Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Dave RP]

Then sadly there is a problem in your ability to process logical reasoning if it disagrees with your programming (similar to someone who is inundated with a cult's propaganda loop). Either that or you are ignorant of human biology. An objective person must be able to think outside the box.

The reasoning is scientifically sound (I gave examples)....

1. For DNA to function it must do so in the context of a living cell...

a) Functional DNA (in fact just DNA itself) does not exist outside of a living system.

b) It is the DNA that encodes for ALL proteins that make up the cell (including those in the cell membrane that make it functional)

2. For a cell to exist (even the membrane must have their essential proteins present to function as a cell membrane...its semi-permeability depends on this) it has to have been "made" according to the instructions encoded in the DNA. This means

a) the transcription/translation processes MUST be working

b) this precludes the interactive existence of RNA

Therefore the Cell CANNOT exist without the genetic material's instructions and the genetic material that encodes for these proteins CANNOT encode for them (or produce them) outside of a living system. Since these two things are entirely INTERDEPENDENT (in symbiosis), this means that one cannot have been partially evolved before the other formed at any time.

Only partial evolvement of DNA would not produce the correct sequence and structure of the necessary proteins and an only evolving cell wall CANNOT happen without the direction of genetic materials already being inplace and functioning properly in relation to one another.

If you think that is "gibberish" then either you are simply denying the obvious or else you need to get an education in this area before you speak to it (however you should not need this to understand what I have said).

Paul

I have read much of this thread with interest, unfortunately I am not qualified to respond scientifically to what you say above but as I see it you are saying that this "proves" that cells with DNA must have been created. I don't believe it does, for me I would say that "the process by which DNA came to be in these cells is not yet understood."

I would not use a lack of a scientific explanation for something as proof of a creator, because all I then do is postpone the problem back a few steps until I get to ...... "but where did the creator come from?"

Of course, it may be that there actually was a creator, and I am proved wrong in my non belief, even then that is still a huge step to believing in Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, whoever and the Quoran, Bible, Torah, Harry Potter and the associated heaven, hell, hogwarts, wherever............ But only time will tell.

 

[paulm50]

Where in the bible does it say god created DNA?

OK I'm joking, so forgive me. Cells needing DNA to function is neither proof of natural selection or intelligent design.

You might as well say gravity proves the presence of a creator.

 

[pshun2404]

I have read much of this thread with interest, unfortunately I am not qualified to respond scientifically to what you say above but as I see it you are saying that this "proves" that cells with DNA must have been created. I don't believe it does, for me I would say that "the process by which DNA came to be in these cells is not yet understood."

I would not use a lack of a scientific explanation for something as proof of a creator, because all I then do is postpone the problem back a few steps until I get to ...... "but where did the creator come from?"

Of course, it may be that there actually was a creator, and I am proved wrong in my non belief, even then that is still a huge step to believing in Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, whoever and the Quoran, Bible, Torah, Harry Potter and the associated heaven, hell, hogwarts, wherever............ But only time will tell.

Very gracious, glad you are following. You sound more like an honest agnostic rather then most atheists I have discussed such things with. Truth is based as much on deduction as induction and good questions are to be welcomed by a truly opened mind. I find too many on either sides of these types of debates are closed minded and refuse to use reason. They have their mantras or dogmas and that is that. That is not me...the posts I have give a support to that which I did not believe and fought against as vehemently for many years.

There IS design in nature...
Nature is mostly governed by dependable laws applicable everywhere...
Complex information does not spontaneously generate
Nothing has ever indicated that non-living matter organizes itself for no reason, so as to become living creatures
Yet you'd better accept and regurgitate this dogma or else you will fail your courses

Evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection – a very important distinction among scientists) concludes in his preface the following facts:

1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”

2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”

4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.” (see the same opinion defended by Paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam earlier)

Dr. Kerkut, goes on to reveal something even more shocking, in fact, it is described by the good Doctor as, “a little known secret“ among Darwin’s followers (those evolutionists that accept random coincidence as the basis for life). Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to accept the Darwinian evolutionary model (not the only one)!

He tells us the first 6 are usually either glossed over, swallowed whole, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these are pre-conceived assumptions, and thus not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools and in the Media they have been drilled into us as if they are established facts:

Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)

Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this must be “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)

Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.

Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)

Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all related

Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed and then the vertebrate, fully formed, with no quasi or in between examples)

Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again never actually observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to actually be the case and as scientifically indicated in my references given to birds and reptiles)

*parentheses mine

Yet we are bombarded with the belief these are established "scientifically”, when they are not, from the time we are very young (I know, I was, and I loved it but ow that I have stufied applid propaganda techniques I an very very careful). Dr. Kerkut himself calls them “assumptions”! Why? Because ”...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification.“ He is not saying that experiments cannot be done, just that none of these things can verified by this method.

Please note:I am asking people to reason from the actual data, and that the sources, and none of the people I have quoted, are Young Earth Creationists...in fact they have all been outstanding professional in their fields and most all of them scientists.

 

[pshun2404]

Where in the bible does it say god created DNA?

OK I'm joking, so forgive me. Cells needing DNA to function is neither proof of natural selection or intelligent design.

You might as well say gravity proves the presence of a creator.

No! It's proof that cells could not have slowly evolved over millions of yearsfrom non-living matter.

 

[paulm50]

There IS design in nature...
Nature is mostly governed by dependable laws applicable everywhere...
Complex information does not spontaneously generate
Nothing has ever indicated that non-living matter organizes itself for no reason, so as to become living creatures
Yet you'd better accept and regurgitate this dogma or else you will fail your courses

Yes there has to be design in nature, the environment is the defining factor of deciding which design fits best.
However there never was life from dead matter. The Earth is still at the core a boiling mass of lava, this creates life today.

Evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection – a very important distinction among scientists) concludes in his preface the following facts:

1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”

2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”

4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.” (see the same opinion defended by Paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam earlier)

Dr. Kerkut, goes on to reveal something even more shocking, in fact, it is described by the good Doctor as, “a little known secret“ among Darwin’s followers (those evolutionists that accept random coincidence as the basis for life). Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to accept the Darwinian evolutionary model (not the only one)!

He tells us the first 6 are usually either glossed over, swallowed whole, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these are pre-conceived assumptions, and thus not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools and in the Media they have been drilled into us as if they are established facts:

Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)

Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this must be “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)

Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.

Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)

Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all related

Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed and then the vertebrate, fully formed, with no quasi or in between examples)

Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again never actually observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to actually be the case and as scientifically indicated in my references given to birds and reptiles)

*parentheses mine

Yet we are bombarded with the belief these are established "scientifically”, when they are not, from the time we are very young (I know, I was, and I loved it but ow that I have stufied applid propaganda techniques I an very very careful). Dr. Kerkut himself calls them “assumptions”! Why? Because ”...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification.“ He is not saying that experiments cannot be done, just that none of these things can verified by this method.

Please note:I am asking people to reason from the actual data, and that the sources, and none of the people I have quoted, are Young Earth Creationists...in fact they have all been outstanding professional in their fields and most all of them scientists.

The book was published 55 years ago. Using science of finding of the time. It's pointless quoting from this.

 

[stevevw]

Show us this evidence.

OK so for indirect evidence of design in nature and that naturalistic or materialistic processes are not responsible for what we see you can find plenty of peer reviewed papers for this below. These links will give a commentary as well as links to plenty of papers and scientific research. Rather than post individual papers and research its better to cite multiple references to look at as I know from past experience that most will be rejected for one reason or another.
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html
A List of Peer-Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design
http://sententias.org/2012/02/15/id-papers/
PEER-REVIEWED INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE JOURNALS
https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/...iewed-research-published-in-science-journals/
http://evoinfo.org/publications/
Here are a few I singled out
Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?
This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/4/420
Therefore, although the process of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract
Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html
This is the Best Proof that God Exists (in My Opinion)
http://notashamedofthegospel.com/apologetics/proof-that-god-exists/
Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
These papers indicate that design is seen in nature and genetics and has done from the beginning.
Considering this along with the whole body of evidence on enzyme conversions, we think structural similarities among enzymes with distinct functions are better interpreted as supporting shared design principles than shared evolutionary histories.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2014.4
MicroRNAs and metazoan macroevolution: insights into canalization, complexity, and the Cambrian explosion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472371
Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...he_Origin_of_Metazoa_Thoughts_About_Evolution

On what do you base this conclusion?

On what science itself has said. If they postulate ideas of other dimensions and worlds themselves as part of the explanation for what we see and experience then they can never verify this because they cant go to another world or dimension. The type of answers they give show that they struggle to answer and explain things with the cause and effect methods we use for everything. They have to step outside the parameters of the physics and the way in which we explain things using logic. The quantum world is one example. Explaining something from nothing is another. Even some scientists want to change the criteria for falsification in science and relax the rules a bit because they are struggling to explain what they are finding empirically.
Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

No, if we don't know then we don't know. That doesn't justify making things up and pretending to know the answer.

I think you put some scientists up on to high a pedal-stool. Of course they want to fudge the answers a bit. It has already been found in studies done how even peer reviewed work is made out to be better than it is. Results are fudged or sloppy work has been passed off as science. The thing is they might have some indirect reasons to speculate some ideas so they can explain something that is beyond them. After a while there are so many ideas floating around that one or two get some traction and are held up as being the answer. Talk about something enough like multiverse theory or string theory and it becomes true to many.

But when you stop and take a step back and look at all the different ideas that have been put forward they are all a bit far fetched and none have any solid evidence. Most scientist then believe that within one of those ideas or a combination of them or a bit of tweaking with them is going to be the answer. This is the search for the theory of everything. Some scientists say when we find that we will then know the mind of God.

What I am saying is because it demands such an explanation that causes scientists to come up with all these far fetched ideas it goes to show that the answer is going to be something that is pretty amazing and beyond what we know today. Its going to involve physics that go beyond the physics we know and dimensions beyond our own reality.

Argument from ignorance appears to be your favorite fallacy.

I wouldn't say that. I am only doing what many are doing. Speculating that there is something beyond what we see. That science doesn't have all the answers because the evidence points to that. Even many scientists are acknowledging this. Its not ignorance because we have some indirect evidence to go on and we can build a case from that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK so for indirect evidence of design in nature and that naturalistic or materialistic processes are not responsible for what we see you can find plenty of peer reviewed papers for this below. These links will give a commentary as well as links to plenty of papers and scientific research. Rather than post individual papers and research its better to cite multiple references to look at as I know from past experience that most will be rejected for one reason or another.

Looks like a bunch of creationist websites and blogs. Got anything actually worth looking at?

Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

Religion doesn't seem able to provide any answers.

I think you put some scientists up on to high a pedal-stool. Of course they want to fudge the answers a bit. It has already been found in studies done how even peer reviewed work is made out to be better than it is. Results are fudged or sloppy work has been passed off as science. The thing is they might have some indirect reasons to speculate some ideas so they can explain something that is beyond them. After a while there are so many ideas floating around that one or two get some traction and are held up as being the answer. Talk about something enough like multiverse theory or string theory and it becomes true to many.

But when you stop and take a step back and look at all the different ideas that have been put forward they are all a bit far fetched and none have any solid evidence. Most scientist then believe that within one of those ideas or a combination of them or a bit of tweaking with them is going to be the answer. This is the search for the theory of everything. Some scientists say when we find that we will then know the mind of God.

What I am saying is because it demands such an explanation that causes scientists to come up with all these far fetched ideas it goes to show that the answer is going to be something that is pretty amazing and beyond what we know today. Its going to involve physics that go beyond the physics we know and dimensions beyond our own reality.

You're rambling, again. You know by now that I don't respond to your rambling.

I wouldn't say that. I am only doing what many are doing. Speculating that there is something beyond what we see. That science doesn't have all the answers because the evidence points to that. Even many scientists are acknowledging this. Its not ignorance because we have some indirect evidence to go on and we can build a case from that.

As I said, your favourite fallacy is the argument ignorance.

 

[Dave RP]

Very gracious, glad you are following. You sound more like an honest agnostic rather then most atheists I have discussed such things with. Truth is based as much on deduction as induction and good questions are to be welcomed by a truly opened mind. I find too many on either sides of these types of debates are closed minded and refuse to use reason. They have their mantras or dogmas and that is that. That is not me...the posts I have give a support to that which I did not believe and fought against as vehemently for many years.

There IS design in nature...
Nature is mostly governed by dependable laws applicable everywhere...
Complex information does not spontaneously generate
Nothing has ever indicated that non-living matter organizes itself for no reason, so as to become living creatures
Yet you'd better accept and regurgitate this dogma or else you will fail your courses

Evolutionist, and biological researcher, G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution, which is a part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, (Volume 4, division Zoology, Pergamon Press), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection – a very important distinction among scientists) concludes in his preface the following facts:

1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”

2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”

4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.” (see the same opinion defended by Paleoanthropologist David Pilbeam earlier)

Dr. Kerkut, goes on to reveal something even more shocking, in fact, it is described by the good Doctor as, “a little known secret“ among Darwin’s followers (those evolutionists that accept random coincidence as the basis for life). Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to accept the Darwinian evolutionary model (not the only one)!

He tells us the first 6 are usually either glossed over, swallowed whole, or entirely avoided, and most Darwinian supporters work predominantly from the 7th alone. Here they are! Now remember, these are pre-conceived assumptions, and thus not “established facts”, although in most Public Schools and in the Media they have been drilled into us as if they are established facts:

Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (note: this has never been observed, has never been demonstrated, and all testing that has been done only negates this possibility)

Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this must be “believed” void of any actual evidence other than conjecture)

Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.

Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)

Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all related

Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed and then the vertebrate, fully formed, with no quasi or in between examples)

Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again never actually observed or demonstrated, nor have there ever been any tests to show this to actually be the case and as scientifically indicated in my references given to birds and reptiles)

*parentheses mine

Yet we are bombarded with the belief these are established "scientifically”, when they are not, from the time we are very young (I know, I was, and I loved it but ow that I have stufied applid propaganda techniques I an very very careful). Dr. Kerkut himself calls them “assumptions”! Why? Because ”...these seven assumptions are not capable of experimental verification.“ He is not saying that experiments cannot be done, just that none of these things can verified by this method.

Please note:I am asking people to reason from the actual data, and that the sources, and none of the people I have quoted, are Young Earth Creationists...in fact they have all been outstanding professional in their fields and most all of them scientists.

Thank you for the response.

Just to clarify I am an atheist in that I don't believe in the god of the Bible/ Koran/ Torah, I don't believe in eternal life, hell, judgement or anything similar. I believe you live, you die and that's it.

I do not know where life came from and how all this wonderfulness we see around us came about.

The human mind and scientific method is not at this time capable of explaining everything, and it seems the deeper you go, the more complex things are. Perhaps we will never get all the answers. However, if you believe the earth is c4.5 billion years old, that is an awfully long time for things to happen, and who knows what can happen naturally which we don't yet (or may never) understand.

Gaps in the fossil record are not justification for the failure of a scientific theory, we must have found only a tiny proportion of creatures that existed over the millions of years which life has been on earth. Scientists estimate that the first life evolved 3.5 billion years ago, a time span which is impossible to visualise, even the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is impossible to visualise, and this vast span of time must have given opportunity for all sorts of random events to take place.

I do think that there might be something so far beyond our understanding that we have to label it "God" - a force or a process which is beyond our current means to describe. For me though, if that "thing" exists, it is not the god of the various religions, it is a natural phenomena which we cant understand and therefore call it God.

 

[stevevw]

There may be a god. The reason for different religions has nothing to do with god. It's about power. OT and NT were created to increase power. They have been used ever since then to maintain and increase power.

I'm not sure it was purely to do with power. There have been plenty of examples of people and nations exerting their power without the need for a bible or God.

If believing makes you happy, then fine. I find happiness in my family, and life. I see a lot of religious people filling their lives with material things. Christians very much wrap their lives around it.

Just because you claim to be religious or a Christian doesn't mean you are. Many religious people can be hypocrites and say one thing and do another. Especially in today's materialistic world. But I believe anyone can know that true happiness isn't found in material things. I am personally happy to have a faith in God and you are right that it is personal. I cant make anyone believe what I believe. It has to be something each person comes to and it is between them and God.

Yes as you say many want to believe in something, the promise of an afterlife was enough to make many Romans convert. Is it true? No one has come back to give a real account. Some may give accounts of a light, which is very vague and only oral testimony.

I think not just in an afterlife but also in this life. People want some meaning and have this internal knowledge that there is more to life than what we see or are presented with. It seems in a time in modern life when we have been striving and achieving for decades to obtain a better and happier life many are getting depressed and ending their lives. You would think with all we have done and have that we would have found real peace and happiness. But it seems the more we try to make it the more we miss the point.

Where as, Evolution isn't a belief that can't be proven. It's backed up over and over again with physical evidence

Yes but there is a catch. Evolution has been proven as far as creatures changing and adaption within their kinds and to a limit (micro evolution). But what some do is take this and say that these same things can then make a creature become something completely different and take on new genetic info. That hasn't been proven in all the tests done so far. This is the tricky part where some get caught. So to an extent people have to have faith in that because it has never been observed.

The number of people seeking an answer, in educated countries, is getting lower all the time. Some American Christians want evolution to be banned from schools, to shore up their support. Like Muslims, who don't want women taught, and nothing that strays outside their tight beliefs, they understand the power behind brainwashing people young. Jews also use this technique.

I think for more mainstream countries its more a case of a fair go. Christians dont want to ban science but they would like a fair go for God and creation as well. To have their side considered. Especially if there may be some evidence for it and that there may also be some evidence that evolution isn't as fact as some make out. At the very least it should be stated more often that things are not so straight forward with evolution.

Instead of this story telling where some are putting the flesh on the bones of the evolution story and giving all these details in schools and books like its fact. They should be qualifying things by stating that some of this is not fact and its only speculated. They should be including some of the tests and peer reviewed work done in ID as well to give the other side of the story.

The continual debate of Creationism, Intelligent Design, Genesis Myth against overwhelming evidence, makes the Christians look foolish. And misses the chance to concentrate on the good things in the bible.

Its not all myth and thats the problem. whether its God or some other supernatural being or its an alien race who are doing some sort of experiment. The fact is there is complexity in life that goes beyond a naturalistic explanation. If we cant acknowledge this then we are being foolish. Because it denies something that is there and then we are being ignorant. We may be able to find new approaches and insights.

The thing is if science keeps heading hitting some dead ends with what they believe then they are not being open to other possibilities. Some are now saying the more we discovery lately the more we are finding God. The strange world of quantum physics, the complex world of genetics and the ever expanding finely tuned universe are bringing up challenges that may be beyond the science and natural world as we know it.

 

[paulm50]

OK so for indirect evidence of design in nature and that naturalistic or materialistic processes are not responsible for what we see you can find plenty of peer reviewed papers for this below. These links will give a commentary as well as links to plenty of papers and scientific research. Rather than post individual papers and research its better to cite multiple references to look at as I know from past experience that most will be rejected for one reason or another.
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

I stopped reading when it proposed to know what an Intelligent Designer (god) was thinking, because it knows what a Human Designer thinks.

What is crystal clear is once you go to these lengths to prove a god or designer. You leave the bible behind and destroy it's word. Because it's clear Genesis writers had no clue of how the Earth had arrived at that time, you're trying to prove a designer and in doing so destroying the bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes but there is a catch. Evolution has been proven as far as creatures changing and adaption within their kinds and to a limit (micro evolution). But what some do is take this and say that these same things can then make a creature become something completely different and take on new genetic info. That hasn't been proven in all the tests done so far. This is the tricky part where some get caught. So to an extent people have to have faith in that because it has never been observed.

Evolution does not anticipate a crocoduck. It's time for creationists to let that one go.

I think for more mainstream countries its more a case of a fair go. Christians dont want to ban science but they would like a fair go for God and creation as well. To have their side considered.

They aren't taken seriously because they don't play by the rules.

Instead of this story telling where some are putting the flesh on the bones of the evolution story and giving all these details in schools and books like its fact. They should be qualifying things by stating that some of this is not fact and its only speculated. They should be including some of the tests and peer reviewed work done in ID as well to give the other side of the story.

ID doesn't do science, which is why it doesn't have any place in the science classroom.

Its not all myth and thats the problem. whether its God or some other supernatural being or its an alien race who are doing some sort of experiment. The fact is there is complexity in life that goes beyond a naturalistic explanation.

Argument from ignorance really is your favourite fallacy.

If we cant acknowledge this then we are being foolish. Because it denies something that is there and then we are being ignorant. We may be able to find new approaches and insights.

What new approaches and insight does supernaturalism offer?

 

[stevevw]

Looks like a bunch of creationist websites and blogs. Got anything actually worth looking at?

Religion doesn't seem able to provide any answers.

You're rambling, again. You know by now that I don't respond to your rambling.

As I said, your favourite fallacy is the argument ignorance.

I thought that may have been the case. Well You are being dismissive again and it seems that you dont even want to look at the evidence in case it brings up something that challenges what you believe. The sites are religious but they have links to many non religious peer reviewed science. But because of your pre conceived views which seem to be prejudiced you dismiss and ignore this. You may say I am rambling and being ignorant but your are pre judging things.

It seems if its against what you say its creationists rubbish or rambling. What sort of evidence do you want. You are shooting the messager and not even reading the message. I think you need to look into these links and read a few. Even a couple of the peer reviewed ones and then come back with some constructive debate rather than being dismissive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I thought that may have been the case. Well You are being dismissive again and it seems that you dont even want to look at the evidence in case it brings up something that challenges what you believe.

No, I don't want to waste my time.

The sites are religious but they have links to many non religious peer reviewed science. But because of your pre conceived views which seem to be prejudiced you dismiss and ignore this. You may say I am rambling and being ignorant but your are pre judging things.

No, steve, it's based on my previous experience with you. You post links claiming that they support what you're saying, but that often isn't true. I even showed you, on one occasion, that the authors' of a paper had reached the opposite conclusion to what you were claiming. Your task is easy: you just post whatever you want and claim that it supports your position. My task is more onerous: I'm expected to actually sift through all that material to determine whether it does actually support your position. In other words, as noted by Alberto Brandolini, "The amount of energy necessary to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

 

[stevevw]

Evolution does not anticipate a crocoduck. It's time for creationists to let that one go.

See thats what you assume again. If you would have read some of the links I have posted you would realize that there is a lot more to it than that. I'm talking about even down to a biological and genetic level of showing the pathways for how things can evolve new proteins and genetic info. Like mentioned before living things are very complex and there needs to be many chance mutations to evolve even simple structures. You need to show how this can be done through chance mutations.

There is evidence that the cost factor is to high and the selection is to low for this to happen and evolve all this complexity of life. At the same time there is also evidence for design in things and that because life is so complex that there had to be the info available very early in existence. The codes, systems, patterns and laws in life are there and all speak of design and they are right throughout everything in living things, in nature, in our universe. The chances of this all happening by some random chance is astronomically small.

ID doesn't do science, which is why it doesn't have any place in the science classroom.

So your saying the many qualified scientists who are experts in their fields and who have spend decades researching are not doing science. I am also talking about the scientists who dont belong to any religious organization who present work that brings evolution into question or have support for design. They dont set out to prove anything. They just present their findings as they have found it in their work. I think you are being biased and pre judging people.

Argument from ignorance really is your favorite fallacy.

If we ask the question could there be the possibility of some design in things because of a finely tuned universe for life dont think this is being ignorant. I think this is being fair and reasonable and being open to all possibilities. It is also acknowledging all the evidence and not shutting out certain things because of a pre conceived belief that everything must have a naturalistic explanation. Those who choose to shut certain things out are being the ignorant ones I would say more than anyone else.

What new approaches and insight does supernaturalism offer?

I didn't say that. I said being open to things beyond what we see. I will allow us to include those possibilities. Why, because if those possibilities are there then we are including every possible explanation and we will find the answers sooner. This will allow us to discover better and faster. But if we shut out certain things then we could be looking for centuries and the answer was there in front of us all the time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

See thats what you assume again. If you would have read some of the links I have posted you would realize that there is a lot more to it than that. I'm talking about even down to a biological and genetic level of showing the pathways for how things can evolve new proteins and genetic info. Like mentioned before living things are very complex and there needs to be many chance mutations to evolve even simple structures. You need to show how this can be done through chance mutations.

There is evidence that the cost factor is to high and the selection is to low for this to happen and evolve all this complexity of life. At the same time there is also evidence for design in things and that because life is so complex that there had to be the info available very early in existence. The codes, systems, patterns and laws in life are there and all speak of design and they are right throughout everything in living things, in nature, in our universe. The chances of this all happening by some random chance is astronomically small.

I already corrected your misconception regarding this point in the past. I'm not doing it again. You didn't listen then and you won't listen now.

So your saying the many qualified scientists who are experts in their fields and who have spend decades researching are not doing science.

How does one become an expert in ID? Join a creationist propaganda mill?

I am also talking about the scientists who dont belong to any religious organization who present work that brings evolution into question or have support for design. They dont set out to prove anything. They just present their findings as they have found it in their work. I think you are being biased and pre judging people.

Except that that's not happening. You've misinterpreted their work. I even encouraged you to contact the authors' of one paper to clarify the point. You wouldn't. Why was that?

If we ask the question could there be the possibility of some design in things because of a finely tuned universe for life dont think this is being ignorant. I think this is being fair and reasonable and being open to all possibilities. It is also acknowledging all the evidence and not shutting out certain things because of a pre conceived belief that everything must have a naturalistic explanation. Those who choose to shut certain things out are being the ignorant ones I would say more than anyone else.

You don't know what an argument from ignorance is.

I didn't say that. I said being open to things beyond what we see. I will allow us to include those possibilities. Why, because if those possibilities are there then we are including every possible explanation and we will find the answers sooner. This will allow us to discover better and faster. But if we shut out certain things then we could be looking for centuries and the answer was there in front of us all the time.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[pshun2404]

No, I think it's your ability to communicate your ideas.

Cool story bro. But what is the larger point you are trying to make? Who said that DNA and the cell must have evolved independently?

Is this more "irreducible complexity" nonsense? "Oh, but if you take one part away - just one - the whole thing falls apart!" Nope. See the example of the bacterial flagellum.

No, I really do think it's your communication that is at fault here. I have some background in biology and can barely decipher what point you think you are making.

Okay! This is foolish. The removal of flagellum is no different than if I cut off your legs....of course you will still be able to function...but pull out your heart or your brain or your liver????? Suck the nucleioid out of the bacteria or remove all the hydrolases...any cells have no membranes?

You totally refuse to "discuss" or "debate" any of the points Steve has made and now you are doing the same here...we are giving you science and facts and you are giving us your opinion but not dealing with any of the issues. Many lines of logical deduction elude your ability to comprehend (which I suspect is a ruse)

Address the points of #279 one at a time...are any not true? Yes or no....which and why....its called a discussion. I broke it down to a very simple level...skip any "larger point" lets deal with the evidence upon which to base any conclusions.

Point 1....true or false

if true? fine then we will move to point 2, if false? why? Based on what? Explain your position....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Okay! This is foolish. The removal of flagellum is no different than if I cut off your legs....of course you will still be able to function...but pull pout your heart or your brain or your liver????? Suck the nucleioid out of the bacteria or remove all the hydrolases...any cells have no membranes?

Address the points of #279 one at a time...are any not true? Yes or no....which and why....its called a discussion. I broke it down to a very simple level...skip any "larger point" lets deal with the evidence upon which to base any conclusions.

Point 1....true or false

Point 1 is tralse.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution does not anticipate a crocoduck. It's time for creationists to let that one go.

See thats what you assume again. If you would have read some of the links I have posted you would realize that there is a lot more to it than that. I'm talking about even down to a biological and genetic level of showing the pathways for how things can evolve new proteins and genetic info. Like mentioned before living things are very complex and there needs to be many chance mutations to evolve even simple structures. You need to show how this can be done through chance mutations.

There is evidence that the cost factor is to high and the selection is to low for this to happen and evolve all this complexity of life. At the same time there is also evidence for design in things and that because life is so complex that there had to be the info available very early in existence. The codes, systems, patterns and laws in life are there and all speak of design and they are right throughout everything in living things, in nature, in our universe. The chances of this all happening by some random chance is astronomically small.

ID doesn't do science, which is why it doesn't have any place in the science classroom.

So your saying the many qualified scientists who are experts in their fields and who have spend decades researching are not doing science. I am also talking about the scientists who dont belong to any religious organization who present work that brings evolution into question or have support for design. They dont set out to prove anything. They just present their findings as they have found it in their work. I think you are being biased and pre judging people.

Argument from ignorance really is your favorite fallacy.

If we ask the question could there be the possibility of some design in things because of a finely tuned universe for life dont think this is being ignorant. I think this is being fair and reasonable and being open to all possibilities. It is also acknowledging all the evidence and not shutting out certain things because of a pre conceived belief that everything must have a naturalistic explanation. Those who choose to shut certain things out are being the ignorant ones I would say more than anyone else.

What new approaches and insight does supernaturalism offer?

I didn't say that. I said being open to things beyond what we see. I will allow us to include those possibilities. Why, because if those possibilities are there then we are including every possible explanation and we will find the answers sooner. This will allow us to discover better and faster. But if we shut out certain things then we could be looking for centuries and the answer was there in front of us all the time.

 

[stevevw]

No, I don't want to waste my time.

Theres that pre assumption and judgement popping up again.

No, steve, it's based on my previous experience with you. You post links claiming that they support what you're saying, but that often isn't true. I even showed you, on one occasion, that the authors' of a paper had reached the opposite conclusion to what you were claiming.

You've said this before but you havnt shown me what you are talking about. But surely in all the posts I have linked you are not saying they are all rubbish and wrong. I am sensing that you dont want to deal with this because you may find that there is stuff you will have to concede is a challenge to your views.

Your task is easy: you just post whatever you want and claim that it supports your position. My task is more onerous: I'm expected to actually sift through all that material to determine whether it does actually support your position.

The problem is when I make a claim you ask for proof as you did just before I posted last time when you asked for proof. When I do post the evidence you dismiss it. It seems to go around and around on this merry go round. I make a claim you ask for evidence but dismiss it as soon as I post it without even looking at it. I mean you dont even look at one and then say its all rubbish. Talk about pre judging something before you even find out what its about.

In other words, as noted by Alberto Brandolini, "The amount of energy necessary to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

I wouldn't think the effort to deal with one or two would be achievable. It makes me sense that you are avoiding something because you may have to deal with some difficult questions. Wonder whose zooming who. Look I will post one for you to make it easier.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract

 

[stevevw]

I stopped reading when it proposed to know what an Intelligent Designer (god) was thinking, because it knows what a Human Designer thinks.

What is crystal clear is once you go to these lengths to prove a god or designer. You leave the bible behind and destroy it's word. Because it's clear Genesis writers had no clue of how the Earth had arrived at that time, you're trying to prove a designer and in doing so destroying the bible.

That is probably the commentary you are reading. You need to read the actual papers which are done under scientific conditions and are peer reviewed. One of the papers in the first link is basically saying that there had to be more than a materialistic explanation for the sudden arrival of the complex creatures in the Cambrian period. The more they are discovering about that period the more complexity they are finding and that most of life's body plans were created then and all of a sudden. Contrary to what some have said the life is very complex. Perhaps too complex for that early stage in development and cannot account for the gradual evolution of such variety and complexity.

The paper is not from a ID proponent or a creationist. They actually go on to try and explain why this may have happened in evolutionary terms. But they do leave you with a big ? about the ability of evolution to create all that diverse complexity all of a sudden without any previous signs of evolution. But the article is citing several papers which may prove ID. This is the point that even non religious papers and articles are coming up and questioning how complex life could form by evolutionary processes. The more we are discovering about genetics such as the junk DNA now being vast and complex and functional and with the universe and physics the more we begin to see design.