PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design



bob b
January 31st, 2006, 07:55 AM
Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution. According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford's Richard Dawkins, living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." But for modern Darwinists, that appearance of design is entirely illusory. Why? Because the undirected processes of natural selection acting on random mutations can produce the intricate structures found in living organisms.

In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

What telltale signs of intelligence do we see?

Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all of its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can't produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediate structures, each of which must perform some function. In the case of the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate stages – like the 29- or 28-part version of the flagellar motor – perform no function for natural selection to preserve.

This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor, and many complex cellular machines, unexplained by the mechanism – natural selection – that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better explanation? Based upon our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems – namely, intelligence. Indeed, whenever we encounter such complex systems – whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines – and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

Consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. DNA's structure allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions – the information – for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Mr. Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis," according to which the chemical constituents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. As Bill Gates has since noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date, no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information – whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in radio signals – always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." So the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren't there to observe the system coming into existence.

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based on ignorance or religion, but instead on recent scientific discoveries and on our uniform experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was originally published in the Dallas Morning News, Sunday Jan. 29, 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 07:57 AM
Who wrote it?

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 08:34 AM
Who wrote it?

Is truth a function of its author?

Apparently so in the mind of those who are so insecure in their own ability to reason that they must lean on the pronouncements of authority figures.

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 08:38 AM
Is truth a function of its author?

Apparently so in the mind of those who are so insecure in their own ability to reason that they must lean on the pronouncements of authority figures.

GREAT COMMENT coming from bob b. Is ironic the correct adjective?
I asked a simple question. If you don't know please say so, if you do please provide the info. Thanks so much.

bob b
January 31st, 2006, 08:49 AM
GREAT COMMENT coming from bob b. Is ironic the correct adjective?
I asked a simple question. If you don't know please say so, if you do please provide the info. Thanks so much.

Of course I know who wrote it. I deliberately withheld the name in the hope that doing so would encourage at least some to evaluate the article on its merits instead of immediately rejecting it because it was not written by a "big name" evolutionist author that they have "faith" in.

The "Authority Figure" syndrome is closely related to the "Shoot the Messenger" one.

BTW, the author was Hillary Clinton.

Not. :)

Jukia
January 31st, 2006, 08:59 AM
Of course I know who wrote it. I deliberately withheld the name in the hope that doing so would encourage at least some to evaluate the article on its merits instead of immediately rejecting it because it was not written by a "big name" evolutionist author that they have "faith" in.

The "Authority Figure" syndrome is closely related to the "Shoot the Messenger" one.

BTW, the author was Hillary Clinton.

Not. :)

I read it, it says nothing that has not been said before. Makes a big deal of the bacteria's flagellum. and comments that there are"many complex cellular machines" unexplained. But does not bother to discuss the other such machines.
Makes a comment that "the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by the laws and forces of chemistry". Really. See now if I had a name I could perhaps e-mail and discuss this comment with him or her.
I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. Just trying to find out who the messenger is.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 12:28 PM
ID is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium)

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 12:55 PM
ID is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium)

I can't find my keys. God must have taken them.

Here's the simplest test I have for creationism (or it's recent alias ID). What would a person believe who had never read the bible or heard of biblical creation? Would they look at all the evidence for an ancient earth, the diversity of life, and the geologic strata, and conclude that it all happened in 6 days. I doubt it. Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.

BTW, ID is as much science as astrology is. Could it be right? I suppose. But there is no evidence that it is.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:05 PM
ID is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium)Ya think?

If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:05 PM
BTW, ID is as much science as astrology is. Could it be right? I suppose. But there is no evidence that it is.Michael Behe admitted that any definition of science that includes ID also includes astrology. But then later he tried to say he was referring to "astrology" in the classical sense meaning instead "astronomy". He got nailed on that one in court.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:08 PM
If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?That's an argument based on previous experience. You recognize that pattern as a human pattern.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:10 PM
I can't find my keys. God must have taken them.

Here's the simplest test I have for creationism (or it's recent alias ID). What would a person believe who had never read the bible or heard of biblical creation? Would they look at all the evidence for an ancient earth, the diversity of life, and the geologic strata, and conclude that it all happened in 6 days. I doubt it. Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.You call that a good test????

Are you on crack???

I submit to you the exact opposite would occur.

If you had a person that was not exposed to either the Bible (creationism) or atheistic explanations of the origin of the earth I believe they would see the evidence for creation. So there! :)

Yet the bottom line is this "test" of yours isn't very relevant because we cannot conduct such a "test" so who really cares what either of us think the result would be? :kookoo:

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:13 PM
That's an argument based on previous experience. You recognize that pattern as a human pattern.Why are you subsituting the would "design" with "pattern"? :chuckle:

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 01:14 PM
Creationism exists because of the bible, nothing more.So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:17 PM
So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??That is an amazing admission wouldn't you agree?

Especially since it's usually the unbeliever types that cry out that the stories of the Bible are borrowed from other religions and cultures. :D

fool
January 31st, 2006, 01:18 PM
Ya think?

If you came across a abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs were nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there were similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire, would you be making an argument from ignorance to conclude this camp fire was created by a person as opposed to just happening by chance?
You would be making an argument from ignorance if you posited that it could only come from humans.

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 01:23 PM
You call that a good test????

Are you on crack???

I submit to you the exact opposite would occur.

If you had a person that was not exposed to either the Bible (creationism) or atheistic explanations of the origin of the earth I believe they would see the evidence for creation. So there! :)

Yet the bottom line is this "test" of yours isn't very relevant because we cannot conduct such a "test" so who really cares what either of us think the result would be? :kookoo:

I'm not on any drugs that I know of.

And yet that test has been conducted many times. Throughtout human history, societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for the creation of the earth. Why don't they follow the biblical account exactly? The world was there for them to see. They should have been surrounded by evidence of God's method of creation, right?

You believe in Creationism because that's what the bible says happened. If tomorrow there was evidence found that completely disproved evolution, I could accept that. Could you accept it if Creationism were proved wrong? No, don't answer. I already know what you would do because you've already done it. You'd cling to the biblical account of creation even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 01:23 PM
That is an amazing admission wouldn't you agree?

Especially since it's usually the unbeliever types that cry out that the stories of the Bible are borrowed from other religions and cultures. :D:)

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 01:25 PM
So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??

In the biblical account, yes. Other beliefs have their own versions. Only science seems capable of looking at the evidence and deciding what's most likely to be true.

No system built entirely on faith can find the truth.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:26 PM
You would be making an argument from ignorance if you posited that it could only come from humans.:rotfl:

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 01:28 PM
And yet that test has been conducted many times. Throughtout human history, societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for the creation of the earth. Why don't they follow the biblical account exactly?Ah, but your test was between Creationism and Evolution, and by your admission all of the "societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for THE CREATION OF THE EARTH."

The world was there for them to see. They should have been surrounded by evidence of God's method of creation, right?That's not what your test said. Your test said that none of them would believe in a young earth, which most of them do.

You believe in Creationism because that's what the bible says happened. If tomorrow there was evidence found that completely disproved evolution, I could accept that. Could you accept it if Creationism were proved wrong? No, don't answer. I already know what you would do because you've already done it. You'd cling to the biblical account of creation even in the face of overwhelming evidence.That's ridiculous. Many people on here have said that if the Bible was proven false, we would abandon our faith. Not everybody, but most did.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:29 PM
Why are you subsituting the would "design" with "pattern"?Because you're using pattern recognition to infer human design.

There are a myriad of problems with that analogy. Just because something is organized doesn't mean it was designed. Hurricanes are organized. Ice crystals and snowflakes are organized. Yet they have completely natural origins.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 01:30 PM
So are you saying that only Christians believe in creationism??
Hindus got their own version. lotsa people got their version.
dating creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_Creation)

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 01:30 PM
In the biblical account, yes. Other beliefs have their own versions. Only science seems capable of looking at the evidence and deciding what's most likely to be true.

No system built entirely on faith can find the truth.What about Muslims?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:35 PM
You would be making an argument from ignorance if you posited that it could only come from humans.DPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1009301#post1009301) :first:

fool
January 31st, 2006, 01:38 PM
:rotfl:
That all you got?
ever seen a birds nest? or a beaver dam?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:41 PM
That all you got?
ever seen a birds nest? or a beaver dam?Ever see a bird or a beaver build a camp fire?

fool
January 31st, 2006, 01:42 PM
DPOTD (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1009301#post1009301) :first:
I see you put that in a forum I can't post in.
What's a matter? chicken?
Bwaaacck bwaaaaaack, bwaaaack bwaaaaaaack.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:43 PM
Ever see a bird or a beaver build a camp fire?That's the sound of fool's point going right over Knight's head. Feh.

I found this quote from the article interesting:
In contrast, the theory of intelligent design holds that there are telltale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.You agree with that Bob b?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:44 PM
I see you put that in a forum I can't post in.
What's a matter? chicken?
Bwaaacck bwaaaaaack, bwaaaack bwaaaaaaack.You can respond in this forum can't you? :rolleyes:

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:46 PM
That's the sound of fool's point going right over Knight's head. Feh. Johnny YES or NO...

If you came across the camp fire I have described would you think a bird or beaver may have built it?

fool
January 31st, 2006, 01:49 PM
Ever see a bird or a beaver build a camp fire?
Birds nests make excellent fire startes, a large one turned upside down might confuse the simple minded., Likewise beaver dams are neatly interwoven mounds, should you see one and not know about beavers you might be puzzled. Also, have you ever seen the stumps left by a beaver that has felled a tree? You might conclude that a man was making a punji stick obstacle course. Ant hills? Snowflakes? balanced rocks? are they all the handiwork of man??

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:51 PM
Birds nests make excellent fire startes, a large one turned upside down might confuse the simple minded., Likewise beaver dams are neatly interwoven mounds, should you see one and not know about beavers you might be puzzled. Also, have you ever seen the stumps left by a beaver that has felled a tree? You might conclude that a man was making a punji stick obstacle course. Ant hills? Snowflakes? balanced rocks? are they all the handiwork of man??fool, first off animals are intelligent and created by God!

So your argument is self defeating.

But more importantly... just answer the simple question...

fool YES or NO...

If you came across the camp fire I have described would you think a bird or beaver may have built it?

`Love.
January 31st, 2006, 01:52 PM
I agree, fool, who needs logic?! :hammer:

Maybe the well-built camp fire was slowly created by a soup-like substance composed of small enzymes that was left over from the big bang. That stuff is like magic powder. It could become anything!!!

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:53 PM
Also, have you ever seen the stumps left by a beaver that has felled a tree? You might conclude that a man was making a punji stick obstacle course. You might!

But you wouldn't conclude that the tree stump was created without some form of intelligent life chopping it down.

Would you at least concede that point?

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:54 PM
If you came across the camp fire I have described would you think a bird or beaver may have built it?No.

And once again you show that you possess the critical thinking ability of a child. Fool's point wasn't that a bird may have built a campfire with stones around it. It was that you can't always infer "intelligent" design from order. That was my point too. You assume a campfire was probably built by humans because humans build campfires and animals don't and the wind doesn't usually blow them together.

But snowflakes have order. So do hurricanes. Why don't you assume they were designed?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 01:57 PM
And once again you show that you possess the critical thinking ability of a child. Fool's point wasn't that a bird may have built a campfire with stones around it. It was that you can't always infer "intelligent" design from order. That was my point too. You assume a campfire was probably built by humans because humans build campfires and animals don't and the wind doesn't usually blow them together.BINGO!

So, it takes two pages of posts to concede a point you should have conceded initially. Let's see if fool does likewise.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 01:59 PM
What? I didn't concede anything. My point has always been that's not an argument from ignorance. Fool may disagree, but that's always been my point

And again it goes straight over your head. I'm convinced one must master this kind of ignorance to remain a creationist.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:02 PM
What? I didn't concede anything.When you agreed that you wouldn't think a bird or beaver created the camp fire you were conceding that you wouldn't think a bird or beaver could create a camp fire. :hammer:

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 02:04 PM
But snowflakes have order. So do hurricanes. Why don't you assume they were designed?Who says they weren't designed?

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:05 PM
When you agreed that you wouldn't think a bird or beaver created the camp fire you were conceding that you wouldn't think a bird or beaver could create a camp fire.I just have to laugh at this. Can you show me where I ever disagreed?

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:06 PM
Who says they weren't designed?Do you believe they were? I'm not talking about the actual process of forming snowflakes and hurricanes. I'm asking whether or not God is up there with a hurricane and snowflake generator.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:06 PM
fool, first off animals are intelligent and created by God!

So your argument is self defeating.

But more importantly... just answer the simple question...

fool YES or NO...

If you came across the camp fire I have described would you think a bird or beaver may have built it?
Ah, moving the goal post, I wondered how long it wold take you to try a different tac.
To directly answer your question, I wouldn't think beaver if the logs were cut staight, but the point remains the it would be an arguement from ignorance to say that it could only be human.
It could be;
aliens, bigfoot, natural.......................
Use your imagination.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:09 PM
I just have to laugh at this. Can you show me where I ever disagreed?OK... post #29 you affirm fools point.
That's the sound of fool's point going right over Knight's head. Feh.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:10 PM
OK... post #29 you affirm fools point.KNIGHT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE POINT.

woosh.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:10 PM
It could be;
aliens, bigfoot, natural.......................
Use your imagination.:chz4brnz:

How do you get through the day?

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 02:11 PM
Do you believe they were? I'm not talking about the actual process of forming snowflakes and hurricanes. I'm asking whether or not God is up there with a hurricane and snowflake generator.:chuckle:

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:11 PM
Was that a yes or a no Mr. 5020?

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:11 PM
You might!

But you wouldn't conclude that the tree stump was created without some form of intelligent life chopping it down.

Would you at least concede that point?
Wrong, I saw a forest after a tornado hit it and not knowing about the tornado I thought it was strange that loggers would snap the trees off at that hieght and leave them all pointing the same direction. The uniformity of where they were snapped at made me think intelligent.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:12 PM
KNIGHT YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE POINT.

woosh.Johnny you are delusional.

But I guess coming from a guy who believes in time travel what else should I expect?

Sozo
January 31st, 2006, 02:13 PM
It could be;
aliens, bigfoot, natural.......................
Use your imagination.

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

oka i....i... i.. thik i seee wot u r saaaing *burp* :cheers:

logos_x
January 31st, 2006, 02:14 PM
Ah, moving the goal post, I wondered how long it wold take you to try a different tac.
To directly answer your question, I wouldn't think beaver if the logs were cut staight, but the point remains the it would be an arguement from ignorance to say that it could only be human.
It could be;
aliens, bigfoot, natural.......................
Use your imagination.

The problem would then be, where did aliens, bigfoot, or nature come from. It doesn't really change the argument, it only moves into what agent's were used to bring about the results, and moves it back to who designed the agents.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:14 PM
:chz4brnz:

How do you get through the day?
By being honest.
How do you do it?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:15 PM
Wrong, I saw a forest after a tornado hit it and not knowing about the tornado I thought it was strange that loggers would snap the trees off at that hieght and leave them all pointing the same direction. The uniformity of where they were snapped at made me think intelligent.Did the tree stumps have teeth or axe chop marks in them?

I have seen tree stumps left by beavers and there is no mistaking them.

But hey, that's just me being rational who am I to argue with a guy who believes aliens, beavers, big-foots and birds might start camp fires. :kookoo:

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 02:16 PM
Was that a yes or a no Mr. 5020?Neither...it was me chuckling.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:19 PM
Johnny you are delusional.

But I guess coming from a guy who believes in time travel what else should I expect?
I think delusional more accurately describes the man who rejects physical and demonstrable evidence in favor of his pastor's uninformed opinion on a matter in which he has repeatedly demonstrated to have no idea what he's talking about. I think delusional describes the man who thinks he's well informed because he received the latest and greatest creationist brochure in the mail. I think delusional describes the man who will argue that an observable process does not occur because it's not found anywhere in his worldview. I think delusional is the man who will sacrifice his own intellect to the alter of his worldview. I think delusional describes the man who, for lack of critical thought, refuses to even acknowledge anyone else's point for fear that he might actually have to be honest with himself.

I'm sure you didn't understand what I was arguing in the time travel thread. I'm sure you don't understand what my point is in this thread.

Perhaps I was wrong for expecting more.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:22 PM
Do you believe they were? I'm not talking about the actual process of forming snowflakes and hurricanes. I'm asking whether or not God is up there with a hurricane and snowflake generator.Not to answer for Mr. 5020 but... if God designed the process in which snowflakes form, the snowflakes are designed!

Even though God doesn't create each and every snowflake in a "snowflake generator" the snowflakes are designed none the less.

God designs the way in which small droplets of water crystalize and therefore snowflakes are designed.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:23 PM
Perhaps I was wrong for expecting more.Or perhaps you are just wrong. :)

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:23 PM
The problem would then be, where did aliens, bigfoot, or nature come from. It doesn't really change the argument, it only moves into what agent's were used to bring about the results, and moves it back to who designed the agents.
Good point logos!
What Knight is saying is that if I show him a video of an eagles nest falling from a tree, and landing upside down, and a beaver using it as a base for a dam, that catchs on fire, that it would matter not, because I haven't shown where Eagles and beavers and fire and trees come from. It's called moving the goal post.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:24 PM
Or perhaps you are just wrong.I'm not even convinced you what my point was.

What was my point?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:25 PM
Good point logos!
What Knight is saying is that if I show him a video of an eagles nest falling from a tree, and landing upside down, and a beaver using it as a base for a dam, that catchs on fire, that it would matter not, because I haven't shown where Eagles and beavers and fire and trees come from. It's called moving the goal post.And similarly shaped round stones just happen to roll up in a circle all around the birds nest that caught on fire?

You left that part out. :)

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:26 PM
What was my point?If you don't know your own point how are all of us supposed to know your point?

I think you need to seek professional help.

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:31 PM
If you don't know your own pointI'm well aware of my own point. That was an empty claim.


how are all of us supposed to know your point?The funny thing is, Knight, you must have believed you know enough about my point to call it wrong. So what were you calling wrong?

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 02:41 PM
Knight, did you ever notice that all your 'arguments' end up in you calling people names?

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:43 PM
Did the tree stumps have teeth or axe chop marks in them?
No, they were snapped, neatly, which led me to imagine a tree snapping machine, which made more sense than wind cause in my experience with wind falls they usually pull the root ball and fall over. But in the local case of a tornado, different result.


I have seen tree stumps left by beavers and there is no mistaking them.

Your right! they're actually cut much neater than a man would do with an axe!
So if you didn't know about beavers, and could'nt imagine their existence, you would make an argument from ignorance that there was an extremely detail minded woodsman that took great care to leave his stumps in perfect little points.


But hey, that's just me being rational who am I to argue with a guy who believes aliens, beavers, big-foots and birds might start camp fires. :kookoo:
And who am I to argue with a guy who believes that the Earth was created 6,000 yrs. ago by an unpoofed poofer named Yaweh who likes the smell of burning goat flesh, enjoyed riding around the desert on a box carried by the Hebrews, and wants us to execute all the homos.

mighty_duck
January 31st, 2006, 02:46 PM
Not to answer for Mr. 5020 but... if God designed the process in which snowflakes form, the snowflakes are designed!

Even though God doesn't create each and every snowflake in a "snowflake generator" the snowflakes are designed none the less.

God designs the way in which small droplets of water crystalize and therefore snowflakes are designed.

So even if evolution is 100% correct, it is still intelligent design, since God designed evolution. How about we get to learning about the processes, since that has actual use. If you want to attribute the origin of the processes to God, Zues, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, do so at your own peril. It is just a God-of-the-gaps, and those gaps have historically shrinked with every new discovery.

Our major beef with ID is that it is an explanation that doesn't explain anything. You can derive any conclusion you want with ID as your base. A fire breathing, flying monkey fossil found in pre-cambrian strata is easily explained by ID. In fact, anything and everything can easily be explained by ID. ID adds zero new information, so learning about it is pointless. Calling it science is silly.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:49 PM
And similarly shaped round stones just happen to roll up in a circle all around the birds nest that caught on fire?

You left that part out. :)
No problem,
Round stones occur near rivers, and are sorted by such forces as glaciers, perhaps it's all stones and you can't see the ones in the middle cause of the fire that's on it.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:50 PM
So what were you calling wrong?Your affirmation of fools post.

Which you have since conceded was in error. :up:

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:51 PM
No problem,
Round stones occur near rivers, and are sorted by such forces as glaciers, perhaps it's all stones and you can't see the ones in the middle cause of the fire that's on it.That would be a description of a different location. One that wasn't the one I described.

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 02:52 PM
I think Knight unwittingly brought up an interesting point.

Let's take his campfire example:

I have made a fire, I have seen people make fires. Therefore if I see a campfire in the woods, I can say that a human had to have made it, because I've never seen anything else make one.

Now let's say scientists can create simple multi-celled organisms. By Knight's own reasoning then I would have to assume that life was created by a human. Since the only one I've ever seen create life is a human!

Johnny
January 31st, 2006, 02:52 PM
Which you have since conceded was in error.No, I have not. Knight, you need to read more carefully. Read what fool is saying. Do you think fool honestly believes that aliens or beavers built the campfire? Probably not. So what is fool saying then? I'll leave that as a mental excercise for you. You need it.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:53 PM
And who am I to argue with a guy who believes that the Earth was created 6,000 yrs. ago by an unpoofed poofer named Yaweh who likes the smell of burning goat flesh, enjoyed riding around the desert on a box carried by the Hebrews, and wants us to execute all the homos.Who are you? A self described fool.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 02:54 PM
Now let's say scientists can create simple multi-celled organisms. By Knight's own reasoning then I would have to assume that life was created by a human. Since the only one I've ever seen create life is a human!Let me know when that happens and we will talk. :kookoo:

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 02:56 PM
It's bound to happen eventually. Will you entertain the idea or do you believe it is impossible?


Let me know when that happens and we will talk. :kookoo:

Sozo
January 31st, 2006, 02:57 PM
No problem,
Round stones occur near rivers, and are sorted by such forces as glaciers, perhaps it's all stones and you can't see the ones in the middle cause of the fire that's on it.

There should be a movie about you!

You could be an investigator for the Dept. of Forestry!

Bill: "Well Jim, we've lost half the mountain to this fire, what do you think may have caused it?"

Jim (played by fool): "First, we have to rule out Yogi and Boo-Boo"

fool
January 31st, 2006, 02:58 PM
No problem,
Round stones occur near rivers, and are sorted by such forces as glaciers, perhaps it's all stones and you can't see the ones in the middle cause of the fire that's on it.
OR, a small land slide that incuded a big chunk of ice fell and the rocks were around the chunk until it melted, leaving a spot in the middle. The point isn't to keep making up scenarios, the point is that you'll never be able to consider all possible scenarios. Hence "I can't see how" is an argument from ignorance. The fact the you make an argument from ignorance dosen't mean the thing you make it about isn't true. The fire could be man made. But the fact that you can't think of another explaination dosen't mean that it is man made.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:01 PM
It's bound to happen eventually. Will you entertain the idea or do you believe it is impossible?You obviously know nothing about "simple multi-celled organisms" as they are anything but "simple".

Man will never create life from non-living matter. Not now, not then, not ever! And only the tragically ignorant will believe otherwise.

But you are free to believe whatever you like.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 03:04 PM
Who are you? A self described fool.
One that you fear cause I can pierce your fog.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 03:06 PM
There should be a movie about you!

You could be an investigator for the Dept. of Forestry!

Bill: "Well Jim, we've lost half the mountain to this fire, what do you think may have caused it?"

Jim (played by fool): "First, we have to rule out Yogi and Boo-Boo"
Lightning, you forgot about that.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:06 PM
The point isn't to keep making up scenarios,Who is the one who keeps "making up scenarios"? Me or you?

I made up one single scenario and you have been living up to your username ever since.


The fire could be man made. But the fact that you can't think of another explaination dosen't mean that it is man made.And there we have it!

One of us will quickly recognize the camp fire as man made and move on. The other will waste a bunch of time living in the fantasy world thinking that maybe big-foot or a beaver or a alien started the camp fire.

You can be a fool with little effort but why? Why not be smart and rational?

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 03:14 PM
Well, I do have an degree in engineering and have had a bit of school. So I wouldn't say i know nothing.

I used the term simple multi-celled to differentiate between a mouse and a bacteria.

People also said we'd never walk on the moon...funny thing science.


You obviously know nothing about "simple multi-celled organisms" as they are anything but "simple".

Man will never create life from non-living matter. Not now, not then, not ever! And only the tragically ignorant will believe otherwise.

But you are free to believe whatever you like.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:15 PM
So lets reset.

The scenario:
Knight and fool came across an abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs are nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there are similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire.

Which of the following two arguments is an argument from ignorance?

Knight: cool some person built a camp fire lets roast marshmellows! :chew: (argument #1)

fool: A person? Don't be so sure! These stones could have just rolled together in this circular pattern and then a eagles nest might have fallen from the trees landing upside down in the middle of the stones. Finally a bolt of lightening struck the eagles nest and created this fire! Or maybe Big-foot, a beaver, a bird or possibly a alien from outer space could have created this campfire. (argument #2)

Knight: Yeah... maybe... :kookoo: * checks fool's backpack for recently used crack pipe *.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:17 PM
Well, I do have an degree in engineering and have had a bit of school. So I wouldn't say i know nothing.

I used the term simple multi-celled to differentiate between a mouse and a bacteria.

People also said we'd never walk on the moon...funny thing science.Like I said... you are free to believe in any fantasy you desire. But as for me I do not believe that man will ever create life from non-living matter.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:18 PM
One that you fear cause I can pierce your fog.The only fog I see is the cloud coming from your crack pipe.

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 03:21 PM
Two particularly remarkable quotes from Knight, especially taken together and in the context of the topic at hand (“Intelligent design”)”


fool, first off animals are intelligent and created by God!

I doubt any of us had realized that when it comes to “intelligent design,” animals explicitly qualify as “intelligent.” So a bird’s nest is evidence of design by an “intelligent agent”: The bird!


Not to answer for Mr. 5020 but... if God designed the process in which snowflakes form, the snowflakes are designed!

Even though God doesn't create each and every snowflake in a "snowflake generator" the snowflakes are designed none the less.

God designs the way in which small droplets of water crystalize and therefore snowflakes are designed.
Now this example seems to indicate that everything, not just complex life forms and processes, is “designed by God.” It exists, therefore it must be designed, is that it? (Or do you just mean complex life forms, and snowflakes?) Better yet, you’re not just saying everything is designed by God, you’re saying that all natural processes were designed by God.

But that’s cool, because it simply serves to further catapult intelligent design outside of the realm of science. There is no possible way to test the hypothesis that all natural processes were designed by God. Thus, even if it’s 100% true, it would have no bearing on how anyone does science.

The trick, as IDers well know, is that everything that we have confirmed as being "designed" has had a human designer. (You can point to bird's nests if you want, but you're likely to run into worse trouble having such lax criteria for what qualifies as "design" and "intelligence.") Therefore, all criteria that have been used to "recognize" "design" are in fact only capable of recognizing human design!

Interesting double standard. Some folks refuse to accept the extrapolation "if change is correlated with time over short time intervals, then they're probably going to be correlated over longer time intervals" , even though there is no qualitative difference between the two conditions, no a priori (nonreligious!) reason for doubting the extrapolation.

These same folks, however, have no problem with a very different type of extrapolation: "If we can use a particular set of criteria to recognize some things designed by humans, then we can use the same set of criteria to recognize anything designed by any intelligent agent." Even though in this case there is a fairly drastic qualitative difference between the two conditions (human designers and -- is it safe to say -- supernatural? how about at least superhuman, given Knight's recent exclamation that humans will never be able to create life) designers.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:25 PM
I doubt any of us had realized that when it comes to “intelligent design,” animals explicitly qualify as “intelligent.” So a bird’s nest is evidence of design by an “intelligent agent”: The bird!Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 03:26 PM
Ah, but your test was between Creationism and Evolution, and by your admission all of the "societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for THE CREATION OF THE EARTH."

That's not what your test said. Your test said that none of them would believe in a young earth, which most of them do.

You're right. I broadened the scope without mentioning it. My apologies.

My attempt was to show that biblical creation is not obviously the way the earth was created. It required a text to make it known. Evolution, on the other, developed based on observations, not preconceived notions. The whole world is evolution's "holy book."

I wish there was a way to conduct my test, but Christianity has spread so far that I doubt there is someone we could both agree was unbiased.


That's ridiculous. Many people on here have said that if the Bible was proven false, we would abandon our faith. Not everybody, but most did.

Give me an example of something that would prove to you that biblical creation is wrong.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 03:30 PM
One of us will quickly recognize the camp fire as man made and move on. The other will waste a bunch of time living in the fantasy world thinking that maybe big-foot or a beaver or a alien started the camp fire.

You can be a fool with little effort but why? Why not be smart and rational?
The point that you're oblivious to is that I'm talking about why we recognize that it's man made.
Let's you and me go encounter this camp fire, And I say "I can't imagine any explaination for this other than it was put here by Yaweh as a sign that he wants us to camp here tonight". You would look at me and say, "It could be, but that fact that you can't come up with another dosen't mean that's true". Yes? No?

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 03:31 PM
You're right. I broadened the scope without mentioning it. My apologies.

My attempt was to show that biblical creation is not obviously the way the earth was created. It required a text to make it known. Evolution, on the other, developed based on observations, not preconceived notions. The whole world is evolution's "holy book."

I wish there was a way to conduct my test, but Christianity has spread so far that I doubt there is someone we could both agree was unbiased.Wait a minute! You said that the test had already been run. Not only that, but those who were tested chose to believe in Creationism!

Give me an example of something that would prove to you that biblical creation is wrong.I travel back in time and see Peter and John steal Jesus' body.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 03:33 PM
The point that you're oblivious to is that I'm talking about why we recognize that it's man made.
Let's you and me go encounter this camp fire, And I say "I can't imagine any explaination for this other than it was put here by Yaweh as a sign that he wants us to camp here tonight". You would look at me and say, "It could be, but that fact that you can't come up with another dosen't mean that's true". Yes? No?What on earth are you talking about??? :kookoo:

You are so completely irrational you have lost all ability to maintain an intelligent conversation.

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 03:42 PM
What about Muslims?

I'm not sure what Muslims believe about creation. If they believe in the biblical account, then it also comes from the bible, not observation.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 03:42 PM
The only fog I see is the cloud coming from your crack pipe.
That all you got?

noguru
January 31st, 2006, 03:44 PM
Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?

I don't think so Knight. He is saying that a birds nest is evidence of intelligent design. That intelligent being is the bird. Just as a beaver damn is evidence of intelligent design, that intelligent being is the beaver.

This differs dramatically from saying that a snowflake is evidence of intelligent design.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 03:47 PM
What on earth are you talking about??? :kookoo:

You are so completely irrational you have lost all ability to maintain an intelligent conversation.
It's a yes or no question.
Does the fact that I can't think of another explaination for a camp fire mean that the one I'm looking at was made by Yaweh for me and Knight to roast marshmellows around?

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 03:55 PM
I'm not sure what Muslims believe about creation. If they believe in the biblical account, then it also comes from the bible, not observation.You said that only Christians believed in the Biblical account of Creationism. Are you saying that you were wrong?

aharvey
January 31st, 2006, 04:04 PM
Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?
What noguru said: For an intelligent designer to say that birds are intelligent means that the intelligent designer of the bird's nest is quite demonstrably the bird. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 04:23 PM
Wait a minute! You said that the test had already been run. Not only that, but those who were tested chose to believe in Creationism!

But they didn't believe in your version of creationism! If yours were correct, wouldn't everyone, even those who've never seen a bible, be able to determine it?

Why is evolution universal (i.e. all kinds of people believe it), but biblical creation is believed only by those who believe in the bible?


I travel back in time and see Peter and John steal Jesus' body.

Well, that's certainly reasonable! How about something that is a little more possible?

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 04:27 PM
You said that only Christians believed in the Biblical account of Creationism. Are you saying that you were wrong?

Yes. I was wrong. I know for a fact that some Jews believe in the biblical account of creation. Some Muslims may as well, I am not knowledgable enough of Islam to know for sure.

I should have said that those who believe in the Old Testament are the only ones who believe in biblical creation.

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 04:30 PM
Man will never create life from non-living matter.

What do you think living matter is made of? Non-living matter. Life is simply a biochemical process. A complex one, but one that can be understood nonetheless.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 04:34 PM
Like I said... you are free to believe in any fantasy you desire. But as for me I do not believe that man will ever create life from non-living matter.
From the argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium) link;
"Argument from ignorance is similar to but not equivalent to the argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true."

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 04:36 PM
It seems to me that creationism or ID are at their heart, ideas based on cheating.

The whole point of creationism is that the universe must have a creator because everything we know about complex things requires a creator. A campfire in the woods must have a creator because there is no other reasonable explanation for how it got there.

Yet, when theists offer God as the creator, they don't take their own logical step and say, "Well God is obviously complex, he must also have a creator."

That is a cheat. You do not apply the very basis of your reasoning to the end result of that reasoning.

Yorzhik
January 31st, 2006, 05:15 PM
What noguru said: For an intelligent designer to say that birds are intelligent means that the intelligent designer of the bird's nest is quite demonstrably the bird. Are you sure that's where you want to go?
I'll bite. Yes. The only qualifier being that a human could also make a birds nest well enough that an idependent observer would not be able to tell if it were a bird or a human. However, experience would dictate a bird.

-------------

To whoever brought up humans making life from non-life; We just might pull it off someday. However, I will make the prediction that when that when that day comes evo will be nothing more than a painful memory, at best, in anyone's mind.

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 05:31 PM
To whoever brought up humans making life from non-life; We just might pull it off someday. However, I will make the prediction that when that when that day comes evo will be nothing more than a painful memory, at best, in anyone's mind.

To be replaced by what?

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 05:52 PM
Life on this planet is unique. Life exists no where else that we know of. How can we draw any comparison to what is, for us at the moment anyway, a completely one time only event.

Could God have come down and made everything? Yes, that is a possibility. But it does not follow that he had to just because everything we know of that is complex was made with a purpose.

When some look at the Grand Canyon, they are amazed at the power of God. When I look at it, I am amazed at the power of water.

Could evolution be wrong? Sure. But the evidence would have to point to something else. Right now, it does not point to biblical creation.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 06:38 PM
That all you got?It's all I need! :rotfl:

koban
January 31st, 2006, 06:56 PM
Life on this planet is unique. Life exists no where else that we know of.


How many other places in the universe do we know with enough familiarity to say that no other life exists?

We've explored a tiny fraction of the moon, we've explored the tiniest particle of Mars.

Heck, we keep finding amazing discoveries in the strangest places here on earth, still.

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 06:57 PM
Hold on a second are you saying water created the Grand Canyon, you ignorant fool , how could water create that in 6,000 years?

God got all up in dat.



When some look at the Grand Canyon, they are amazed at the power of God. When I look at it, I am amazed at the power of water.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 07:02 PM
God got all up in dat.What was that comment supposed to mean?

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 07:06 PM
Hold on a second are you saying water created the Grand Canyon, you ignorant fool , how could water create that in 6,000 years?What if water covered the entire world? Then could it be done?

TheBard
January 31st, 2006, 07:07 PM
He all got up in it and made a canyon!

God was all like:
Yo! Souf Dakota be borin y'all , check dis! BAM! Canyon!! Rah-spect mah glory y'all free willed creations let's see you make sumfin like dat -- ya can't cuz i be the main man - G to the O to the Dizzle , BIG UPS!

My god is an awesome god. word.


What was that comment supposed to mean?

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 07:09 PM
He all got up in it and made a canyon!

God was all like:
Yo! Souf Dakota be borin y'all , check dis! BAM! Canyon!! Rah-spect mah glory y'all free willed creations let's see you make sumfin like dat -- ya can't cuz i be the main man - G to the O to the Dizzle , BIG UPS!

My god is an awesome god. word.Yeah... that's what I thought you meant. :wave2:

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 07:10 PM
Yeah... that's what I thought you meant. :wave2:Thank you, Knight.

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 07:18 PM
Thank you, Knight.:up: We have to keep the IQ level of these conversations at least at a reasonable level.

koban
January 31st, 2006, 07:21 PM
:up: We have to keep the IQ level of these conversations at least at a reasonable level.


Aww C'mon - that was hilarious!

Sacreligious as all heck, but hilarious! God as a homey? :darwinsm:


It's your site and you can ban whomever you like, but this guy doesn't hold a candle to some annoying Muslims and Aussies I've seen around here lately.


just my two cents

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 07:24 PM
Sacreligious as all heck, but hilarious! God as a homey? :darwinsm:You thought that was funny? :confused: I really didn't find it funny at all.

3. Thou SHALL NOT be intentionally blasphemous or unnecessarily disruptive. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2053)

Mr. 5020
January 31st, 2006, 07:42 PM
I could have sworn there was another post here...

Oh, the poster's name is in red now! :darwinsm:

:wave2: :troll:

Knight
January 31st, 2006, 07:45 PM
I could have sworn there was another post here...

Oh, the poster's name is in red now! :darwinsm:

:wave2: :troll::chz4brnz:

fool
January 31st, 2006, 07:51 PM
He all got up in it and made a canyon!

God was all like:
Yo! Souf Dakota be borin y'all , check dis! BAM! Canyon!! Rah-spect mah glory y'all free willed creations let's see you make sumfin like dat -- ya can't cuz i be the main man - G to the O to the Dizzle , BIG UPS!

My god is an awesome god. word.
The Grand Canyon is in Arizona.

fool
January 31st, 2006, 08:00 PM
What was that comment supposed to mean?
I think he was positing that things could be created by God with the appearence of age.

kmoney
January 31st, 2006, 08:32 PM
Aww C'mon - that was hilarious!

Sacreligious as all heck, but hilarious! God as a homey? :darwinsm:


It's your site and you can ban whomever you like, but this guy doesn't hold a candle to some annoying Muslims and Aussies I've seen around here lately.


just my two cents
yo, he didn't rah-spect the rules. Knight ain't gonna have dat yo! He be banned. B to the A to the Nizzle

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 10:10 PM
How many other places in the universe do we know with enough familiarity to say that no other life exists?

We've explored a tiny fraction of the moon, we've explored the tiniest particle of Mars.

Heck, we keep finding amazing discoveries in the strangest places here on earth, still.

I firmly believe that life exists elsewhere. What I said was that "life exists no where else that we know of."

When we find life elsewhere, it will hopefully be the final nail in the coffin of creationism.

Unbeliever
January 31st, 2006, 10:16 PM
What if water covered the entire world? Then could it be done?

No, then we would see very similar structures all over the world, even in places without access to water. It's not a coincidence that canyon formations are associated with rivers. The Grand Canyon was cut and is still being cut by the Colorado River.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 09:13 AM
No, then we would see very similar structures all over the world, even in places without access to water. It's not a coincidence that canyon formations are associated with rivers. The Grand Canyon was cut and is still being cut by the Colorado River.

Just a suggestion.

In just the past few decades geologists have found evidences that have caused them to modify their previous theories regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon. From what I have been reading it is now believed that at least some of the canyon features were generated quite rapidly by the release of dammed up waters from an ancient lake. As a result of this thinking the time scale has also been dramatically reduced.

This is not to say that geologists now agree with creationists, they don't. But they have modified their views considerably since the last time you looked.

Why not take a look on the internet at what is currently believed by geologists and see if it isn't close to what I have briefly described here?

fool
February 1st, 2006, 09:16 AM
Bout time you showed up at your thread Bob.

fool
February 1st, 2006, 09:19 AM
ID is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium)

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 09:46 AM
ID is argument from ignorance

ID has arisen as a result of discoveries about how intricate are the mechanisms which underlie life. What is occurring at the nanoscale level is absolutely remarkable and was completely unexpected until new scientific tools and instruments became available to unveil them.

Anyone who subscribes to NetFlix can see these marvels for themselves by ordering a video which amply demonstrates them called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. The animations are truly stunning!

In other words, ID has arisen because of increased biological knowledge, and has caused many to compare these new discoveries to the alleged mechanism for large scale evolution that previously was thought to explain how life varies.

For most people who view the video, the "random mutation plus natural selection" theory of evolution has been "weighed and found wanting".

As research and new discoveries reduce our ignorance about biology, more and more people will begin to doubt that "random mutation plus natural selection" could "do the job" that proponents have claimed it could.

aharvey
February 1st, 2006, 09:56 AM
ID has arisen as a result of discoveries about how intricate are the mechanisms which underlie life. What is occurring at the nanoscale level is absolutely remarkable and was completely unexpected until new scientific tools and instruments became available to unveil them.

Anyone who subscribes to NetFlix can see these marvels for themselves by ordering a video which amply demonstrates them called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. The animations are truly stunning!

In other words, ID has arisen because of increased biological knowledge, and has caused many to compare these new discoveries to the alleged mechanism for large scale evolution that previously was thought to explain how life varies.

For most people who view the video, the "mutation plus natural selection" theory of evolution has been "weighed and found wanting".

As research and new discoveries reduce our ignorance about biology, more and more people will begin to doubt that "mutation plus natural selection" could "do the job" that proponents have claimed it could.
But none of this changes the fact that ID is still arguing from ignorance, or as you prefer to call it, arguing from incredulity: "Wow, life is really amazing! I really can't imagine how something this amazing could have resulted from something as simple as mutation plus natural selection alone. (Brace yourself for huge, unsupported leap in logic) Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been responsible instead." Of course, there's more to the evolutionary story than simply "mutation and natural selection," as Strat has emphasized repeatedly, but you put us in an interesting position: if we only talk about mutation and selection, you criticize this unrealistic, simplistic model. If we add what we've learned about other forces, you accuse us of changing the model to accomodate new data (as if this were a bad thing; I'm sorry, I still don't get why it's bad that our best understanding of the situation would change as we learn more about it).

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 10:20 AM
But none of this changes the fact that ID is still arguing from ignorance, or as you prefer to call it, arguing from incredulity: "Wow, life is really amazing! I really can't imagine how something this amazing could have resulted from something as simple as mutation plus natural selection alone. (Brace yourself for huge, unsupported leap in logic) Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been responsible instead." Of course, there's more to the evolutionary story than simply "mutation and natural selection," as Strat has emphasized repeatedly, but you put us in an interesting position: if we only talk about mutation and selection, you criticize this unrealistic, simplistic model. If we add what we've learned about other forces, you accuse us of changing the model to accomodate new data (as if this were a bad thing; I'm sorry, I still don't get why it's bad that our best understanding of the situation would change as we learn more about it).

Because for Bob the only "good" changes would be those that move the conclusion closer to his preconceived notion of how it all happened/happens. That is "true" science for Bob. Nothing else is good enough for him. And anyone who doesn't agree is either an atheist, a theist, or a "weak" Christian.

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 10:31 AM
ID has arisen as a result of discoveries about how intricate are the mechanisms which underlie life. What is occurring at the nanoscale level is absolutely remarkable and was completely unexpected until new scientific tools and instruments became available to unveil them.

Anyone who subscribes to NetFlix can see these marvels for themselves by ordering a video which amply demonstrates them called Unlocking the Mystery of Life. The animations are truly stunning!

In other words, ID has arisen because of increased biological knowledge, and has caused many to compare these new discoveries to the alleged mechanism for large scale evolution that previously was thought to explain how life varies.

For most people who view the video, the "random mutation plus natural selection" theory of evolution has been "weighed and found wanting".

As research and new discoveries reduce our ignorance about biology, more and more people will begin to doubt that "random mutation plus natural selection" could "do the job" that proponents have claimed it could.

Actually Bob ID has been there all along. It use to be that we had to rely on the God explanation as a supplement for our lack of understanding regarding a blooming flower. When science got a good enough grasp on the physical mechanisms responsible there was no longer the need from a purely scientific viewpoint to appeal to a supernatural intelligence to explain this. And so it goes. If we base our faith in God on the current mysteries regarding the natural world, our foundation for our faith is built upon shifting sands. However, if we base our faith on the wonderment that we feel from both the knowledge and the mystery, our foundation for faith is built upon solid rock.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 12:27 PM
But none of this changes the fact that ID is still arguing from ignorance, or as you prefer to call it, arguing from incredulity: "Wow, life is really amazing! I really can't imagine how something this amazing could have resulted from something as simple as mutation plus natural selection alone. (Brace yourself for huge, unsupported leap in logic) Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been responsible instead." Of course, there's more to the evolutionary story than simply "mutation and natural selection," as Strat has emphasized repeatedly, but you put us in an interesting position: if we only talk about mutation and selection, you criticize this unrealistic, simplistic model. If we add what we've learned about other forces, you accuse us of changing the model to accomodate new data (as if this were a bad thing; I'm sorry, I still don't get why it's bad that our best understanding of the situation would change as we learn more about it).

Feel free to present these other mechanisms. We're listening. :)

aharvey
February 1st, 2006, 02:15 PM
Feel free to present these other mechanisms. We're listening. :)
That is a good one, bob! Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor as well!

Yorzhik
February 1st, 2006, 04:45 PM
To be replaced by what?
Don't know. Maybe something to do with aliens.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 05:18 PM
Actually Bob ID has been there all along. It use to be that we had to rely on the God explanation as a supplement for our lack of understanding regarding a blooming flower.

Reminds me of the conversation between Tonto and the Lone Ranger when they saw a bunch of menacing Indians approaching:

Lone Ranger: "It looks like we may be in trouble, Tonto.

Tonto: "What's this "we" stuff white man?"


When science got a good enough grasp on the physical mechanisms responsible there was no longer the need from a purely scientific viewpoint to appeal to a supernatural intelligence to explain this. And so it goes. If we base our faith in God on the current mysteries regarding the natural world, our foundation for our faith is built upon shifting sands. However, if we base our faith on the wonderment that we feel from both the knowledge and the mystery, our foundation for faith is built upon solid rock.

I don't recall scripture saying that every blooming flower was a supernatural act. Do you have a reference? On the other hand I do recall it saying that in the beginning He created life in multiple forms, in particular Adam and Eve.

noguru
February 1st, 2006, 05:46 PM
Reminds me of the conversation between Tonto and the Lone Ranger when they saw a bunch of menacing Indians approaching:

Lone Ranger: "It looks like we may be in trouble, Tonto.

Tonto: "What's this "we" stuff white man?"



I don't recall scripture saying that every blooming flower was a supernatural act. Do you have a reference? On the other hand I do recall it saying that in the beginning He created life in multiple forms, in particular Adam and Eve.

So again you are saying that science should rely on a literal inerpretation of Genesis as scientific text for any model investigated?

Perhaps botanists should start looking into the possibility of a literal tree that dispenses the knowledge of good and evil?

Wait a minute, I think I have one of those in my back yard?

And Tonto I didn't mean you as part of the "we". Because you have always had it figured out. Unfortunately your people sold Manhatten to us for a dollar, and eventually lost control of this hemisphere to colonists from the old world. That was a good analogy, though.

At any rate, your response is a non-sequitir. Because I was simply pointing out that the concept of ID is not new, as you previously claimed. It did not originate with these mysteries regarding the formation of the first cell and DNA.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 07:30 PM
So again you are saying that science should rely on a literal inerpretation of Genesis as scientific text for any model investigated?

When I read Genesis I didn't get the impression that it talked about the full range of possible "models". That would have been a pretty huge tome if it did wouln't you think?


Perhaps botanists should start looking into the possibility of a literal tree that dispenses the knowledge of good and evil?

So far I haven't been able to determine exactly what was being hinted at there. Perhaps you can help me. It would be neat to know. :)


Wait a minute, I think I have one of those in my back yard?

A friendly suggestion, don't eat the fruit. ;)


And Tonto I didn't mean you as part of the "we".

Good, because I might disagree.


Because you have always had it figured out. Unfortunately your people sold Manhatten to us for a dollar, and eventually lost control of this hemisphere to colonists from the old world. That was a good analogy, though.

It usually draws a smile.


At any rate, your response is a non-sequitir. Because I was simply pointing out that the concept of ID is not new, as you previously claimed. It did not originate with these mysteries regarding the formation of the first cell and DNA.

Well if I said the concept was new I certainly erred, because it has been around for quite some time; it even pre-dates Rev. Paley. But the corpse has certainly come alive again with renewed vigor ever since biologists have been revealing the marvels of microscopic cells containing miniature nanotechnology "machines" of breathtaking complexity and sophistication.

BTW, have you seen Unlocking The Mystery Of Life? It is really an experience to treasure.

And it just might help condition unbelievers to be receptive to the Gospel, as well as strengthening the belief of "weak" Christians who have fallen prey to the evolutionary propaganda which surrounds us in our culture.

Unbeliever
February 1st, 2006, 07:54 PM
BTW, have you seen Unlocking The Mystery Of Life? It is really an experience to treasure.

And it just might help condition unbelievers to be receptive to the Gospel, as well as strengthening the belief of "weak" Christians who have fallen prey to the evolutionary propaganda which surrounds us in our culture.

Is that the one that has a section on how the earth is flat? Or how the sun goes around the earth?

I could never be receptive to the Gospel if it requires me to ignore what I can see with my own eyes. And why is evolution propaganda? You act as if the theory was created just to harrass Christians. Maybe it was created because it fits what we are discovering. You are the one with an agenda. Don't try and tell me I'm baised because I think the sky is blue.

bob b
February 1st, 2006, 08:21 PM
Is that the one that has a section on how the earth is flat? Or how the sun goes around the earth?

I could never be receptive to the Gospel if it requires me to ignore what I can see with my own eyes. And why is evolution propaganda? You act as if the theory was created just to harrass Christians. Maybe it was created because it fits what we are discovering. You are the one with an agenda. Don't try and tell me I'm baised because I think the sky is blue.

You sound like more of an atheist than an agnostic to me. ;)

As far as opening one's eyes, that was what happened to me 23 years ago when I was reading about DNA and suddenly realized that the idea that this system could have arisen "naturally" was a hunk of baloney and probably the biggest mistake scientists had ever made since they accepted Aristotle's concept of the Earth being the center of the solar system and eventually convinced Christians so firmly that they even resisted looking through Galileo's telescope some two millenia later.

Today the scientists and their theory of "random mutations plus natural selection" are similarly convincing the majority of our society so firmly that many Christians feel the need to "symbolize" scripture to try to make it fit with the current science, probably so they won't look foolish to future generations like they did in Galileo's day. Isn't it ironic that by trying to escape looking foolish to future generations, they are once again hitching their wagon to the wrong horse and assuring that future generations will be laughing at their foolishness?

Unbeliever
February 1st, 2006, 08:51 PM
You sound like more of an atheist than an agnostic to me. ;)

As far as opening one's eyes, that was what happened to me 23 years ago when I was reading about DNA and suddenly realized that the idea that this system could have arisen "naturally" was a hunk of baloney and probably the biggest mistake scientists had ever made since they accepted Aristotle's concept of the Earth being the center of the solar system and eventually convinced Christians so firmly that they even resisted looking through Galileo's telescope some two millenia later.

Today the scientists and their theory of "random mutations plus natural selection" are similarly convincing the majority of our society so firmly that many Christians feel the need to "symbolize" scripture to try to make it fit with the current science, probably so they won't look foolish to future generations like they did in Galileo's day. Isn't it ironic that by trying to escape looking foolish to future generations, they are once again hitching their wagon to the wrong horse and assuring that future generations will be laughing at their foolishness?

No, I really don't know if there is a God or not. For me, the jury is still out.

Do you disagree that there are random mutations?
Do you disagree that natural selection takes place?

We already know that organisms change as a result of their environment. Look at bacterial resistence for an example. If bacteria can change how they react to a given antibiotic in just a few years, what could they do in a few billion?

What is DNA? Is it alive? Isn't is just a chain of chemicals? And we know that under the right conditions chemicals can do some amazing things. Look at buckyballs for an example.

Is evolution the way we got here? I believe so but I don't know for sure. It is the best answer we have to date. But saying "I don't know but I'll keep looking" is along way from "I just can't see that happening, it must have been God, the end."

Those who believe in creation or ID have such small minds. That is not to say that they are stupid. On the contrary, many are very intelligent. They have small minds because they refuse to accept that which doesn't fit into their world view. I think Quantum Mechanics is some of the weirdest stuff I've ever heard of, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to reject it.

Don't reject evolution because you can't imagine how it could ever have happened. Maybe it's your imagination that's the problem, not evolution.

aharvey
February 2nd, 2006, 08:16 AM
As far as opening one's eyes, that was what happened to me 23 years ago when I was reading about DNA and suddenly realized that the idea that this system could have arisen "naturally" was a hunk of baloney and probably the biggest mistake scientists had ever made since they accepted Aristotle's concept of the Earth being the center of the solar system and eventually convinced Christians so firmly that they even resisted looking through Galileo's telescope some two millenia later.

Bob, I keep forgetting what you prefer to call this type of logical fallacy: is it an "appeal to ridicule" or an "appeal to incredulity"? You know, "DNA did not arise through natural processes because it is ridiculous / I am incredulous that something so amazingly complex could have arisen through natural processes!"

bob b
February 2nd, 2006, 06:55 PM
Here's the latest "mystery".


Evolution Mystery: Spider Venom And Bacteria Share Same Toxin
It's a case of evolutionary detective work. Biology researchers at Lewis & Clark College and the University of Arizona have found evidence for an ancient transfer of a toxin between ancestors of two very dissimilar organisms--spiders and a bacterium. But the mystery remains as how the toxin passed between the two organisms. Their research is published this month in the journal Bioinformatics, 22(3): 264-268, in an article titled "Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria."

"We are piecing together an historical puzzle with evidence from living descendants of an ancient ancestor," said Greta Binford, assistant professor of biology at Lewis & Clark. Her coresearcher on the project is Matthew Cordes, assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biophysics at the University of Arizona. The toxin is uniquely found in the venom cocktail of brown or violin spiders, including the brown recluse, and in some Corynebacteria. The toxin from the spider's venom can kill flesh at the bite site; the bacterium causes various illnesses in farm animals.

"Our research was inspired by the fact that we have a group of spiders with a unique toxin, and that toxin also happens to exist outside the animal kingdom in this particular bacterium," she added. "A pattern like this raises the possibility of lateral gene transfer as a explanation.

Sounds like a safe assumption. Considering how long ago this was presumed to happen there is not much chance anyone could ever be able show it to be wrong.

And according to the title, Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria this case is just about ready to be added to the "mountain of evidence" supporting evolutionary theory.

bob b
February 2nd, 2006, 07:08 PM
No, I really don't know if there is a God or not. For me, the jury is still out.

Do you disagree that there are random mutations?
Do you disagree that natural selection takes place?

We already know that organisms change as a result of their environment. Look at bacterial resistence for an example. If bacteria can change how they react to a given antibiotic in just a few years, what could they do in a few billion?

What is DNA? Is it alive? Isn't is just a chain of chemicals? And we know that under the right conditions chemicals can do some amazing things. Look at buckyballs for an example.

Is evolution the way we got here? I believe so but I don't know for sure. It is the best answer we have to date. But saying "I don't know but I'll keep looking" is along way from "I just can't see that happening, it must have been God, the end."

Those who believe in creation or ID have such small minds. That is not to say that they are stupid. On the contrary, many are very intelligent. They have small minds because they refuse to accept that which doesn't fit into their world view. I think Quantum Mechanics is some of the weirdest stuff I've ever heard of, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to reject it.

Don't reject evolution because you can't imagine how it could ever have happened. Maybe it's your imagination that's the problem, not evolution.

Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 05:13 AM
Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?


There is still a lot of mystery surrounding this area of the material sciences. But there is also quite a bit known about how it could not have happened. And this is one of the ways science works - through deduction.

Origin of life 101 (http://www.biology-online.org/10/1_first_life.htm)

One hypothesis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021204080856.htm)

Here is another site that has some information.

Abiogenesis (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm)

This is a very active area of research. Are you saying that we should abandon inquiry into this area?




BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

Bob, could you please tell us how your discussion might have stopped this poster from using this example?



And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

Of course Bob is referring to the new book by Kirschner and Gerhardt called "The Plausibility of Life". The authors strongly suspect that the DNA space that is used for mutation is often co-opted for new uses, when its previous use is eliminated. They believe this is a type of non-random mutation. Bob is either misrepesenting the research or misinterpreting its implications. It seems he often grasps onto these straws like a desperate drowning man. I think Bob is being disingenous by trying to make you believe that these ressearchers and the ideas they propose actually support his model of origins. With a more comprehensive look at these sources it becomes obvious that Bob is either mistaken or deceitful. Here is a link to a site about Kirscher.

Non-random mutation (http://sysbio.med.harvard.edu/faculty/kirschner/)

Bob brought this to my attention in another thread, believing that it supported his model of origins. After I carefully analysed what was being proposed by these authors, it seemed to support what I had previously suspected about how DNA works in regard to the genotype.

Frank Ernest
February 3rd, 2006, 05:31 AM
ID is argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantium)
:darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.

aharvey
February 3rd, 2006, 08:57 AM
Here's the latest "mystery".



Sounds like a safe assumption. Considering how long ago this was presumed to happen there is not much chance anyone could ever be able show it to be wrong.

And according to the title, Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria this case is just about ready to be added to the "mountain of evidence" supporting evolutionary theory.
From the information you've provided, I'm disappointed that they would give the paper that particular title, since in the press release one of the authors makes the statement (that you bolded) that this result raises that possibility. I'd have to read the paper itself to see if they've taken it any farther than that, but if not, then their title overstates their case.

In any other field of science, this wouldn't matter, since the title is meant only to attract the attention of busy colleagues long enough to get them to read the abstract, which then will hopefully encourage them to read the rest of the paper. See, in science, the quality of one's work is not judged by titles and press releases.

But, these days, whenever evolution is involved, one must be aware that there is an entire army of folks scanning titles and press releases for a completely different purpose, and who have no intention of actually reading the paper itself. Know what I mean?

bob b
February 3rd, 2006, 12:11 PM
There is still a lot of mystery surrounding this area of the material sciences. But there is also quite a bit known about how it could not have happened.
:rotfl: Emphasis added



This is a very active area of research. Are you saying that we should abandon inquiry into this area?

Be my guest. Use your own money though. The people's money would be better spent finding new energy sources.


Bob, could you please tell us how your discussion might have stopped this poster from using this example?

I don't flatter myself that anything I would say would affect those addicted to "random mutations plus natural selection". But if one were to read the latest about what is being discovered in these areas, it might cause one to hesitate to use the example to support macroevolution. I fully support research into how current lifeforms function, because it will probably benefit medicine as well as helping to combat the "random mutations plus natural selection" myth.


Of course Bob is referring to the new book by Kirschner and Gerhardt called "The Plausibility of Life". The authors strongly suspect that the DNA space that is used for mutation is often co-opted for new uses, when its previous use is eliminated. They believe this is a type of non-random mutation. Bob is either misrepesenting the research or misinterpreting its implications.

We shall see.


It seems he often grasps onto these straws like a desperate drowning man. I think Bob is being disingenous by trying to make you believe that these ressearchers and the ideas they propose actually support his model of origins. With a more comprehensive look at these sources it becomes obvious that Bob is either mistaken or deceitful.

Probably wicked too, a la Dawkins. ;)


Bob brought this to my attention in another thread, believing that it supported his model of origins. After I carefully analysed what was being proposed by these authors, it seemed to support what I had previously suspected about how DNA works in regard to the genotype.

You have it somewhat garbled. I don't look at these things as providing any direct support for a "multiple origins" concept ("model" is an exaggeration), but they do conflict with the concept of "random mutations".

If mutations were truly "random", as many famous evolutionists have traditionally argued, then the discovery of DNA, and with it the huge number of potential changes in the "combinatorial search realm" would imply that antibiotic resistence and other related bacterial response phenomena would not be as repeatable or as rapidly acting as they turn out to be.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 12:50 PM
Here's the latest "mystery".


Evolution Mystery: Spider Venom And Bacteria Share Same Toxin
It's a case of evolutionary detective work. Biology researchers at Lewis & Clark College and the University of Arizona have found evidence for an ancient transfer of a toxin between ancestors of two very dissimilar organisms--spiders and a bacterium. But the mystery remains as how the toxin passed between the two organisms. Their research is published this month in the journal Bioinformatics, 22(3): 264-268, in an article titled "Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria."

"We are piecing together an historical puzzle with evidence from living descendants of an ancient ancestor," said Greta Binford, assistant professor of biology at Lewis & Clark. Her coresearcher on the project is Matthew Cordes, assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biophysics at the University of Arizona. The toxin is uniquely found in the venom cocktail of brown or violin spiders, including the brown recluse, and in some Corynebacteria. The toxin from the spider's venom can kill flesh at the bite site; the bacterium causes various illnesses in farm animals.

"Our research was inspired by the fact that we have a group of spiders with a unique toxin, and that toxin also happens to exist outside the animal kingdom in this particular bacterium," she added. "A pattern like this raises the possibility of lateral gene transfer as a explanation.

Sounds like a safe assumption. Considering how long ago this was presumed to happen there is not much chance anyone could ever be able show it to be wrong.

And according to the title, Lateral gene transfer of a dermonecrotic toxin between spiders and bacteria this case is just about ready to be added to the "mountain of evidence" supporting evolutionary theory.



It could also be an example of convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution). Birds and bats did not develop at the same time and their mutual ancestor goes back pretty far. Yet they both fly. This is an example where evolution "created" a feature two seperate times because it works and is benefitial to the organism.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 12:58 PM
Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.

Just because something is currently beyond our ability to understand, that doesn't mean that God did it. That is the exact same thinking that caused the Greeks to create the Persephone myth to explain the changing seasons.

Sometimes understanding takes centuries, even millenia. And you are saying, "Time's up!" after only 50 years.

I did miss the discussion about antibiotic resistence in bacteria, but I still stand by the claim that if bacteria can change so much in such a short period of time, then billions of years offers a great deal more opportunity for change.

Why is "random mutations" a dead horse? We see ample evidence that random mutations do occur. They are often detrimental to the organism, but they do happen. And if only one random mutation out of a million is beneficial, then that is enough to bring about a permenent modification of the species.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 01:02 PM
ID is argument from ignorance :darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.

I agree. That is why I am an agnostic. Since you now recognize that any belief or disbelief in God is a logical fallacy, will you be changing your profile to say, "Agnostic?"

Or can you only see the logical fallacies of others?

aharvey
February 3rd, 2006, 01:09 PM
Don't single me out. Can anybody in the world imagine how it could have happened? I haven't heard of any scientific theories to explain it, have you?

After 50 or more years of knowing about DNA, does anyone have any kind of scientific theory about how a "coding system" like DNA could arise without the aid of intelligence?
Appeal to incredulity, bob? Any better ideas about how said intelligence could have aided a "coding system" like DNA to arise? Remember, you're using our lack of understanding of "how" to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.

BTW, you must have missed the discussions about antibiotic resistence in bacteria or you wouldn't have tried to use that as an example of the kind of change that would support "microbes to man" evolution.
Well, that doesn't exactly follow, bob. In that discussion you clearly established that you personally don't see the connection, so I guess in that sense it is true that UnBeliever wouldn't have used this example because you've already stated that you don't buy it. On the other hand, you've also made it clear that there is no evidence that would convince you otherwise, so if we were to follow your logic here, the logical thing for UnBeliever to do is just ignore you altogether!

And "random mutations" is a dead horse. People are now beginning to switch to "non-random" mutations.
Bold claims do not make a statement true

bob b
February 3rd, 2006, 01:35 PM
Appeal to incredulity, bob? Any better ideas about how said intelligence could have aided a "coding system" like DNA to arise? Remember, you're using our lack of understanding of "how" to cast doubt on the whole enterprise.

When someone makes an incredible claim, it is common to ask why do you believe that? This should be especially true in a field like science. Since 50 years or more have passed since DNA was discovered, the lack of any theories as to how this could have happened "naturally" should be significant. Most of us are incredulous about UFOs, aren't we?


Well, that doesn't exactly follow, bob. In that discussion you clearly established that you personally don't see the connection [antibiotic resistence], so I guess in that sense it is true that UnBeliever wouldn't have used this example because you've already stated that you don't buy it. On the other hand, you've also made it clear that there is no evidence that would convince you otherwise, so if we were to follow your logic here, the logical thing for UnBeliever to do is just ignore you altogether!

If I were the only one doing the questioning you might have a point. But I believe that many, possibly including yourself, are questioning the explanation that "random mutations plus natural selection" is responsible for antibiotic resistence. There clearly seems to be more to it than that. The fact that it happens repetitively and rapidly rules out random mutations. It sounds more like what happens in the immune system where antibodies are generated by a mechanism. The search for a mechanism underlying the phenomenon should continue, because saying that random mutations "dun it" is as scientifically unproductive as saying "God dun it".


Bold claims do not make a statement true

Evolutionists take note.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 01:37 PM
I don't flatter myself that anything I would say would affect those addicted to "random mutations plus natural selection". But if one were to read the latest about what is being discovered in these areas, it might cause one to hesitate to use the example to support macroevolution. I fully support research into how current lifeforms function, because it will probably benefit medicine as well as helping to combat the "random mutations plus natural selection" myth.

Bacterial resistence is proof of natural selection. When you use an antibiotic to kill bacteria, it kills the ones most susceptable first. If all the bacteria are not killed or some survive that happen to be immune to the antibiotic, then those will be the only ones that create subsequent generations. That is nature selecting the progentitors of the next generation. And those new generations will be just a little different from the pervious ones. In the case of some bacteria, the change is enough to cause sickness before the change and death after it.

And if you don't accept that random mutations do occur, then you need more biology courses. Random mutations are a documented fact.

Or are you suggesting that God is purposefully modifying the genetic code of organisms so that they are better able to kill humans?

Jukia
February 3rd, 2006, 01:48 PM
When someone makes an incredible claim, it is common to ask why do you believe that?
.

Oh, perhaps a claim such as
1."The universe only looks real old, God really created it 6000 years ago in 6 days"
and,
2."See there was this guy Noah..."
or,
3."Well, yeah maybe everything does seem to have evolved but it really did not happen that way because God says (see comment #1)"

bob b
February 3rd, 2006, 02:51 PM
Oh, perhaps a claim such as
1."The universe only looks real old, God really created it 6000 years ago in 6 days"
and,
2."See there was this guy Noah..."
or,
3."Well, yeah maybe everything does seem to have evolved but it really did not happen that way because God says (see comment #1)"

God doesn't force people to live with Him.

So feel free to interpret the evidence in nature any way you wish.

BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:

Jukia
February 3rd, 2006, 02:56 PM
BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:
I dont think so, I think I was responding to your statement of how we should approach incredible claims.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 03:57 PM
God doesn't force people to live with Him.

So feel free to interpret the evidence in nature any way you wish.

BTW, aren't you engaging in the "Argument From Incredulity"? :rotfl:

Actually, this is "Argument from Contradictory Evidence", and it's a good argument.

bob b
February 3rd, 2006, 04:04 PM
Actually, this is "Argument from Contradictory Evidence", and it's a good argument.

So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

skeptech
February 3rd, 2006, 04:46 PM
But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.
The evidence is there, you just refuse to accept it. But really, you're not interested in evidence, you're looking for proof.

Summary of Evidence for Creationism:
- Variations on thermo-2nd-law themes: "It's so complicated that it could never have arisen naturally!" (Or, "I'm not imaginative or smart enough to think of what else it could be.")
- It says so in a very old story in the Bible. (And of course old stories are more likely to be true than new "discoveries".)
- My daddy/pastor/friend says so, and he's smart.
- "I don't need to prove it, you should have faith!"

This is a battle that Creationists will lose. Creationists/ID'ers will never have more than "evidence", but Evolutionists (or whatever non-Creationists are called) will eventually find the proof.

noguru
February 3rd, 2006, 04:48 PM
So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

The evidence surrounding UFO's is anectdotal at best.

There is however lots of empirical evidence that DNA code did arise naturally. I think you are missing the middle again. The fact that the evidence is inconclusive as to the exact historical sequence that these things occured, does not negate all the evidence we have for the natural occurences necessary. And since we have absolutely no empirical evidence that there are "supernatural" forces at work here, your alternative is less likely.



BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

Well if you have alreay decided that the existence of contradictory evidence to your YEC model of origins is impossible, then by virtue of your own decree you will not accept that there is any contradictory evidence. You are putting the cart before the horse in regard to the material sciences.



But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.


Again Bob, you are incorrect. There is lots of evidence that all the natural processes necessary do occurr. You reject this evidence because it contradicts your a priori assumption that your YEC model must be accurate.

fool
February 3rd, 2006, 06:33 PM
:darwinsm: By that standard, so is atheism.
Alot of Athiest do make arguments from ignorance.
You can spot the formula when you encounter "I can't imagine a rightous God letting people die like that". If you spot any doing this, fell free to call them on it.

Unbeliever
February 3rd, 2006, 06:57 PM
So is the "Argument from Incredulity" when it is used against a claim made with no evidence, like UFOs and the DNA code arising "naturally".

BTW, it is not the evidence that is contradictory, only the interpretation made of the evidence by evolutionists.

But in the case of the DNA code arising "naturally" there is no evidence whatsoever.

Science is about what can happen under the laws of nature. Under that definition, something CANNOT happen by magic. If DNA exists, then it must have developed somehow. We may not yet know the mechanism, but science rules out the act of an "intelligent designer."

And I agree that interpretations can and do differ. But ignoring the evidence is not an alternative interpretation.

And the evidence for DNA arising naturally is it's very existence.

bob b
February 4th, 2006, 07:27 PM
Science is about what can happen under the laws of nature. Under that definition, something CANNOT happen by magic. If DNA exists, then it must have developed somehow. We may not yet know the mechanism, but science rules out the act of an "intelligent designer."

I consider that a silly argument. If God exists you can't make Him disappear by inventing an arbitrary definition.

Besides, all scientists I know (quite a few including my brother), would laugh at the idea that science can rule out God. You probably meant something more modest like: "since science cannot deal with the supernatural it must proceed as though He doesn't exist".


And I agree that interpretations can and do differ. But ignoring the evidence is not an alternative interpretation.

I don't ignore the evidence, but just like evolutionists assign different weights to different pieces of evidence. For example, I know about radiometric dating and am aware of both its strengths and weaknesses. I stress its weaknesses while evolutionists stress its strengths. Different strokes for different folks.


And the evidence for DNA arising naturally is it's very existence.

How so? Because you have ruled out the other alternative by definition?

The truth is there is zero evidence for how DNA first arose, one way or the other.

The same is true for the origin of the universe.

There are theories, but theories are not evidence.

noguru
February 5th, 2006, 08:02 AM
I consider that a silly argument. If God exists you can't make Him disappear by inventing an arbitrary definition.

Besides, all scientists I know (quite a few including my brother), would laugh at the idea that science can rule out God. You probably meant something more modest like: "since science cannot deal with the supernatural it must proceed as though He doesn't exist".



I don't ignore the evidence, but just like evolutionists assign different weights to different pieces of evidence. For example, I know about radiometric dating and am aware of both its strengths and weaknesses. I stress its weaknesses while evolutionists stress its strengths. Different strokes for different folks.



How so? Because you have ruled out the other alternative by definition?

The truth is there is zero evidence for how DNA first arose, one way or the other.

The same is true for the origin of the universe.

There are theories, but theories are not evidence.

You are correct Bob. Theories are not evidence. Theories explain evidence.

You are incorrect however, in regard to there being absolutey zero evidence to support the notion that DNA arose through natural processes. You just choose to re-interpret that evidence as support for your model of DNA arising through supernatural processes. A hypothesis, I might that cannot be tested (remember that is the most crucial part of science) through the material sciences.

bob b
February 5th, 2006, 02:22 PM
You are correct Bob. Theories are not evidence. Theories explain evidence.

You are incorrect however, in regard to there being absolutey zero evidence to support the notion that DNA arose through natural processes. You just choose to re-interpret that evidence as support for your model of DNA arising through supernatural processes. A hypothesis, I might that cannot be tested (remember that is the most crucial part of science) through the material sciences.

So just what is the scientific evidence that supports the idea that DNA arose naturally?

I have never heard of such scientific evidence.