B
buffalo
Guest
There is already much peer reviewed research already showing support for ID in addition to these papers.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
*
You are the one who is asserting design as a solution. *
I am. And you are asserting chance.
In either case you have to use math. The default position is not chance. How many of the laws of nature function by chance?
So what was the mathematical likelihood that abiogenesis happened by chance.
Give me the numbers! You haven’t got them. Case closed.
Newton is still right, and you don’t have to be a biologist to see intelligent design. Any scientist can see it. Any scientist can also deny it, but the ones who do are all atheists.
As Darwin said, it’s absurd to think you cannot be a theist and an evolutionist at the same time. Which means it’s absurd to say you can’t believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time.
*
You are the one who is asserting design as a solution. *
I am. And you are asserting chance.
In either case you have to use math. The default position is not chance. How many of the laws of nature function by chance?
So what was the mathematical likelihood that abiogenesis happened by chance.
Give me the numbers! You haven’t got them. Case closed.
Newton is still right, and you don’t have to be a biologist to see intelligent design. Any scientist can see it. Any scientist can also deny it, but the ones who do are all atheists.
As Darwin said, it’s absurd to think you cannot be a theist and an evolutionist at the same time. Which means it’s absurd to say you can’t believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time.
K
kbachler
Guest
These claims with no evidence are wonderful are they not?
Why? If God created everything else, why do you assume that he couldn’t create this process?
You mis-state the case. Organisms try to survive, so in a sense they are guiding the process; it is directed toward survival. This is the purpose, and the direction.
He didn’t pick just this one thing. God cannot be proved. (If He could, there would be no point to anything.)
It sets us off because it acts like it is a science, and it isn’t. The claim is a lie from ignorance.
K
kbachler
Guest
From a quantum mechanics perspective, 100% of them. In fact, if this weren’t the case, there would arguably be no free will, and Christianity would therefore be meaningless.
100%, since it happened.
meltzerboy
New member
There are plenty of Jewish and Catholic universities that teach evolutionary theory. I don’t believe most proponents of the theory are atheists, but even if they were, I wouldn’t want to throw out a scientific theory unless we find too much data that the theory cannot account for. Theories are usually revised first and then rejected if the counter-data are in abundance. As I stated before, evolutionary theory itself is not against the teachings of Judaism, any more than the heliocentric theory of the universe is or other theories of physics, chemistry, and biology. G-d gave us the rational tools to think about the universe and creation and ponder its mysteries, as well as formulate theories that try to explain our origins. I do not believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible as that would not only reject the origin of species but also the longevity of the Earth and universe. Do you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old? I see no conflict here from a religious perspective as G-d set the biological process in motion. And I don’t see natural selection as random, which seems to be the heart of your argument. As I understand it, natural selection is a mechanism of adaptation to the changes in the environment, and that means it is purposeful and goal-directed in regard to survival and prosperity. The changes brought about by the process of natural selection have a reason and are therefore not random. One other point: I think this became a political and religious argument not because of the evolutionists, but due to those religious folks who disagreed with the theory and formed first creationism and then intelligent design. It’s the intelligent design people who forced the hand of the biologists and brought their theory into the domain of politics and religion.
L
levinas12
Guest
L
levinas12
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
Yes, I agree. Now it is incumbent on you to show evidence for the existence of such an agent active at whatever time is was that the ID designer was active. There is independent evidence for the existence of Craig Venter at the time he was twiddling with DNA.
First show your evidence of at what time the ID designer was active. Secondly show your independent evidence for the existence of that designer.
So far all you have is “I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it last Thursday.” That is not very convincing and it is certainly not science.
Still no links to scientific articles. Not even links to the abstracts. Just the usual “Buy my book” stuff. Is there anything in “Signature in the Cell” that Meyer has not already published in Meyer (2004)? If there is nothing extra then it would be a waste of my time and money.
I would refer you to Jeffrey Shallit’s review of Meyer as well, which points out many of the problems with Meyer’s work. I have read Shallit so you will need to be able to defend against the points he makes if you want me to accept Meyer’s work.
For example, how much functional information is there in the string “Uazekele?” You might not find it meaningful but a Lingala speaker will find it perfectly meaningful and reply “Mbote”. Scientifically measurable quantities cannot depend on the person who measures them.
The subjective nature of the specification part of CSI is also a problem. I can easily show that there is no CSI in the universe by using the specification “A design for a working perpetual motion machine”. Since nothing whatsoever can meet that specification then there is always zero CSI in the entire universe and evolution does not have a problem producing zero CSI.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
False. I am not asserting chance as a solution. Evolution involves natural selection and natural selection is not chance. Abiogenesis involves chemistry and chemistry is not chance. A website that asserts pure chance for either evolution or abiogenesis is lying.
Agreed. The default scientific position is “we don’t know”.
Parts of quantum mechanics are pure chance. Probability statistics involves pure chance as well. If I roll a fair die 6,000,000 times I can expect to get each number coming up about 1,000,000 times though I cannot predict the exact numbers. That is an easy prediction based on pure chance.
Higher than the mathematical likelihood of the ID designer existing by chance. The designer must be more complex that whatever he/she/it/they designed. Was the designer itself designed? If not then what mechanism do you propose for the origin of your postulated designer?
Case open, since I do have numbers. It is a very preliminary number, but it is the best I have at the moment. So far there is been one observed result. That observation shows that life originated. The probability on currently available results is 100%. That number may well change as further results come in.
Agreed, Ken Miller and Theodosius Dobzhansky are two relevant examples. What is absurd is the Discovery Institute version of ID with its invisible meddling designer that isn’t God because they need to sneak into school science classrooms.
rossum
My biggest issue being the belief that it is proven fact.
It simply is not.
When I see a car, I know it to be designed.
I have no idea how, or when, nor do I have any idea how most of it works (OK, I have a general knowledge but nothing specific).
I have no idea when it was built, how it was built, or why.
What I do not know does not negate the design that is there.
Nor does my lack of knowledge indicate that there was no designer.
K
kbachler
Guest
Yes it does. This issue is covered in “Personal Knowledge” by Polyani. An example of this fallacy is the famous face on Mars. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars) for an article on that.
There is an instance where people mistakenly concluded that they saw design, and thus assumed there was a designed.
If you see rocks arranged in an order, can you conclude that someone ordered them?
Look closely at the animals around you.
We can see the cells and how they work, we can see the cell replications going on, we can see many of the tools used to keep the animal functioning. We can see the tools that made the animal what it is.
But we cannot see them all, nor do we have full understanding of how it was done.
But then, we only have tool marks in the rock.
K
kbachler
Guest
It simply is, well within the parameters of “any” proven fact.
Once again, put your hand on the desk. Does your hand touch the desk? (Is it a “proven fact”?)
Well, when I press the keys of the keyboard, my characters appear on the screen.
This would be evidence in the extreme that I am in fact touching the keys.
When I lean on my desk, I do not fall through it. My weight is being supported by something, and the object directly under me is the desk.
So I apparently am touching the desk.
I will say fact.
K
kbachler
Guest
No it wouldn’t be.
And it would be wrong. You never touch the desk.
Most of what is in atoms is empty space. Most of what is in molecules is empty space. If we relied on our classical information, there’s good evidence that you would sink into the desk if you leaned on it.
What you feel, what interacts, are the forces between atoms, the forces between molecules. These forces interact with each other in essence the forces of the desk repel the forces in your hand.
This apparently simple interaction is in fact quite complex and not what it appears to be at all. Most of it can be called into question by reason. (If we believe in atoms and molecules, when I touch something why don’t my molecules massively combine with the molecules of the desk?) Something as simple as friction, while understood, has significant questions still to be answered.
Our knowledge of evolution is just as solid as this kind of knowledge, and certainly MORE SOLID than the knowledge that you have that your hand does in fact, touch the desk.
Thank you.
If we are going to take things to this unnecessary extreme…All the more reason to dump evolution as a ‘proven fact’
B
balt_orioles54
Guest
Not ignorant at all Valentino . . . but now you are getting way out into the unanswerable, depends on faith territory. Who made God? Can God make a rock to large to lift, and if so, then he can’t do all things? I used to argue that as a lost agnostic, now that I’m Catholic, it is easily answered. Yes, God can make a rock to big for Him to lift, but it’s not intelligent design.
:ballspin:
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - if they say SOS.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
kbachler
From a quantum mechanics perspective, 100% of them. In fact, if this weren’t the case, there would arguably be no free will, and Christianity would therefore be meaningless.
Wrong. Free will is not governed by quantum mechanics.
**100%, since it happened. **
Yes, abiogenesis happened. But why is it 100% likely that it happened by chance? Where’s your proof? You haven’t got any. Nobody does. That’s not science. That’s philosophy, and atheist philosophy to boot.
How long have you been a Catholic? Have you been properly catechized. If you had been you would not have pulled that ***** about free will being subject to quantum mechanics.
The soul is a spirit, not a package of atoms!
From a quantum mechanics perspective, 100% of them. In fact, if this weren’t the case, there would arguably be no free will, and Christianity would therefore be meaningless.
Wrong. Free will is not governed by quantum mechanics.
**100%, since it happened. **
Yes, abiogenesis happened. But why is it 100% likely that it happened by chance? Where’s your proof? You haven’t got any. Nobody does. That’s not science. That’s philosophy, and atheist philosophy to boot.
How long have you been a Catholic? Have you been properly catechized. If you had been you would not have pulled that ***** about free will being subject to quantum mechanics.
The soul is a spirit, not a package of atoms!
- Status