unintelligent design.

[LewisWildermuth]

But you see Evolutionists have a few hurdles that creationists ignore...

Their theories must be testable.

They canot break any other well acepted theories. i.e. physics and chemestry and mathmatics cannot be ignored like creationist theories often do.

They have to offer some predictive power... Try using AiG's model of the earth and continental drift to predict earthquakes some time... It doesn't work... Try using any flood model to predict where you will find grass pollen in the fosil record... Again it fails...

You have to fit what we see... No flood model has ever done this.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
But you see Evolutionists have a few hurdles that creationists ignore...

Their theories must be testable.

For example, we ask questions like, "Does this drawing make the fossil look like a transitional species?" If it fails the test, we have to hire another artist.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
They [evolutionists] canot break any other well acepted theories.

Like the laws of thermodynamics, casuality, spontaneous generation, etc...

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
They have to offer some predictive power...

Which is why evolutionists are combining forces with Dionne Warwick and creating the Evolutionist Friends Network, where for a mere $7.99 per minute you can call a 900 number to hear predictions about how the next fossil evolutionists find will somehow confirm evolution.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
Try using AiG's model of the earth and continental drift to predict earthquakes some time... It doesn't work...

Better still, try using the colors you find on the AiG website to predict the weather. That doesn't work, either, which disproves creation.

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
You have to fit what we see...

Or else we'll blame your refusal to do so on your lack of education.

 

[chickenman]

Like the laws of thermodynamics, casuality, spontaneous generation, etc.

I hope this is a joke and you're going to "give me a dime" to buy a sense of humour

how many times do we have to show that evolution in no way violates the 2LoT

 

[Jerry Smith]

So now you think that because of "more" materials it is a design flaw? Who is to say this isn't the right amount and less would cause it to misfunction? Again, I cite the atom example.

My position on the laryngeal nerve hasn't changed. It could be designed with more economy by having it route directly to the larnyx rather than first looping the aorta. The idea that looping the aorta is necessary for its proper function is preposterous. It has no branching nerve endings that extend to any part of the heart.

Your appeal to the atom seems disingenuous. If you think you recognize intelligence in the design of the atom, rather than conformance to universal physical laws of particle interaction, then I suppose you are welcome to. A helium atom with one less proton and electron is a Deuterium atom (an isotope of Hydrogen). A hydrogen atom with one less proton is an electron... Where are you going with this?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Otherwise you are just complaining how the family next to you at your picnic is cooking their hamburgers when you haven't even bothered to bring any food for yourself."

Umm..whatever you say, I think that's a terribly inaccurate analogy. I could say that exact thing to evolutionists.

I tend to agree with Louis to an extent. All things being equal, and evolution being first presented as an hypothesis, one could rightly criticize it without offering an alternative hypothesis.

Now that evolution is accepted nearly unanimously by scientists because of the loads of evidence it has supporting it, it is somewhat unconventional to criticize it without being able to either:

a) present strong evidence that falsifies evolution

b) present an alternative theory that can be tested.

Either approach can be considered a valid criticism of evolution - the first leaves us with scientific ignorance of how life got to be the way it is now. The second may give us a better understanding of how life got to be the way it is now - one that explains more features of life, and one that makes stronger, better, and more accurate predictions about future observations of life. I don't see either of these events on the horizon, and I don't see anyone seriously working on them. I see only pot-shots: "here is something your theory doesn't seem to explain", "one could also explain this bit by my untestable and unfalsifiable idea."

I have to say: "so what?" Your idea didn't predict this bit of evidence, and your theory isn't scientifically testable (if that bit of evidence had been the opposite, your theory would "explain" it just as well). Our theory is testable, and it has endured the closest kind of scientific scrutiny and withstood most all of those tests. Our theory predicts and explains all of these pieces of data from a few fundamental principles. Our theory is good science. Your idea is, at best, good theology.

 

[Lanakila]

Evolution is accepted almost unanamiously by scientists? I know I am not a scientist, but I know of quite a few who don't accept it. Some are even geneticists and biologists, so you may want to change your word Jerry. I have a lot of Creationist books on my shelf and they are written predominately by scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution, some on faith first, and some for scientific reasons alone. (example Behe)

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Evolution is accepted almost unanamiously by scientists? I know I am not a scientist, but I know of quite a few who don't accept it. Some are even geneticists and biologists, so you may want to change your word Jerry. I have a lot of Creationist books on my shelf and they are written predominately by scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution, some on faith first, and some for scientific reasons alone. (example Behe)

Behe is more of a loose theistic evolutionist then a Creationist. He accepts an old earth, accepts that new species can arise from evolution, accepts the common descent of man and ape.

95% of all scientists accept evolution. Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

That seems as unanimious an opinion as people ever arrive at. I mean, a > 2/3 vote in an election is considered a "landslide."

 

[Morat]

  Really, Lankila? I keep hearing that claim. Now, let's be specific. Jerry didn't say (although I don't doubt he meant it) that he was discussing scientists working in the field. After all, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what a chemical engineer thinks of evolution.

  So, please. List these scientists, whose degrees are in biology (population genetics would be even better) and disagree with evolution.

  I'm all ears.

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"Their theories must be testable."

But the aren't...has macro been observed? Nope.

"My position on the laryngeal nerve hasn't changed. It could be designed with more economy by having it route directly to the larnyx rather than first looping the aorta. "

so be a good human, go to a surgion and have it reconstructed? Otherwise this is just a guess and untestable. Until you test it its just a guess.

"A hydrogen atom with one less proton is an electron... Where are you going with this?"

That's not why I'm talking about it. consider the wieghts of a proton. Now if you actually think about why does it weigh what it weighs..can there be variation? If not, why not? You'll find the variation to be QUITE small, indicating that it is designed quite nicely.

"Now that evolution is accepted nearly unanimously by scientists because of the loads of evidence it has supporting it, it is somewhat unconventional to criticize it without being able to either"

This is an untrue statement.

 

[chickenman]

I don't like this unintelligent design thread as much as the please explain thread, which has a more concrete example highlighting the problems in intelligent design theory

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Their theories must be testable."

But the aren't...has macro been observed? Nope.

But you will admit microevolution has ben observed?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Their theories must be testable."

But the aren't...has macro been observed? Nope.

But it has been observed in two senses:

1) It has been observed in speciation events, the technical definition of macroevolution

2) Several lines of  strong evidence for common descent of all of the taxonomical groups has been observed.

Electrons, by contrast, have never been seen directly, so they have only been observed in the second sense.

 

"My position on the laryngeal nerve hasn't changed. It could be designed with more economy by having it route directly to the larnyx rather than first looping the aorta. "

so be a good human, go to a surgion and have it reconstructed? Otherwise this is just a guess and untestable.

No, just to be optimally designed. The nerve serves its function as it is, and the tissue is already there, so it makes little sense to retrofit it at this point.

 Until you test it its just a guess.

That would be an inadequate test, because surgery would involve first damaging the nerve by cutting it.  Still, the workings of neurons are well enough understood that it is an easy inference. A simple test is to look at the left-side laryngeal nerve (as you face the front of the body). It is not looped around anything and works just fine too.

"A hydrogen atom with one less proton is an electron... Where are you going with this?"

That's not why I'm talking about it. consider the wieghts of a proton. Now if you actually think about why does it weigh what it weighs..can there be variation? If not, why not? You'll find the variation to be QUITE small, indicating that it is designed quite nicely.

So what is a proton if it trades an up quark for a down quark? A neutron? What is it if you replace a down quark with a strange quark? (I don't know the answer. I think it is a "strange particle")... 

I think you are working your way back to the anthropic principle. If so, lets just go ahead and take the jump. The anthropic principle is interesting, but cannot be used as a basis for inferring a designer without more information about what life forms are possible if the laws of nature were radically different. 

"Now that evolution is accepted nearly unanimously by scientists because of the loads of evidence it has supporting it, it is somewhat unconventional to criticize it without being able to either"

This is an untrue statement.

On what grounds? 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by chickenman
I don't like this unintelligent design thread as much as the please explain thread, which has a more concrete example highlighting the problems in intelligent design theory

Chickenman, I like both threads. I think they both contain much that is good support for evolution and which highlights the shortcomings of the design hypothesis.

 

[LouisBooth]

Micro has, its called adaption.

"Electrons, by contrast, have never been seen directly, so they have only been observed in the second sense."

really?

http://www.lucent.com/press/0497/970425.bla.html

"The nerve serves its function as it is, and the tissue is already there, so it makes little sense to retrofit it at this point."

Then you're just making guesses, I thought you had proof? Again, go get it reconstructed or this is not applicable, correct?

"A simple test is to look at the left-side laryngeal nerve (as you face the front of the body). It is not looped around anything and works just fine too.

but that doesn't prove anything but the left side works. They are different nerves and there might be a fuction you just don't know about.

"The anthropic principle is interesting, but cannot be used as a basis for inferring a designer without more information about what life forms are possible if the laws of nature were radically different. "

Life isn't possible.

"On what grounds? "

Its not even close to unanimous.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Electrons, by contrast, have never been seen directly, so they have only been observed in the second sense."

really?

http://www.lucent.com/press/0497/970425.bla.html

Good case in point - no direct observation. Only observation of their effects on the SET device, interpreted in terms of current theory.  

"The nerve serves its function as it is, and the tissue is already there, so it makes little sense to retrofit it at this point."

Then you're just making guesses, I thought you had proof? Again, go get it reconstructed or this is not applicable, correct?

No, I don't have (or need) proof. Scientists have a very detailed knowledge of how nerves work. That knowledge yields no function for the aortal loop in this nerve. No need for that loop can be concluded, and the design explanation is found lacking - as structures with unnecessary (to the best of our very good detailed knowledge) lengths do not reflect any recognizable sort of design.

"A simple test is to look at the left-side laryngeal nerve (as you face the front of the body). It is not looped around anything and works just fine too.

but that doesn't prove anything but the left side works. They are different nerves and there might be a fuction you just don't know about.

The idea that the laryngeal nerve has an unknown function associated with its odd route is so far-fetched that one might equally well suppose that the left-side nerve also has hidden functions having to do with the heart that it can serve without actually coming into contact with it. 

"The anthropic principle is interesting, but cannot be used as a basis for inferring a designer without more information about what life forms are possible if the laws of nature were radically different. "

Life isn't possible.

Organic life as you know it isn't possible if the laws of nature were radically different. On the other hand, there may be another universe where radically different natural laws made possible some other, radically different form of life - Should that be the case, would it be reasonable for those life forms to think that life couldn't exist without their special laws of nature? 

"On what grounds? "

Its not even close to unanimous.

Being unable to cite a source to the contrary - (who would think to even do a poll when the results are a foregone conclusion?) - I will just have to quietly disagree. I cannot maintain the assertion without going out and doing my own poll, but I think that if you considered what you were saying, you would probably have to admit that I am right.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Good case in point - no direct observation. Only observation of their effects on the SET device, interpreted in terms of current theory.
"

So you define direct observation as what? If we follow your logic then our eyes aren't direct observation insturments.

"No, I don't have (or need) proof. "

Yes, you do, you're making the claim.

"Scientists have a very detailed knowledge of how nerves work. "

Umm..not really, else the brain wouldn't be a problem.

"The idea that the laryngeal nerve has an unknown function associated with its odd route is so far-fetched that "

Ahh..translation: i don't like it so its far fetched? I thought better of you jerry.

"On the other hand, there may be another universe where radically different natural laws made possible some other, radically different form of life - Should that be the case, would it be reasonable for those life forms to think that life couldn't exist without their special laws of nature? "

okay, that's your claim, prove it. Other wise this is another unjustified GUESS, as most of your "points" have been thus far.

"Being unable to cite a source to the contrary "

In the scientific world? I've cited a vast amount of people that don't agree with evolution.

"you would probably have to admit that I am right."

Not at all, I have done a personal poll, though it was awhile ago..it was about 60 40 in favor of evolution. Now you can see that is far from uniamious.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

"Good case in point - no direct observation. Only observation of their effects on the SET device, interpreted in terms of current theory.
"

So you define direct observation as what? If we follow your logic then our eyes aren't direct observation insturments.

Normally, when someone uses the term "direct observation" that means that they see a thing occurring with their eyes (or smell a thing with their noses, etc.) If observing the effects of a thing that you cannot see directly is considered "direct" evidence, then macro-evolution has plenty of it.

"No, I don't have (or need) proof. "

Yes, you do, you're making the claim.

I'm making a statement of scientific knowledge, not a philosophical claim. 

"Scientists have a very detailed knowledge of how nerves work. "

Umm..not really, else the brain wouldn't be a problem.

The brain is an intricate matrix of billions of nerves, not one single bundle.  Detailed scientific knowledge of how nerves work (singly or in pairs) does not enable science to understand in detail all of the emergent properties of an unfathomably complex network of them. Yet still, some fairly successful brain surgery is possible from our knowledge even of the brain.

"The idea that the laryngeal nerve has an unknown function associated with its odd route is so far-fetched that "

Ahh..translation: i don't like it so its far fetched? I thought better of you jerry.

Its far fetched because the accepted and successful current theories of how nerves operate would have to be essentially discarded in favor of a radically different (and currently untested) theory in order to allow function for the observed routing of the laryngeal nerve. 

I still think well of you. Very well, as a matter of fact. And not because I think the opinions you have expressed in this thread are correct. But because, unlike a few other creationists, you have refrained mostly from condescending comments like "I thought better of you jerry."

"On the other hand, there may be another universe where radically different natural laws made possible some other, radically different form of life - Should that be the case, would it be reasonable for those life forms to think that life couldn't exist without their special laws of nature? "

okay, that's your claim, prove it. Other wise this is another unjustified GUESS, as most of your "points" have been thus far.

That wasn't a claim - that was a thought experiment. Would it be reasonable for life forms that could not exist under the laws of nature in our universe to conclude that no life is possible in a universe radically different from theirs?

Which points of mine were "guesses"? The ones that you have dropped? I just "guessed" that wisdom teeth get impacted and cause injury where modern dental care isn't available? I just guessed that the quadruped vertebrate backbone is near identical in humans and quadrupeds, but would bear vertical weight more efficiently and with fewer failures if it were designed as a straight column than an 'S' shaped curve?   

"Being unable to cite a source to the contrary "

In the scientific world? I've cited a vast amount of people that don't agree with evolution.

"you would probably have to admit that I am right."

Not at all, I have done a personal poll, though it was awhile ago..it was about 60 40 in favor of evolution. Now you can see that is far from uniamious. [/B]

So, tell me more about your straw poll. I've never met a working scientist who expressed any reservations about common descent and evolution by natural selection, though I have met a few working scientists, real-world, and on the internet. I wonder what you consider  "vast amount" of scientists, and I guess I wonder a little bit what you mean by "scientist". Someone else pointed out that I should have qualified by saying "working in a field directly related to evolution," - but I don't think that my statement is far off even when considering physicists and chemists. I will dig for statistics.

 

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by Morat
  Really, Lankila? I keep hearing that claim. Now, let's be specific. Jerry didn't say (although I don't doubt he meant it) that he was discussing scientists working in the field. After all, it doesn't matter a hill of beans what a chemical engineer thinks of evolution.

  So, please. List these scientists, whose degrees are in biology (population genetics would be even better) and disagree with evolution.

  I'm all ears.

 

Some of my books are written by scientists who don't tell what their specialty is, but I only got the ones that were about biological evolution Morat. Why I am giving them to you I don't know, because you are just going to jump on them somehow. Some of my books are old and the authors may be dead now, I am not sure.

Randy Wysong D.V.M. Book: Creation-Evolution The Controversy

Lane P. Lester Biology Professor and Raymond G. Bolin Research Projects Manager Book: The Natural Limits to Biological Change

Ken Ham AIG his undergrad degree is in applied sciences

Willaim A. Dembski Not sure what his degree is in Book: Intelligent Design

Jonathan Sarfat Creation Physical Chemist Book: Refuting Evolution

Larry Butler Phd Professor of Biochemistry

Dr Chris Darnbrough Biochemist studying molecular genetics

Mr Gerald Duffett Head of Biology at City of Ely College Cambridgeshire his degree is in Zoology

Pattle P. T. Pun Professor of Biology Phd in Biology at State University of NY he has contributed articles to American Scinetific Affiliation Journal Book: Evolution Nature & Scripture in Conflict?

William J. Tinkle Book: Heredity A Study in Science and the Bible he is a member of the American Genetics Assoc and is a contributor to a high school Biology Textbook.

Dr. John N. Moore professor of natural science at Michigan State (long time ago) old book

I think you get the idea that it is not unanimous that all scientists are evolutionists. Some geneticists are even creationists, Wow!   

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's barely enough names to make up the biology department at one mid-sized university. I didn't say completely unanimous - I said near unanimous. How many thousands of academic instutions are there in the U.S.? How many of them have even one evolution-denier in their biology department? Or any of their science departments? What about the thousands in Europe and Asia? Aren't there more scientists who deny evolution in the U.S. than in Europe and Asia? Aren't there thousands and thousands of Academic institutions in the worlds staffed with scientists who unanimously or nearly unanimously accept evolution?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Besides, Dembski has abandoned evolution denial, though he still feels there was room for ID at some point. He is basically a theistic evolutionist at this point.