Unintelligent Design?

[chris4243]

I don't see your quote from Paul's lips. It must be a serious kiss to get those words in there.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Evolution is clearly seen from looking at Creation. There really is nothing else that predicts the similarities of DNA and structure, the locations of fossils and distribution of living creatures, and various other topics. Sure goddunnit "explains" in a non-scientific sense anything you like, but in the scientific sense things that don't predict the data don't explain anything.

 

[SkyWriting]

How about if we compare endogenous retrovirus DNA sequences found in humans and other primates. Where are the creationist theories the predict those similarities? Oh and they have to predict the similarities better than evolutionary theory does.

The "better" view is that ERV's are transferable viruses.

Baboons evolving into cats? Not the best theory. Granted, I have no idea if these publishers are "Creationists" or not.
Nor do you. So any claim against "Creationist publishers" is void.

Thus it seems evident that a horizontal, infectious event occurred to transfer the virus from baboons to cats, whereupon it became endogenous in the new species

"Conclusion -ERV were discovered through the careful analysis of virological and immunological markers that appeared to be inherited by the host as Mendelian traits. Interestingly, the crucial evidence of endogenous ALV, MLV and MMTV came to light in the same period in the late 1960s. The discovery of reverse transcriptase in 1970 made these strange findings plausible. Later molecular genetic studies showed that the genomes of all vertebrate species studied have been colonized by multiple sets of retrovirus."

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution is clearly seen from looking at Creation.

I have no dispute that we can document biological changes and hypothesize about future outcomes.

But support for life from nonlife or non-intelligent sources fails.
I have the entire Cosmos to back me up on that.
I also have a can of beans with all the ingredients needed for life.
But it was sterile when sealed and will remain sterile till the sun goes dim.

 

[chris4243]

The "better" view is that ERV's are transferable viruses.

All viruses are transferable.

Baboons evolving into cats?

Not the best theory.

Who said or implied that? Have fun beating up your straw man.

Granted, I have no idea if these publishers are "Creationists" or not.
Nor do you. So any claim against "Creationist publishers" is void.

So you accept that evolutionary theory predicts ERV facts better than creationist theories? Again, where are the creationist theories that predict ERV data?

Thus it seems evident that a horizontal, infectious event occurred to transfer the virus from baboons to cats, whereupon it became endogenous in the new species

"Conclusion -ERV were discovered through the careful analysis of virological and immunological markers that appeared to be inherited by the host as Mendelian traits. Interestingly, the crucial evidence of endogenous ALV, MLV and MMTV came to light in the same period in the late 1960s. The discovery of reverse transcriptase in 1970 made these strange findings plausible. Later molecular genetic studies showed that the genomes of all vertebrate species studied have been colonized by multiple sets of retrovirus."

Yes, that is the problem for creationists. Evolutionary theory predicts retrovirus data, while creationist theory does not. This is especially so for cases like the baboon and cat ERVs (where creationists can't claim the ERV was part of the cat's design because only some cats have it), and the common ERVs shared by vertebrates (where creationists have to claim the ERVs as part of the design because there is no other mechanism to make them universal much less universal with patterns of inheritance matching the evolutionary relationships of species).

 

[SkyWriting]

. Evolutionary theory predicts retrovirus data, while creationist theory does not.

I don't know what you mean. Show me.
And you don't know who is a Creationist or not.
You admit that.
All your claims fail due to lack of data on the authors religious views.
You don't think Catholic scientists spend their days publishing data to support
Catholicism do you? Buddhists? Seventh Day Adventists?

I'll go so far as to say that the Pope would not approve of everything that
Catholics publish in their work.

Again, your claims against creationists fail for multiple reasons.

 

[chris4243]

I don't know what you mean. Show me.
And you don't know who is a Creationist or not.
You admit that.
All your claims fail due to lack of data on the authors religious views.
You don't think Catholic scientists spend their days publishing data to support
Catholicism do you? Buddhists? Seventh Day Adventists?

I'll go so far as to say that the Pope would not approve of everything that
Catholics publish in their work.

Again, your claims against creationists fail for multiple reasons.

Lolz, go cry somewhere else, and quit pretending I don't know things that I do know. Boo hoo, you can't find any creationist data so you pretend that people can't tell that the author of a paper accepts evolution either by asking them or by seeing that the theory is implicit in other things they wrote.

 

[chris4243]

I have no dispute that we can document biological changes and hypothesize about future outcomes.

Quite and we can also hypothesize about past changes and use that to predict current data, then check that the data matches the predictions.

But support for life from nonlife or non-intelligent sources fails.

Who said anything about that? And are you implying that man has made a living thing from a non-living thing (else there's also no support for life from intelligent sources)?

I have the entire Cosmos to back me up on that.

I've never been impressed by the argument from ignorance nor from a sample size of 1.

I also have a can of beans with all the ingredients needed for life.
But it was sterile when sealed and will remain sterile till the sun goes dim.

Well when the sun grows dim, open it up and we can check.

 

[SkyWriting]

I've never been impressed by the argument from ignorance nor from a sample size of 1.

There is more than one example of life not forming from matter on it own volition in the cosmos.
I predict the number to be infinite based on current data.

 

[chris4243]

There is more than one example of life not forming from matter on it own volition in the cosmos.
I predict the number to be infinite based on current data.

Scientists are still trying to determine whether there is life on Mars. If we consider liquid water to be a necessity for life, then we still have a sample size of 1 (100% of planets with liquid water that we have checked for life, have life). Where are all those examples of life not forming on its own, and more importantly, why would those examples mean it is an impossible rather than very rare occurrence?

 

[SkyWriting]

Scientists are still trying to determine whether there is life on Mars. If we consider liquid water to be a necessity for life, then we still have a sample size of 1 (100% of planets with liquid water that we have checked for life, have life). Where are all those examples of life not forming on its own, and more importantly, why would those examples mean it is an impossible rather than very rare occurrence?

I never said "impossible". Please use that QUOTE button, Dude.
I said zero results of life off this planet.
Being scientific, I DRAW my conclusions FROM the data. Not hopes, dreams, and wonderments.
Thanks for making me look this up. I appreciate any and all challenges.

NASA: Claims of Life on Mars 'Positively False'

NASA finds 'significant' water on moon - CNN

NASA - NASA Spacecraft Data Suggest Water Flowing on Mars

Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence--In Space | Fast Company

Major Discovery: New Planet Could Harbor Water and Life | Space.com

Europa Water: Scientists Find Evidence Of Lakes On Jupiter's Moon (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Asteroid Vesta may hold vaste water ice reserves - CBS News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09029.html

 

[chris4243]

I never said "impossible". Please use that QUOTE button, Dude.
I said zero results of life off this planet.
Being scientific, I DRAW my conclusions FROM the data. Not hopes, dreams, and wonderments.

And I said, life on every planet with liquid water that we have checked for life. What conclusions do you draw from that?

Thanks for making me look this up. I appreciate any and all challenges.

NASA: Claims of Life on Mars 'Positively False'

NASA finds 'significant' water on moon - CNN

NASA - NASA Spacecraft Data Suggest Water Flowing on Mars

Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence--In Space | Fast Company

Major Discovery: New Planet Could Harbor Water and Life | Space.com

Europa Water: Scientists Find Evidence Of Lakes On Jupiter's Moon (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

Asteroid Vesta may hold vaste water ice reserves - CBS News

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09029.html

Yes there is water elsewhere, some of it even liquid. How many of those have we checked for life though?

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, that is the problem for creationists. Evolutionary theory predicts retrovirus data, while creationist theory does not.

Evolution predicts everything especially after the fact. Since evolutionist predicts pretty much everything under the sun (including both "A" and "not-A") it's only logical they would get some predictions right. But look of how many failed prediction evolutionist have made through the years. Almost everything evolutionist believed 30-50 years ago is not believed by evolutionist today. One thing we got plenty of evidence of evolving is the evolution theory itself.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes there is water elsewhere, some of it even liquid. How many of those have we checked for life though?

Don't think for a second that there is any other purpose. Its all we do man. 100%

 

[chris4243]

Don't think for a second that there is any other purpose. Its all we do man. 100%

Let me rephrase. How many of these have we verified have no life? Answer: none.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let me rephrase. How many of these have we verified have no life? Answer: none.

100% sterility anywhere else.
I draw my conclusions from the available data.

Not my dreams.

 

[chris4243]

100% sterility anywhere else.
I draw my conclusions from the available data.




Not my dreams.

Hopefully, you're just pretending because you think it strenghtens your position. If not, that just shows you don't know what data is or are unable to comprehend simple things such as proof or evidence. If I am mistaken, please point me towards any data that could lead to the conclusion of "100% sterility anywhere else".

As I've told you before (your limited comprehension skills notwithstanding), we don't even know whether or not Mars has life (make my day and reply to this with proof of your limited comprehension skills). Must be some pretty impressive data for you to conclude that there is no life anywhere else in the universe when we don't even know for the next planet.

(maybe I should just add you to ignore list so I don't feel inclined to respond as above)

 

[TasManOfGod]

Will there be aliens in heaven?

 

[Papias]

OK, looks like we need to start keeping track of the topics by number.

SW wrote:

Your request for scientific support of a supernatural event will forever go unmet. A dumb request.

That's not how many creationists see it - they publish whole books claiming that there can be and is scientific evidence for creation, making up terms like "irreducible complexity" and so on. So I've pointed to thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and you have yet to do the same for papers by creationists.

Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

Creationists support evolution (with a small e) as much as anybody else.
Many Creationists rally against using Evolution as a god that is not intelligent, is not a person, and is a
natural aspect of matter, yet produces both life and intelligence out of rocks and gasses baked in the sun.
That is the Evolution that many don't believe is correct. Darwin's version.

You're attempting to re-define terms to change the meaning of written information. Sorry, you can't just redefine terms to deceive. A capital "E" is not needed, nor is it used to, mean "macroevolution" or "common descent". There are many sources that all show that practically all scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms - "evolution", including the data I posted earlier, which you have yet to acknowledge.

2. The vast majority of scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms.

(to deal with SW's slippery attempt to redefine words, I'll rephrase this

3. Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution (humans evolved from earlier life) supporter before you brought him up?

Ad nausium. Every link to "Junk DNA" shows that the idea that there is "junk DNA" has been discarded and dismissed.

As I've pointed out before, you are attempting to conflate two different statements in defense of your false assertion. Specifically, those two statements are:

A. We don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.

B. All DNA is needed and serves a function.

Your repeated arguemnt goes like this:

Statement A is true. Here are papers in support of it:

(show papers that do indeed support statement A)

So, statement B is true.

Sorry, but proving statement A doesn't prove statement B. Your statement B is simply false, as shown by the paramecia data.


So here are those two topics, split up to make them easier to follow:

4. We agree that we don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.


5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss. So you are simultaneously making a claim, then refusing to defend it on the basis that you are ignorant in that area.

When compiling conclusion's from 40 papers on evolution fact and evolution theory, this author claims:

Um, if you actually read the paper, you see that your carefully snipped fragments concealed the fact that the adjacent sentence says that evolution is well supported, and that the paper as a whole only supports evolution. Wow, first attempting to redefine English words, and now quote-mining. What next?


Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not how many creationists see it

New topic? What do others see?

- they publish whole books claiming that there can be and is scientific evidence for creation, making up terms like "irreducible complexity" and so on. So I've pointed to thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and you have yet to do the same for papers by creationists.
Topic #1:
1. SW has not yet agreed that there are thousands of papers by evolution supporters, and few if any by creationists.

And the same answer, ad nausium, is two fold:

We don't know who is and who isn't a creationist from THEIR point of view,
nor enough details to define who is and who isn't from YOUR definition.

Secondly, a defining feature of such papers would include the conclusion pointing to a supernatural influence.
This is not allowed in scientific literature. SO such papers can be found in non scientific literature sources such
as that at ICR and AIG. This is where they belong.

You're attempting to re-define terms to change the meaning of written information. Sorry, you can't just redefine terms to deceive. A capital "E" is not needed, nor is it used to, mean "macroevolution" or "common descent". There are many sources that all show that practically all scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms - "evolution", including the data I posted earlier, which you have yet to acknowledge.

Agreed.

2. The vast majority of scientists support the idea of humans and all living creatures having evolved from earlier, different forms.

A. Very few such scientists actually work in areas where they could check any data on their own. Maybe 1%. Most scientists, go with the flow on such topics outside their chosen specialty.

B. No matter what one may personally believe, people will work with the information given them. As most scientists are trained with information from a specific point of view, they will stick to that view for much of their life or career. This explains why many Creationists are retired professionals. Dr. Colins explains this pressure to conform well.

C. Training in evolution starts in Kindergarten. I would be shocked if a majority was not influenced.
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&key...en&rh=n:13824,k:Children: Kindergarten&page=1
http://www.neok12.com/Human-Evolution.htm

D. Is there a tendency for those who believe that all of nature has a natural explanation to study the Natural Sciences? Thus skewing the results of your "telling" statistics? I feel It would be hard for you to say "No".

(to deal with SW's slippery attempt to redefine words, I'll rephrase this
3. Did you really not know that Dr. Collins was a huge evolution (humans evolved from earlier life) supporter before you brought him up?

I did not know he was a baby Christian. His story shows that his journey in faith is new and growing and evolving. There are no signs that he has studied the bible at all, so he has a rich journey ahead of him and I wish him well.
Galatians 4:3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world.

As I've pointed out before, you are attempting to conflate two different statements in defense of your false assertion. Specifically, those two statements are:A. We don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.B. All DNA is needed and serves a function.Your repeated argument goes like this:Statement A is true. Here are papers in support of itshow papers that do indeed support statement A)So, statement B is true. Sorry, but proving statement A doesn't prove statement B. Your statement B is simply false, as shown by the paramecia data.So here are those two topics, split up to make them easier to follow:

4. We agree that we don't know the function or lack of function of each part of the genome.

5. Your statement that you somehow know that all DNA is needed is unsupported and goes against clear evidence, such as the paramecia, which you refuse to discuss.

That's because everything serves a function. I agree that we don't know what that function is. Even with your worm example.

Um, if you actually read the paper, you see that your carefully snipped fragments concealed the fact that the adjacent sentence says that evolution is well supported, and that the paper as a whole only supports evolution. Wow, first attempting to redefine English words, and now quote-mining. What next?

That's not what quote mining is. When one provides the source, quote mining is impossible. My goal was to draw attention to that one line that many would be surprised to find. Then I provided the context that it belongs in. Perfectly legitimate. Would you like me "quote mine" using APA or some other specific format? http://www.occc.edu/library/citearticles.html


Christians often use bible passages without reciting the entire book they come from. Perhaps you've done that. Perhaps not.


When you look up English words, you will find many meanings for each of the 50,000+ words. Welcome to English.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hopefully, you're just pretending because you think it strenghtens your position. If not, that just shows you don't know what data is or are unable to comprehend simple things such as proof or evidence. If I am mistaken, please point me towards any data that could lead to the conclusion of "100% sterility anywhere else".As I've told you before (your limited comprehension skills notwithstanding), we don't even know whether or not Mars has life (make my day and reply to this with proof of your limited comprehension skills). Must be some pretty impressive data for you to conclude that there is no life anywhere else in the universe when we don't even know for the next planet.(maybe I should just add you to ignore list so I don't feel inclined to respond as above)

One is always free to make such choices.
You will have to decide if your threatening
actions produce the results you seek or not.