Intelligent Design

[Unbeliever]

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]

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]

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]

Bout time you showed up at your thread Bob.

 

[fool]

ID is argument from ignorance

 

[bob b]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To be replaced by what?

Don't know. Maybe something to do with aliens.

 

[bob b]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.