.

As for 'best', do you have another scientifically significant hypothesis to propose for the beginning of the process of life?

You say 'abiogenesis,' we say 'God.'

Where have you established that this 'God' is more that a fictional character in a book?

Either way, don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion,' and expect us to agree.

For whom do you speak, AV?

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

What you need to show is that God can not create the physical world in 6 days.

No, no, no, a million times NO! Bad science! BAD BAD BAD!

You just don't get it do you?

It's the job of YOU to prove your claim. It's not our job to DISPROVE your claim.

Ok, please listen to me VERY carefully. I'm going to use an analogy using YOUR LOGIC to hopefully help you understand how absurd this is:

Say you are spending the night at my house, and right before we go to bed, we hear a creaking in the attic. You ask me "Did you hear that? What do you think that was?"

I respond calmly, "oh that's just the invisible dragon in my attic, don't worry!"

You laugh at me and say "You can't POSSIBLY have an invisible dragon in your attic, it's probably just a mouse!"

I proudly respond with "Ah ha! Sure, it MIGHT just be a mouse... but until you can prove that my invisible dragon doesn't exist then I'm going to keep believing that he's up there!"