Intelligent Design is Self-refuting

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Are you still defining idvolution using quotes about entropy and how it relates to the big bang?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Don’t like it? Tough…
Click to expand...
No, I love it. And really pleased that you admit to it. I was so pleased to find it and show everyone how you work. I love it so much I feel I will have to bring it up anytime you link to your web site.
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
I’ve read the not so secret Wedge Document. I read about Dover. Apparently, there is a very real fear that God or any god might appear in the classroom.
Click to expand...
How so? Comparative Religion appears in a lot of classrooms, and that includes God. The issue is religion appearing in science classrooms. A history teacher teaches history, not how to parse French irregular verbs. Science is taught in science classrooms, not the Bhagavad Gita; that belongs in Comparative Religion class along with God.
 
Bradskii said:
No, I love it. I was really pleased to find it and show everyone how you work. I love it so much I feel I will have to bring it up anytime you link to your web site.
Click to expand...
Helping along the visitor count? Thanks.,😀
 
rossum said:
How so? Comparative Religion appears in a lot of classrooms, and that includes God. The issue is religion appearing in science classrooms. A history teacher teaches history, not how to parse French irregular verbs. Science is taught in science classrooms, not the Bhagavad Gita ; that belongs in Comparative Religion class along with God.
Click to expand...
We can agree then the study of one time historical events should be in philosophy class.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
No, I love it. I was really pleased to find it and show everyone how you work. I love it so much I feel I will have to bring it up anytime you link to your web site.
Click to expand...
Helping along the visitor count? Thanks.,😀
Click to expand...
I’m sure it does. They’re all keen to see if you really did describe (ahem) idvolution with terms that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything at all in regard to evolution. Or biology in fact.

I’m sure they’ll ask themselves why you did it. Did you not realise it had nothing to do with evolution or did you know and hoped no-one checked?
 
Bradskii said:
I’m sure they’ll ask themselves why you did it. Did you not realise it had nothing to do with evolution or did you know and hoped no-one checked?
Click to expand...
You got it wrong. It does not mean everyone does.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I’m sure they’ll ask themselves why you did it. Did you not realise it had nothing to do with evolution or did you know and hoped no-one checked?
Click to expand...
You got it wrong. It does not mean everyone does.
Click to expand...
The figures you pasted, quotes from Penrose - a mathematical phyicist, specifically referred to entropy as it relates to the big bang.

You should change it. It makes you look as if you don’t know anything about the subject of your own web page.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We can agree then the study of one time historical events should be in philosophy class.
Click to expand...
No. Where there is obvious evidence of that event then science, history or some other class is appropriate. The signing of the Declaration of Independence was a “one time historical event”; cancel American History class, and form a philosophy class in its place.

You need to think things through more carefully before posting.
 
It appears to me that if ID is self-refuting, than intelligent human beings don’t build houses, cities, cars, computers, airplanes, etc., which is manifestly false. Since intelligent human beings do design and build houses, cities, cars, computers, airplanes, etc., than I think ID is a common sense idea following what is factually observed in the artifacts and things that intelligent human beings design and make that are of a much lesser design and complexity than the entire physical universe and everything in it, living or non-living.
 

Giving Up Darwin​

The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is— so far —a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

“Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years—research done from within the neo-Darwinian framework—has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false—and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.”

claremont.org

Giving Up Darwin​

A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory.
 
It all boils down to a worldview, not the facts. One can think things only appear to be designed or one can think that things are actually designed. Only one is right. The Church tells us design is real.
 
Richca said:
It appears to me that if ID is self-refuting, than intelligent human beings don’t build houses, cities, cars, computers, airplanes, etc., which is manifestly false.
Click to expand...
Read the OP. I do not deny that intelligent design happens, as with the examples you give. I point out that at some point in the line of intelligent designers, and meta-designers, there must be an intelligent designer that was not intelligently designed. Either God or some organism developed through an unintelligent process. The alternative is an infinite regress, which is obviously false.
 
buffalo said:
A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory.
Click to expand...
I am glad to see that you are not YEC, your reference talks about the Cambrian Explosion being “half a billion” years ago.

Your reference has many errors. For example:
Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.
Click to expand...
Cytochrome C has about 100 amino acids (it varies between species). Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 1093 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. No, it is not always hard to pick the right beads. One hydrophilic amino acid can usually substitute for a different hydrophilic amino acid for instance.

Similarly:
But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing.
Click to expand...
No they are not. See Kimberella for one Ediacaran (Precambrian) organism that is not missing.

Your reference contains too many errors to be worthwhile. At heart it assumes that the theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin. That is its basic error; the theory has changed a great deal since 1859.
 
rossum said:
Cytochrome C has about 100 amino acids (it varies between species). Yockey (1992) calculated that there were 2.3 x 1093 different ways to make a working Cytochrome C. No, it is not always hard to pick the right beads. One hydrophilic amino acid can usually substitute for a different hydrophilic amino acid for instance.
Click to expand...
What? Nature building a functioning correctly folded protein is very unlikely. Your argument assumes one exists and then minor changes. This is a terrible refutation.
 
The odds are extremely low, to the point where it falls into the impossible category. I have seen 3D images of protein folds. They are very complex and the mechanism that causes a particular fold is not well understood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top