Evidence for Design?

[tonyrey]

Ah yes, I keep forgetting - your opinion should be taken as objective fact.
I guess maybe God does exist - and it’s you?

These remarks do nothing to further the discussion in addition to breaching the forum rule of courtesy…

 

[tonyrey]

I for one would love to see the evidence for Design presented. I don’t understand why they’ve been keeping it under wraps all this time!

These remarks are based on an unsubstantiated assumption and do nothing to further the discussion.

 

[inocente]

You believe that “the grace of God” is not a natural, material process – but that it comes, supernaturally from God.

You believe that this supernatural grace actually affects biological creatures (humans) and gives them Pentacostal gifts.

Humans, having received these supernatural gifts (which are not a result of matter and natural laws) – have a different outlook. Perhaps they have some increased powers that are not possible without supernatural grace.

Those are some of the points that you’re starting with.

The problem with telling another poster what he believes is you’ll likely get it wrong .

It seems the supernatural was first invented to fill gaps in knowledge, but then took on a life of its own in a thousand and one theories, none of which seem to explain anything except each other. But reality is fine without the gizmos.

The Spirit is within us, not at the hub of a supernatural social networking site.

 

[inocente]

Those numbers calculate limits on probabilistic actions in the universe. It was not written by Dembski.

Yes, I saw that the paper was by Seth Lloyd, but his theories are about treating the universe as a computer, with the physical law as its program, and my point was that the numbers have nothing to do with what Dumbski is trying to prove.

*I didn’t say anything about natural selection. You could provide your own calculations on probabilistic limits if you want. *

Do you not think the whole point of Dumbski‘s wittering is to disprove natural selection, and that only someone with no understanding of basic math would believe in probabilistic limits?

If the concept is irrelevant, then the paper that you posted (apparently claiming that there are no boundaries on what one can expect on random events?) is equally irrelevant.
But it seems like you want to dismiss the concept now once you realize that other scientists have been working on this very same idea for a long time.

Errrr… let’s say it again. Natural selection is not a once and for all process, it takes place over long periods of time in discrete steps. Dumbski ignores this obvious fact and treats it as a single operation. As Jesus said, if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.

*Again – you can give your own calculations if you want.

Are there limits to what chance events in the universe can produce?*

There are more possible shapes of snowflake than atoms in the known universe, so there’s a good probability that every flake is unique. Dumbski seems to think this makes a snowstorm irreducibly complex.

 

[inocente]

Can you explain how that remark is consistent with the belief that God is a loving Father?

Yes.

 

[inocente]

This is the sceptic’s typical rejection of a loving God with

Please read a definition of argumentum ad hominem – you accuse others of it often enough but repeatedly do it yourself.

 

[inocente]

Now did God create those pretty little ponies and my pretty kitty? Yes, He did - along with HIV, all bacteria, white blood cells, mucopurulent material and HIV. Why did He create all this stuff? I don’t know but I know His reasons are always loving and good, even if fallible, relatively unintelligent human beings don’t think so.

God created EVERYTHING! It’s His design and He knew and knows exactly what He was and is doing.

And yet some Catholics don’t see it that way and blame another “agent” for designing HIV.

 

[inocente]

A superb post which puts things (and persons) in their place!

You agree with Little Soldier that God created HIV and other diseases, yet also seem to think that God intervenes to save the lucky ones in natural disasters. So does God intervene to infect someone with a disease He designed, or does God intervene to cure someone of the disease He designed? Does God intervene to cause cancer, or does God intervene to cure cancer? (I’m fine with God not intervening btw.)

 

[inocente]

You must have missed the memo - Satan designs all the bad stuff.

Apparently God and Satan have weekly video conferences to agree what’s good and what’s bad so they can assign the work to the appropriate elves at the North Pole.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Apparently God and Satan have weekly video conferences to agree what’s good and what’s bad so they can assign the work to the appropriate elves at the North Pole.

Nice jab.

Only Natural Evolution makes sense of the existence of disease and viruses. The ironic fact is that the theory of Evolution does a lot to answer the problem of natural evil. It works in the Christians Favour; not against us. No Point blaming it on the Devil. And I certainly don’t see how it can be reasonable to say that a loving God directly intended that people should get sexually transmitted diseases and deformities. However, it would make sense if for some reason God saw a greater good in creating a naturally evolving reality. In this case the negative effects are merely the unfortunate by-products of Natural-Evolution rather than the direct product of design.

In other-words, natural evolution is an essential part of my faith as a Christian; because I refuse to believe in a God that would directly intend and design disease, deformity, and physical suffering or a world where animals eat each-other to survive. Why would a loving creator do that? Natural Evolution has to be true; otherwise I refuse to believe in God.

 

[buffalo]

We’ve discussed this before. It’s an arbitrary number made up by (I think) Dembski that has no mathematical significance whatsoever.

Basically Dembski created a number from an arbitrary set of universal estimates, and blithely asserted, without evidence, that if anything shows a complexity in excess of that threshold, then it must be the product of an intelligent designer.

It’s complete fluff.

It is not arbitrary. It is based on the total number of possibilities since the beginning of the universe. When the threshold is reached the design explanation is more plausible.

When one starts applying this to a targeted search one can very easily see the implausiblilty of blind unguided forces hitting the target.

** Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more **

Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

http://biologicinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/transitions.jpg

 

[buffalo]

I for one would love to see the evidence for Design presented. I don’t understand why they’ve been keeping it under wraps all this time!

As the Intelligent Design Movement Publishes Peer-Reviewed Literature, Critics Backpedal

Over the course of a series of recent articles, we’ve seen there are now some 50-plus peer-reviewed scientific papers that support intelligent design (see our updated peer-reviewed articles page for details). What can an ID critic say in response?
Critics of intelligent design have long been desperate to find ways to claim ID isn’t science. For years, perhaps the most common argument to this effect alleged that ID proponents don’t publish in peer-reviewed scientific papers.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Thought by whom?

I guess you have not followed this thread.

 

[buffalo]

Nice jab.

Only Natural Evolution makes sense of the existence of disease and viruses. The ironic fact is that the theory of Evolution does a lot to answer the problem of natural evil. It works in the Christians Favour; not against us. No Point blaming it on the Devil. And I certainly don’t see how it can be reasonable to say that a loving God directly intended that people should get sexually transmitted diseases and deformities. However, it would make sense if for some reason God saw a greater good in creating a naturally evolving reality. In this case the negative effects are merely the unfortunate by-products of Natural-Evolution rather than the direct product of design.

In other-words, natural evolution is an essential part of my faith as a Christian; because I refuse to believe in a God that would directly intend and design disease, deformity, and physical suffering or a world where animals eat each-other to survive. Why would a loving creator do that? Natural Evolution has to be true; otherwise I refuse to believe in God.

It is even better if one changes the direction of the arrow. We are devolving, life is devolving.

 

[Al_Moritz]

With every post you proudly parade your ignorance!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Nice jab.

Only Natural Evolution makes sense of the existence of disease and viruses. The ironic fact is that the theory of Evolution does a lot to answer the problem of natural evil. It works in the Christians Favour; not against us. No Point blaming it on the Devil. And I certainly don’t see how it can be reasonable to say that a loving God directly intended that people should get sexually transmitted diseases and deformities. However, it would make sense if for some reason God saw a greater good in creating a naturally evolving reality. In this case the negative effects are merely the unfortunate by-products of Natural-Evolution rather than the direct product of design.

In other-words, natural evolution is an essential part of my faith as a Christian; because I refuse to believe in a God that would directly intend and design disease, deformity, and physical suffering or a world where animals eat each-other to survive. Why would a loving creator do that? Natural Evolution has to be true; otherwise I refuse to believe in God.

Excellent.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Your scepticism is inconsistent with one of the Church’s requirements for canonisation (two miracles). Do you think the Pope visited Lourdes just to pacify the faithful?

Just to clarify (and I’m not sure if this is true but a poster I trust told me about it), it is not always necessary for two miracles to be required for canonization. The Pope can skip that process and canonize a saint without the normal procedure taking place.

I have no official Church teaching to back up this assertion. I’m just throwing it in for what it is worth.

What is wrong with the QUOTE function? It’s all weird.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Of course I am aware that there are contentions in the scientific field. But they don’t extend to making Evolution a supernaturally-guided process. That is the difference between the Catholic version and what I refer to for convenience as the “established” version.

“Convenience?” How convenient that you now use the term “established version” as though that explains your statement indicating there is one scientific theory of a banned topic. If we do not know why things are as they are it is perfectly acceptable to accept as truth what has been told to us by God. The Church does *not *teach that any theory regarding biological development over millenia and the changes that have occured is truth; what she tells us is that it is acceptable for the faithful (a category of persons to which you do not belong) to accept the possibility of a theory which meets her criteria. She has not stated it is truth.

Fine

Fine back atcha.

Not at all - it’s probably wise to disinguish between the organisation and your local building!

The term “Church” is commonly used to specifically refer to the Catholic Church. You didn’t use the word “Catholic.” It indicates to me that there may be some grudging acceptance of the Church’s authority.

 

[tonyrey]

Just to clarify (and I’m not sure if this is true but a poster I trust told me about it), it is not always necessary for two miracles to be required for canonization. The Pope can skip that process and canonize a saint without the normal procedure taking place.

I have no official Church teaching to back up this assertion. I’m just throwing it in for what it is worth.

It is certainly a general rule which implies a considerable number of miracles due to the intercession of saints from every century. Pope John Paul II alone canonized more than 1,700!

 

[LittleSoldier]

I feel very uncomfortable remaining in this thread as it obviously discusses a banned topic. I thought that I could possibly discuss ID without referring to that banned topic but it keeps popping up.

I stated before that I intend to respect the ban on discussing evolution. I can’t do that and remain in this thread. I have no idea why it has been allowed to continue on to the 2,000 post mark and perhaps beyond.

Maybe I can start a thread in which evolution cannot be discussed. I’m not the OP here and so I have little control over the direction in which this thread has been moving.

I’m very afraid that this banned topic is leading to some banned posters and I want to remain a member of CAF in good standing so that I can learn about the Church I love and come to her defense when necessary.

So I’m outta here. God bless you all - even those who do not believe in Him. Fortunately His love extends to all.