If Science Did Prove Intelligent Design, Would It Make Any Difference?
- Status
P
PickyPicky
Guest
And yet mutations happen all the time. For each one that happens those same fabulous odds against its happening apply. And yet each one happens. Does that not convince you that there is a flaw in your argument? You are proposing that evolution is attempting to build some creature, and calculating the odds against each change that is necessary. But evolution does not attempt anything. You are calculating the odds backwards.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
No, because the math is accurate and I have no reason to doubt it. It is pure numbers, based on the known variables of the number of potential building blocks and the length of a useful protein strand. What it calls into question is the assertion that it is random.
No, I am saying that left to random chance, which is the only option if there is not an external force guiding the evolutionary process, the likelihood of there being any single instance of a helpful mutation is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. The fact that we observe it so often means that it simply cannot be the result of random mutations.
L
lelinator
Guest
The math may not be wrong, but the assumption that the process is random is. Therefore the math is irrelevant.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
That’s interesting, and a pretty cool experiment, but to me it only further solidifies the notion that there is an intelligence behind everything.
These 20 amino acids just happen to link up, and just happen to be the kind that we need for life to develop? To me, saying that that preference is random, that those 20 out of their estimated 500 options all just happen to prefer each other for forming chains is akin to saying that the small cogs that make up a watch happen to like arranging themselves in the perfect sequence for telling time. It doesn’t detract from a design, it points towards it.
I don’t expect you to agree with that conclusion, but then again, that is why I said in my first post that science cannot prove intelligent design, it’s not a scientific proposition.
F
Freddy
Guest
So it’s random if there is no designer. And as per the theory, it’s random.Freddy:
Without an external designer, it really is random. If the mutations are unguided then the entire process is up to random chance.
I’m talking about the actual mutations themselves which are, per the theory of purely-natural, unguided evolution, random chance.
Is that what you really meant to say?
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Yes. Is that not what I said?
Without a designer there are an inconceivably large number of possible combinations for even a single protein chain. Even if there is a predisposition for certain combinations, as the study lelinator linked seems to indicate, there is still the fact that it takes a vast number of protein chains to form a cell, and innumerable cells of all various different kinds to create complex life.
F
Freddy
Guest
There are 37 trillion cells in the human body. The chances of them arranging themselves into a person is also somewhat on the low side.
What you are doing is, as Picky implied, is starting with a finished product on the assumption that that is the aim of the process and then looking at the chances of that product being randomly produced. Which is not how evolution works in either case. Not even wrong. It is not looking to build an amino acid. And what it does build is not random. Just based on those two facts alone, all the numbers you cut and pasted are utterly irrelevant.
And Douglas Axe? He is director of the Discovery Institute. A bunch of charlatans that promote ID.
F
Freddy
Guest
An argument which is wrong in its basic premise is not improved by tacking on lots of gee-whizz large numbers.Freddy:
Yes. Is that not what I said?
Without a designer there are an inconceivably large number of possible combinations for even a single protein chain. Even if there is a predisposition for certain combinations, as the study lelinator linked seems to indicate, there is still the fact that it takes a vast number of protein chains to form a cell, and innumerable cells of all various different kinds to create complex life.
I was playing poker a couple of years back with my son at a tournament in a local pub. It was his deal. The flop was the 4 aces. The turn and the river were two kings. People on all the other tables were coming over to take pictures. Amazing odds! But next deal, which was 5 equally random cards - nobody bothered. But the chances of the second set of cards being dealt were exactly the same as the earlier set.
It’s only when you have a desired outcome that your numbers are in any way valid. And then they are still wrong. Because like in poker, most random cards are useless. A few are beneficial. But you keep the beneficial ones because your hand has a better chance of survival. The deal is random but what you end up with isn’t.
A royal flush will come up every 650,000 deals. You might get one in a lifetime. But if you get to keep your original 5 and change one card every deal (because it’s a little better) then you get that royal flush in around 100 deals. You’d get one every game.
L
lelinator
Guest
I’m confused…who flops 4 cards?
F
Freddy
Guest
My bad. Flopped three aces. Turn was the remaining ace. River was a king.Freddy:
I’m confused…who flops 4 cards?
As a side note, one guy folded on the river. Uh? You have the best hand. Like everyone else still in. The one on the table. Small pot though.
Last edited:
L
lelinator
Guest
Whew, I knew you Australians could be a bit weird, but messing with poker, that just wouldn’t be right.
And could you have the guys ease up a bit on the Presidents Cup.
F
Freddy
Guest
I guess you’re talking about Reed. I hope he’s got a thick skin. The crowd will give it to him big time. But did you see that bunker shot? Not a good look…
R
Rhubarb
Guest
First off I’d have to ask, how would the evidence present itself? Would you be able to pull out your Godometer and read how many divinatoms are in the sample? Or find out how many kilograms of holiness are in a sample? How could you build a mathematical model that describes God in a quantitative sense?
That’s why science doesn’t speak to God, or matters of theology. It studies natural processes because those can be quantified, and experimented on. That’s the scientific method. I don’t know of any way you could use the method of science to prove intelligent design.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
If there is a designer, the designer is not intelligent, or not very nice. 99% of all known species are extinct. Species retain elements of earlier species no longer needed and that can cause injury or early death. One third of all human pregnancies are naturally aborted. The earth has proved vulnerable to asteroid strike. The result was the rise of mammals. Surely an intelligent designer could have found a more intelligent way to pave the path for us? Nearly all creatures capable of experiencing die in distress or pain. The ecosystem is based on predation.
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
Science seeks to explain life, creation and other supernatural events by using only natural explanations. The congregation of atheists led by people like Dawkins are clear on their agenda to dismantle religion. Don’t get sucked in by the propaganda. Science only separated from religion in the late 19th century, no such constraints existed to science before then.
To answer your question one could look to find evidence to support biblical events like the flood, tower of Babel, etc.
But iv only learnt about theistic evolutionists and although I don’t subscribe im not too critical either. In fact it is probably a good thing as it will give younger people who have been indoctrinated in ToE to a place to keep their faith.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Science is a process of processing information. It’s a program of discovery, to guide inquiry. Nothing more. The ‘science’ you speak of ‘before the 19th century’ isn’t the systematic, organized process it is today. We do ‘science’ differently now, and because of that our understanding of the universe has absolutely exploded by leaps and bounds higher than it ever has before. Medicine was part of religion too, in ye olden tyme. Do you pine for that too? Of course not, because we’ve refined the practice of it.
P
Pai_Nosso
Guest
I’m not really sure what your trying to convince me of here
K
Kindnessmatters
Guest
If the current USS political climate has proven anything, it is that people will cling to the most ridiculous, known, proven garbage ideas rather than admitting they have been proven wrong.
We already can prove that fetuses and embryos are human lives but pro abortion advocates just play semantics.
Unfortunately many choose evil when they think it is expedient. Many cling to known fallacy because they will not admit they are wrong.
We already can prove that fetuses and embryos are human lives but pro abortion advocates just play semantics.
Unfortunately many choose evil when they think it is expedient. Many cling to known fallacy because they will not admit they are wrong.
Last edited:
- Status