Creationism = Dark Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A_Dancer_Whirls said:
Really?

youtube.com/watch?v=xvvPyiimHaM

😉
Click to expand...
That was interesting, but as I said previously, entire movements are not made by the views of a single individual, or a few individuals. Youtube is not a good source of research, and hardly counts as “the scientific method.”

Yes, I’ll say it again that a few YECs wished to hijack the ID movement and move it to their own ends. Ironically, ID is OPPOSED to a young earth explanation. If the YECs actually understood that, they would be opposed to ID as well.

With regard to your youtube research above, here’s something more substantial on the wedge document.

discovery.org/a/2101
 
So. Nobody wants to answer the question? I propose they should start teaching ID in public schools next week. What will happen? Nothing?

Peace,
Ed
 
ricmat said:
That was interesting, but as I said previously, entire movements are not made by the views of a single individual, or a few individuals. Youtube is not a good source of research, and hardly counts as “the scientific method.”

Yes, I’ll say it again that a few YECs wished to hijack the ID movement and move it to their own ends. Ironically, ID is OPPOSED to a young earth explanation. If the YECs actually understood that, they would be opposed to ID as well.

With regard to your youtube research above, here’s something more substantial on the wedge document.

discovery.org/a/2101
Click to expand...
That does not address the book in that video, which was written by the discovery institute.

ID is not science. It is simply creationism.

The dude in the vid even admits ID has no theory of biological design.
 
ricmat said:
It’s in “Signature in the Cell”. Read the book.
Click to expand...
I’ll see if I can find it at the library if you can attest to the fact that he does a thorough calculation of the odds of line forming from non-living chemicals. Not just “this many things have to be assembled in the correct order” but also somehow manages to calculate the odds of such a thing occurring over a large amount of time (he would have to calculate the odds of each individual chemical reaction resulting in life or a step toward life, then find the odds of successive steps being made, and then somehow have access to the number of chemical reactions that had taken place over a given interval)
 
Handrail_Screw said:
That does not address the book in that video, which was written by the discovery institute.

ID is not science. It is simply creationism.

The dude in the vid even admits ID has no theory of biological design.
Click to expand...
Does design exist?
 
ricmat said:
Design is not “an impression.” You typed the above post on a computer. I think we can agree that your computer was “designed by an intelligent agent” and did not self construct over time from random variations and natural laws.

Design exists.

“Diversity of life” is not something ID addresses directly. If you actually read the posts I made earlier (the ones with the FAQs) you would know this.
Click to expand...
I know a computer was designed because having spent most of my life around human designed things, I can recognize them. A computer could not have arisen over time from random variations and natural laws since one computer has no way of creating a second computer- hence the natural variations that allowed for evolution fail to occur. Also, computer’s have no way of getting the ‘food’ (electricity) they require on your own.

There is no scientific evidence for design- ID proponents claim it’s self evident, aka it’s assumed. There’s nothing wrong with assumptions in general- we need them to get passed cogito ergo sum- but are you comfortable with the assumption that if something in nature gives an ‘impression’ that we should teach that ‘impression’?
 
tjm190 said:
I know a computer was designed because having spent most of my life around human designed things, I can recognize them. A computer could not have arisen over time from random variations and natural laws since one computer has no way of creating a second computer- hence the natural variations that allowed for evolution fail to occur. Also, computer’s have no way of getting the ‘food’ (electricity) they require on your own.

There is no scientific evidence for design- ID proponents claim it’s self evident, aka it’s assumed. There’s nothing wrong with assumptions in general- we need them to get passed cogito ergo sum- but are you comfortable with the assumption that if something in nature gives an ‘impression’ that we should teach that ‘impression’?
Click to expand...
Perhaps we can break down the individual steps our minds use to process design.

How do we recognize it when we see it?
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps we can break down the individual steps our minds use to process design.

How do we recognize it when we see it?
Click to expand...
Normally because we know the object is designed, or because it “sticks out” from nature.
 
Handrail_Screw said:
That does not address the book in that video, which was written by the discovery institute.

ID is not science. It is simply creationism.

The dude in the vid even admits ID has no theory of biological design.
Click to expand...
The video was talking about “the wedge document.” The link I posted goes into that in detail. (Actually, there was a link at that link which went into it in detail).

You obviously know nothing about ID except what others told you. Read some of the FAQ links I previously posted. Or better yet, read Signature in the Cell.

So there is one person in a video that says something you already believe to be true. So what? Does that make it true?
 
tjm190 said:
I’ll see if I can find it at the library if you can attest to the fact that he does a thorough calculation of the odds of line forming from non-living chemicals. Not just “this many things have to be assembled in the correct order” but also somehow manages to calculate the odds of such a thing occurring over a large amount of time (he would have to calculate the odds of each individual chemical reaction resulting in life or a step toward life, then find the odds of successive steps being made, and then somehow have access to the number of chemical reactions that had taken place over a given interval)
Click to expand...
The calculations are extensive, and are done by many different independent sources. The book is primarily about the development of proteins, RNA, DNA from non-living (i.e. non-replicating) matter. There are extensive discussions of “probabilistic resources” which to make the calculations easy assume the whole universe, even stars, intestellar matter, etc.

The bottom line is that even relatively simple proteins, of length 200-500 have no chance of forming randomly even with the entire universe working on it, at planck speed, over the entire life of the universe. It’s short by a few hundred orders of magnitude in terms of probabilistic resources. And you can’t draw on “since only the successful ones replicate” since there IS NO self replication with these “simple” proteins.

And a whole nother story is the probability of a single cell forming.

The book is not devoted to discussions of evolution from single cell to more complex creatures.

Truly, if you have an open mind, you should find the book to be interesting. And in any case the “historical” presentation of how science is conducted is interesting even if you don’t buy the main premise of the book.
 
tjm190 said:
I know a computer was designed because having spent most of my life around human designed things, I can recognize them. A computer could not have arisen over time from random variations and natural laws since one computer has no way of creating a second computer- hence the natural variations that allowed for evolution fail to occur. Also, computer’s have no way of getting the ‘food’ (electricity) they require on your own.
Click to expand...
Well certainly WE could design a factory, which makes other factories, which make computers. 😃

But your point is basically correct. It’s the same for proteins, RNA, etc. Without self-replicating RNA or DNA to start with, there is no way to create more self-replicating RNA or DNA. Without a single cell to start with, there is no way to create more cells.
tjm190 said:
There is no scientific evidence for design- ID proponents claim it’s self evident, aka it’s assumed. There’s nothing wrong with assumptions in general- we need them to get passed cogito ergo sum- but are you comfortable with the assumption that if something in nature gives an ‘impression’ that we should teach that ‘impression’?
Click to expand...
The book goes into much detail of what would constitute evidence in a scientific sense.

How do you know that there is no scientific evidence for design?
 
ricmat said:
The video was talking about “the wedge document.” The link I posted goes into that in detail. (Actually, there was a link at that link which went into it in detail).

You obviously know nothing about ID except what others told you. Read some of the FAQ links I previously posted. Or better yet, read Signature in the Cell.

So there is one person in a video that says something you already believe to be true. So what? Does that make it true?
Click to expand...
The video also discussed the book “of pandas and people.”

I don’t need to read the book for i understand the methods scientists follow to arrive at the great theories like evolution.

When one wants to further research in a field of science you don’t just make up a question. There are strict guidelines one must follow, this is the essence of productive scientific research. This is not taught until one studies beyond degree level, hence why 99.9999% of post grads accept evolution.

Quite simply, ID is NOT science.
 
40.png
ricmat:
Without self-replicating RNA or DNA to start with, there is no way to create more self-replicating RNA or DNA. Without a single cell to start with, there is no way to create more cells.
Click to expand...
Not true, self replicating molecules are capable of synthesizing on their own, which are in turn capable of evolving into cells.
 
ricmat said:
The bottom line is that even relatively simple proteins, of length 200-500 have no chance of forming randomly even with the entire universe working on it, at planck speed, over the entire life of the universe.
Click to expand...
Lucky for us that chemicals don’t react randomly 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top