Intelligent Design

[Mallon]

While I will agree that it is an opinion I think it is far more substantive then a hunch.

But you haven't substantiated it, so it remains a hunch.

Truly science is not an easy epistemology to nail down, I think Meyer does a good job thinking it through though.

Stephen C. Meyer: Is intelligent design science - Signature in the Cell

But he never provides a definition of science in that video, so I didn't find it particularly helpful.
Besides, I think Meyer is confused about the inference of past unobservables in science. Scientists aren't in the habit of inferring processes in the past that aren't observable or replicable in the present, hence the whole principle of actualism that YECs get so bent out of shape over. That is, we can reasonably infer that certain processes were active in the past based on the effects we observe them to have in the present. The same cannot be said for an unseen supernatural entity. We don't see new forms of life being intelligently designed before our eyes today, so we have idea what clues to look for. Irreducible complexity certainly hasn't worked to date.

Of course not but thats not how you learn the mystical arts anyway, you have to be initiated or some such.

So, under your broad definition of science, what would you have taught in the science classroom? Would you teach cold fusion? UFO-ology? Creation science (if so, whose)? Where do you draw the line?

Then define it.

Hypothesis testing.

Science is about tools, mental and physical. If in fact God is the cause of creation then the epistemology of Darwinism is deeply flawed.

How?

It is not out of bounds to conclude an Intelligent Designer for a scientist depending on what definition of science, or a particular scientific discipline you are using.

So how does one distinguish between an object created by God and an object not created by God? What does an unintelligently designed object look like? What things in this universe hasn't God designed?

It can be falsified if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary but the Scriptures make credible evidence that God is in fact active in human affairs.

What would you consider "sufficient evidence to the contrary"?

It's called natural revelation and Paul makes it clear that we are all aware of it. Not only is the glory of God evident and obvious in creation but men of God beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father.

I agree. Natural revelation isn't science, though.

Is Christian Apologetics, that is the defense of the Christian faith, scientific in the sense that Simon Greenleaf is saying?

Greenleaf isn't saying Christian apologetics is scientific, so no.

 

[mark kennedy]

But you haven't substantiated it, so it remains a hunch.

Sure I have just not to your satisfaction and primary reason for this is an a priori assumption, not conclusions based on scientific evidence.

But he never provides a definition of science in that video, so I didn't find it particularly helpful.

I have noticed that neither have you.

Besides, I think Meyer is confused about the inference of past unobservables in science.

Which is common among Darwinians who simply assume naturalistic causes and organize the facts around them.

Scientists aren't in the habit of inferring processes in the past that aren't observable or replicable in the present, hence the whole principle of actualism that YECs get so bent out of shape over.

Unless you are talking about the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes without any explanation for the molecular basis.

That is, we can reasonably infer that certain processes were active in the past based on the effects we observe them to have in the present. The same cannot be said for an unseen supernatural entity. We don't see new forms of life being intelligently designed before our eyes today, so we have idea what clues to look for. Irreducible complexity certainly hasn't worked to date.

I think it works since it can work from a self evident fact of natural revelation. The processes that involve brain related genes involves terrible disease and disorders and yet we can infer positive selection in the prehistoric past? Sounds like a double standard to me, one among many.

So, under your broad definition of science, what would you have taught in the science classroom?

In Biology I would emphasis Mendelian genetics, cellular architecture, molecular chemistry in metabolism, basic anatomy and biological systematics. I would shun Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design and intellectual curiosities better examined in the humanities and philosophical disciplines.

Would you teach cold fusion? UFO-ology? Creation science (if so, whose)? Where do you draw the line?

I would have no problem teaching cold fusion but I would be honest it tends to use more energy then it produces. UFO is not an ology, it's a modern mythology and there is really not much there to teach. Creation science is impossible to teach without the Scriptures and Theology of Christian theism and there would be very few teachers who know anything about it.

Do you realize, I have never advocated teaching Creationism in the public schools. Wouldn't have a problem with it in a Christian school where the requisite theology and Biblical exposition were part of the curriculum but secular schools wouldn't have a clue.

Hypothesis testing.

How does that work with astronomy since it's based almost exclusively on observation? Now if you make hypothesis testing the definition you are going to find that science did not exist prior to Newton's Experimentum Crucis, it was largely deductive not the inductive process you call, testing of hypothesis. In fact the Grecian thinkers that formed the mathematical and philosophical disciplines that transposed into modern science frowned on experimental method.

How?

It makes naturalistic assumptions that transcends all of life and all of living history.

So how does one distinguish between an object created by God and an object not created by God? What does an unintelligently designed object look like? What things in this universe hasn't God designed?

I don't look at it that way, there is a miracle and then there are naturalistic processes known as providence. I can conclude a Creator simply because the testimony of Scriptures has proven itself far more reliable in its history then secular sources.

What would you consider "sufficient evidence to the contrary"?

A directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of tripling the size and complexity of the human brain from that of apes.

I agree. Natural revelation isn't science, though.

Natural revelation is a self evident, a priori fact of creation. The counter perception would be a postoria which includes empirical testing. The a priori represents the substantiveness of human reason. You can't rely of crude fact, it has to go through the crucible of systematic reflection and that is never empirical, even if the focus is exclusively the testing of hypothesis.

Greenleaf isn't saying Christian apologetics is scientific, so no.

He wasn't a scientist but he literally wrote the book on evidence in the United State for nearly half a century. He makes his argument strictly from the evidence used in court to establish the credibility of documents and witnesses. That doesn't sound scientific to you?

That would seem to be exactly what he is saying:

In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science.​

The difference is that the definition of science had not yet been blended with the naturalistic assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Sure I have just not to your satisfaction

With respect, simply saying that you think something "looks intelligently designed", as you did here...

These look intelligently designed to me and beyond the means of natural law, and random chance to produce.

... isn't substantiation of anything. It's a hunch. The Meyer article you cited doesn't substantiate anything, either. It effectively says, "We cannot understand how system x might have come about via natural means, therefore it was a miracle." That's both an argument from ignorance and god-of-the-gaps theology.

I'm not only one arguing that intelligent design is little more than a hunch, though. ID's own founding fathers have said the same thing. Take Philip Johnson for example:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Or Paul Nelson:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

I have noticed that neither have you.

Of course I provided a definition of science. You asked me point blank to define science and I answered you point blank in my last post: hypothesis testing. You even replied to that definition below, so I know you saw it. Please don't witness falsely.

Which is common among Darwinians who simply assume naturalistic causes and organize the facts around them.

ALL of science assumes naturalistic causes, mark. You know that. We've been over this many times. So why do you continue to pick on evolution when your problem is with science as a whole? When is the last time you saw mention of God's miraculous handiwork while reading an astronomy textbook or a chemistry textbook? If it's methodological naturalism you don't like, then your beef is with science, not evolution.

Unless you are talking about the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes without any explanation for the molecular basis.

I've provided you citations to numerous papers that discuss the molecular basis for human brain evolution in the past. You've never addressed any of them.
And yes, the genes that influence human brain evolution and development CAN be observed: they're in our bodies as we speak. We can even play with them to determine what effects they have on brain development. The same can't be said for intelligent design.

Here are some more references for you on human brain evolution:

Molecular insights into human brain evolution : Abstract : Nature
ScienceDirect - Progress in Brain Research : Human brain evolution
Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain size -- Wang and Su 13 (11): 1131 -- Human Molecular Genetics

In Biology I would emphasis Mendelian genetics, cellular architecture, molecular chemistry in metabolism, basic anatomy and biological systematics. I would shun Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design and intellectual curiosities better examined in the humanities and philosophical disciplines.

But why? Under your own definition of science, all of those subjects are scientific in nature. So why include some and not others if, according to you, they're all science? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, all those subjects that you do advocate teaching make purely naturalistic assumptions (like Mendelian inheritance) -- aren't you against that?

How does that work with astronomy since it's based almost exclusively on observation?

Hypothesis testing is done in astronomy all the time. It isn't exclusively observation. Not sure where you're getting that from. Astronomy is no different from any other science in this respect.

It makes naturalistic assumptions that transcends all of life and all of living history.

Again, so does all science. Not just evolution. If your beef is with methodological naturalism, then your beef is with science.

I don't look at it that way, there is a miracle and then there are naturalistic processes known as providence. I can conclude a Creator simply because the testimony of Scriptures has proven itself far more reliable in its history then secular sources.

Right. So if, as Christians, we believe everything was created by God, how can we possibly derive a null of hypothesis that describes something not created by God? The Bible tells us that the entire universe owes its continued existence to God. There is nothing that exists apart from Him. So being able to say some object was or was not created by God is impossible. It's untestable.

A directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of tripling the size and complexity of the human brain from that of apes.

So you're saying that if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that the human brain was indeed evolved, you would stop believing in God? Your entire faith in Him hinges on that? In that case, I'm not so sure it's worth discussing the subject with you any further. I'd rather you be uninformed and saved that informed and unsaved.

Natural revelation is a self evident, a priori fact of creation.

But it isn't science.

 

[mark kennedy]

With respect, simply saying that you think something "looks intelligently designed", as you did here...



... isn't substantiation of anything. It's a hunch.

No it's not, it's a conclusion that all theists make based on the actual evidence.

The Meyer article you cited doesn't substantiate anything, either. It effectively says, "We cannot understand how system x might have come about via natural means, therefore it was a miracle." That's both an argument from ignorance and god-of-the-gaps theology.

Processes that have no basis in anything directly observed or demonstrated. Processes that, in effect, don't exist. Yet, you would have us assume them without any substantive or empirical proof. Let me tell you something about the theology you are trampling under your feet, it has nothing to do with an argument from ignorance or some nebulous God of the gaps nonsense, it's about revelation that you have abandoned in favor of worldly wisdom. There is a price to be paid for that.

I'm not only one arguing that intelligent design is little more than a hunch, though. ID's own founding fathers have said the same thing. Take Philip Johnson for example:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

You forget people like Newton and Aristotle not to mention Peter, Paul and the other Apostles like John that concluded an Intelligent Designer. I am amazed that you have the audacity to make the impossible statement that intelligent design began with Johnson, that is absurd.

Or Paul Nelson:

"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."

I'll assume out of courtesy that you will get to an actual point soon since you didn't bother to cite the source leaving the context completely unknown.

Of course I provided a definition of science. You asked me point blank to define science and I answered you point blank in my last post: hypothesis testing. You even replied to that definition below, so I know you saw it. Please don't witness falsely.

That is sad really, both the fact that you have abandoned Christian theism and that you would accept a two word definition for science, I actually feel sorry for you.

ALL of science assumes naturalistic causes, mark. You know that. We've been over this many times. So why do you continue to pick on evolution when your problem is with science as a whole? When is the last time you saw mention of God's miraculous handiwork while reading an astronomy textbook or a chemistry textbook? If it's methodological naturalism you don't like, then your beef is with science, not evolution.

My problem with you and most of the TEs on here is that you argue relentlessly against the clear testimony of Scripture and would seem to be good for nothing else. A profession of faith is nearly unheard of and you continue to ostracize a faith you have no interest in defending. I have no problem with science or evolution as properly defined, my problem is with the ad hominem attacks of secular scientists that have nothing but animosity for a faith they know nothing about.

I have no problem with science, I have no issues with evolution, not as properly defined in the epistemology and methodology of modern theory and practice. What I have a problem with, as I have told you repeatedly, is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by means of exclusively naturalistic processes.

Any Bible believing Christian would understand that.

I've provided you citations to numerous papers that discuss the molecular basis for human brain evolution in the past. You've never addressed any of them.
And yes, the genes that influence human brain evolution and development CAN be observed: they're in our bodies as we speak. We can even play with them to determine what effects they have on brain development. The same can't be said for intelligent design.

Nonsense, if you had a molecular mechanism you would have flown it like a flag in this discussion. You would have at least spoke of it in passing, you would have at least mentioned it in the most general terms. You did none of that and you continue to dodge the real issues while making this an all out ad hominem attack.

Here are some more references for you on human brain evolution:

Molecular insights into human brain evolution : Abstract : Nature

This is an abstract that promises insights that it does not provide. By the way, never seen it before or I would have read the paper by now.

ScienceDirect - Progress in Brain Research : Human brain evolution

A link to a Science Direct news article that would not load and I have never seen before or I would have tracked down the actual source material.

Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain size -- Wang and Su 13 (11): 1131 -- Human Molecular Genetics

Well aware of the article and the work of the authors but still unsure of how you are trying to make a point of links to abstracts that do not identify molecular mechanisms that explain the three fold expansion from that of apes.

But why? Under your own definition of science, all of those subjects are scientific in nature. So why include some and not others if, according to you, they're all science? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, all those subjects that you do advocate teaching make purely naturalistic assumptions (like Mendelian inheritance) -- aren't you against that?

Come on now, do you really think that I'm against assumptions? I know they have to happen, I draw the line at making fallacious naturalistic assumptions simply because God is the cause. Mendel neither rejected nor invoked God, he simply observed and produced a model. I draw the line at intellectual and philosophical irrelevancies and fallacies, I am against nothing naturalistic except the assumption that God has not been involved in the history of life and humanity.

Hypothesis testing is done in astronomy all the time. It isn't exclusively observation. Not sure where you're getting that from. Astronomy is no different from any other science in this respect.

You don't empirically predict the course of a comet, you measure it. The only way that happens is you have to have something like calculus to do that. You assertion like the rest of your argument is superficial at best.

Again, so does all science. Not just evolution. If your beef is with methodological naturalism, then your beef is with science.

My beef is with those who would prefer the atheistic philosophy of Darwinism over the clear testimony of Scripture. While you already know that you continue to drag this discussion down to the ad hominem depths of fallacious argumentation that marks the most telling flaw of Darwinism.

That's simply not Christian. You have been deceived.

Right. So if, as Christians, we believe everything was created by God, how can we possibly derive a null of hypothesis that describes something not created by God? The Bible tells us that the entire universe owes its continued existence to God. There is nothing that exists apart from Him. So being able to say some object was or was not created by God is impossible. It's untestable.

There are ways but you have to stop talking in generalities and start talking about the particulars like the evolution of the human brain or how bacteria become plant and animal cells.

So you're saying that if it could be demonstrated to your satisfaction that the human brain was indeed evolved, you would stop believing in God? Your entire faith in Him hinges on that? In that case, I'm not so sure it's worth discussing the subject with you any further. I'd rather you be uninformed and saved that informed and unsaved.

It would effect none of the essential truths of the New Testament for me, I assure you that. Thats not what this is all about, Darwinism does not make it's case. I have a truck load of reasons why I believe that the collective arguments from homology and imperfection are flawed, what I want and need are the molecular mechanisms involved. What I don't need is the continued insistence that I am ignorant of a subject that I have searched out for over six year now. Your arguments neither impress nor persuade me and I reserve the right to remain unconvinced.

But it isn't science.

That would depend on how you define the term and you have never bothered to make a serious effort.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Like I said, mark, because you've admitted that your entire faith in God hinges on your disbelief in human evolution (and it isn't the first time you've admitted this), I'm not going to discuss the subject any further with you. If the only thing keeping you from being an atheist is your rejection of the inferred relationship between humans and apes, then far be it from me to ruin your relationship with God by discussing something as ultimately unimportant as science. No one's faith is worth that.

Thanks for the condescending lecture about how to be a proper Christian, though. You demonstrate the fruits aptly.

 

[mark kennedy]

Like I said, mark, because you've admitted that your entire faith in God hinges on your disbelief in human evolution (and it isn't the first time you've admitted this), I'm not going to discuss the subject any further with you. If the only thing keeping you from being an atheist is your rejection of the inferred relationship between humans and apes, then far be it from me to ruin your relationship with God by discussing something as ultimately unimportant as science. No one's faith is worth that.

Thanks for the condescending lecture about how to be a proper Christian, though. You demonstrate the fruits aptly.

Well you have demonstrated both your ability to ignore and misrepresent my views with utter disdain. I have said repeatedly that if I were convinced of the common ancestry of apes and humans my theology would not change dramatically. I asked you as a scientist for the molecular mechanisms required for such a transition and you simply posted links to abstracts that demonstrated nothing.

I do regret that we will not continue our discussion, I honestly would have liked to have pursued this. I understand your confusion since you are being held captive by a philosophy that does not allow for exceptions or substantive questions. I can only assure you that you are in my prayers and I pray that God will deliver you from the delusion of Darwinism.

Otherwise, thanks for the exchange and if you feel differently later I will be happy to discuss this with you further.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

Well you have demonstrated both your ability to ignore and misrepresent my views with utter disdain.

I asked you:

And how could you ever falsify a God who is omni-potent and omni-present?

You replied:

It can be falsified if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary

Then I asked:

What would you consider "sufficient evidence to the contrary"?

To which you replied:

A directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of tripling the size and complexity of the human brain from that of apes.

I don't see how I have ignored or misrepresented your words. You've admitted that your belief in God hinges on your ignorance of "A directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of tripling the size and complexity of the human brain from that of apes." Those are your own words. Not mine. And with that, I'll end this discussion lest your faith be shaken.

Thanks for toning down the vitriol... a little.

 

[mark kennedy]

I asked you:

questions that you have already considered:

It can be falsified if there is sufficient evidence to the contrary

I don't see how I have ignored or misrepresented your words. You've admitted that your belief in God hinges on your ignorance of "A directly observed or demonstrated molecular mechanism capable of tripling the size and complexity of the human brain from that of apes." Those are your own words. Not mine. And with that, I'll end this discussion lest your faith be shaken.

Thanks for toning down the vitriol... a little.

My faith will not be shaken by you, you can rest assured of that. You asked me for positive proof that would shake my belief and that is the only one. Trust me when I tell you, you don't have a single clue what it takes and for once you must realize you don't have an argument.

I really feel sorry for you, I think it is sad to try to defend such a sad and defenseless philosophy.

Good luck,
Mark

 

[shernren]

you continue to drag this discussion down to the ad hominem depths of fallacious argumentation that marks the most telling flaw of Darwinism.

Wait, like these?

Let me tell you something about the theology you are trampling under your feet, it has nothing to do with an argument from ignorance or some nebulous God of the gaps nonsense, it's about revelation that you have abandoned in favor of worldly wisdom. There is a price to be paid for that.

That is sad really, both the fact that you have abandoned Christian theism and that you would accept a two word definition for science, I actually feel sorry for you.

My problem with you and most of the TEs on here is that you argue relentlessly against the clear testimony of Scripture and would seem to be good for nothing else. A profession of faith is nearly unheard of and you continue to ostracize a faith you have no interest in defending. I have no problem with science or evolution as properly defined, my problem is with the ad hominem attacks of secular scientists that have nothing but animosity for a faith they know nothing about.

That's simply not Christian. You have been deceived.

Ohh, I get it.

When TEs try to answer the points you are raising, and studiously refrain from attacking your character, even to the extent of telling off other evolutionists who try to poison the well against ID (see #7 in reply to #6), that's ad hominem argumentation!

And when you consider evolutionists faithless despite their testimony in both understanding and living by the Bible, tell them that they have abandoned the faith despite them being actively and explicitly concerned about yours, and slander an entire category of people (secular scientists) of whom you have probably only met a handful, that must be sound Biblical reasoning!

Can I try that too? Can I? Can I?

You're
terrible.
Because I say so.

(Gee, I think I'm getting the hang of mark-kennedy-style argument!)

 

[shernren]

(I don't actually think mark's terrible, by the by. I'm just illustrating what his diatribe sounds like on my ears after five years of essentially no intellectual variation on his part.

If I could think of anything edifying to say to mark, I would. But I can't. He's just that hostile to us.)

 

[Mallon]

I really feel sorry for you, I think it is sad to try to defend such a sad and defenseless philosophy.

Thanks, mark. Means a lot coming from a guy with no formal training in either science or philosophy and who owes his entire knowledge of these subjects to the internet.

(And I have no idea how in one breath you can describe evolution as the "atheistic philosophy of Darwinism" or as "a sad and defenseless philosophy", and in another breath say "if I were convinced of the common ancestry of apes and humans my theology would not change dramatically". Maybe I'm not the deluded one you should be praying for.)

 

[Mallon]

You're
terrible.
Because I say so.

(Gee, I think I'm getting the hang of mark-kennedy-style argument!)

You forgot to end it with a nice, big, sarcastic

"Have a nice day "

 

[Harry3142]

Science teaches us what 'tools' were used in order to create the universe.

Our faith tells us who the master builder was who used those tools.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks, mark. Means a lot coming from a guy with no formal training in either science or philosophy and who owes his entire knowledge of these subjects to the internet.

(And I have no idea how in one breath you can describe evolution as the "atheistic philosophy of Darwinism" or as "a sad and defenseless philosophy", and in another breath say "if I were convinced of the common ancestry of apes and humans my theology would not change dramatically". Maybe I'm not the deluded one you should be praying for.)

I don't know why you guys turn on the drama but you always make it personal. I don't need formal training since none of the arguments being used are scientific or academic. It took a couple of pages but you made the discussion into an ad hominem attack, that is the only thing TEs on here ever do and my whole problem with it.

Oh by the way Mr Scientist, when I get out of the Army in 16 months I'm going to study Molecular and Cellular Biology. Not because I care what you think of my academic pedigree but because the Life Sciences interest me.

I really feel sorry for you, I mean you spend so much of your time bashing people of faith as if it were your sacred duty. Every Creationist I have talked to who left this board said it was over these endless personal attacks. If that's what you calling evolution I want nothing to do with it.

 

[mark kennedy]

When TEs try to answer the points you are raising, and studiously refrain from attacking your character, even to the extent of telling off other evolutionists who try to poison the well against ID (see #7 in reply to #6), that's ad hominem argumentation!

Notice you have responded to none of the points made, just making the most scathing personal indictment you can, that's called an ad hominem attack and its fallacious. You don't care about science or evolution, you just like trolling the board for someone to belittle. If you have no interest in the topic what are you doing?

And when you consider evolutionists faithless despite their testimony in both understanding and living by the Bible, tell them that they have abandoned the faith despite them being actively and explicitly concerned about yours, and slander an entire category of people (secular scientists) of whom you have probably only met a handful, that must be sound Biblical reasoning!

I never said they weren't Christians, many, certainly not all are. What I have said again and again is that the philosophy they are zealously protecting isn't Christian.

Can I try that too? Can I? Can I?

You're
terrible.
Because I say so.

(Gee, I think I'm getting the hang of mark-kennedy-style argument!)

Right of the bat with the childish mockery, is this how you defend the cause of science?

 

[mark kennedy]

(I don't actually think mark's terrible, by the by. I'm just illustrating what his diatribe sounds like on my ears after five years of essentially no intellectual variation on his part.

If I could think of anything edifying to say to mark, I would. But I can't. He's just that hostile to us.)

I'm not the one who is turning these discussions into flamewars, your actually the worst I have seen. Why bother responding to the OP when you can get a round of backslapping from you cohorts simply by these biting personal remarks.

Just finished a book on Hermeneutics, Understanding and Applying the Bible by Robertson McQuilkin but instead of discussing how the Scriptures are properly studied and understood you start you personal attacks.

I don't know what you believe or don't believe about the Bible, your not interested in talking about it. I don't know what you think of Intelligent Design because you never talk about it. All you do is bash Bible believing Christians for their faith and you wonder why I start to wonder if you mean the same thing by 'Christian' that I do.

It took a couple of pages but you guys managed to derail another thread, good job, I know you take a lot of pride in your work

 

[mark kennedy]

Science teaches us what 'tools' were used in order to create the universe.

Our faith tells us who the master builder was who used those tools.

We don't really know and probably can't understand how God did it. Science is pretty good about figuring out how it works, that's about it.

An interesting thought...

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Right of the bat with the childish mockery, is this how you defend the cause of science?

I wasn't even aware that the cause of science needed defending. Even if it does, it's certainly not from the likes of you, and even if it could, it's certainly not by the likes of me.

I'm just in this thread to have a laugh, really.

I'll be off now to have some rational discussions with other creationists. I'm sure you won't miss me. After all, I'm just trolling the board for someone to belittle, right?

Have a nice day

 

[mark kennedy]

I wasn't even aware that the cause of science needed defending. Even if it does, it's certainly not from the likes of you, and even if it could, it's certainly not by the likes of me.

I'm just in this thread to have a laugh, really.

I'll be off now to have some rational discussions with other creationists. I'm sure you won't miss me. After all, I'm just trolling the board for someone to belittle, right?

Have a nice day

You just popped in long enough to derail the thread because the resident scientist was getting the worst of it. There is always one of you to pop in, make scathing, biting, personal attacks and get the attention off the fact that the evolutionists had no answer for the substantive issues.

You went straight at me and before that you were raiding the Creationism forum. There is always a shernren, always a zombie poster who is just trying to take a bite out of someone. You run along now and see if you can find a bible believing Christian that isn't wise to you yet.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Before I plant my flag and put this thread in the win column I thought it was only fair to get the unanswered question Mallon dodged back up, just in case someone has the courage of their convictions.

Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)...

...Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI.Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Stephen C. Meyer
​

Oh, besides that why do we have to assume things are evolved rather then designed? Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjsIn7yd2x8