One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[dmwessel]

I’m sorry, I’m a little confused because I was under the impression that the Bible actually agrees with evolution: man was formed ‘of’ the dust of the ground (dust/ground=mud)!

Initially man was only a ‘soul’ which translated is ‘the animal principle only’: meaning that in this state it was only an animal. Man only got God’s image when it entered the garden (Gen. 2:8) and then it became ‘human’.

 

[edwest2]

Which begs the question entirely of why a perfect God would allow those “small mistakes” in the gene pool or even choose such a fault-prone mechanism for bringing about human life. This position of yours appears to function better as an apology for evil and sin since these faulty, imperfect genes would reasonably excuse human responsibility and implicate God entirely as the cause of our ills BECAUSE of the ill-conceived means that HE is entirely responsible for choosing to form human beings in such a hit and miss fashion.

Your entire defense seems to be more a cobbled together apologetic than a consistently well-thought out and defensible position.

An individual Adam disobeyed a simple command and brought sin and death into the world. God allowed man to not be a robot. He gave man a free will to choose. Man chose wrongly and Jesus Christ was born to repair our relationship with God and give us a New Covenant through His Death and Resurrection. Through His Body and Blood and Baptism.

biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm

Only the Catholic Church can add the missing and essential description of what human beings are: flesh and spirit. It doesn’t matter to me what those who put science above God have to say. I’ll continue to watch how this plays out,

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

God created everything including science. The study of God is science by definition. Modern science ala naturalism has excluded Him, (by design by the way). It was not always that way. In effect, science has painted itself into a corner and their are many in that same corner with it. Nowhere to go.

We can comprehend science, but we can’t comprehend God. God is not a thing,
God is not made of elements, God is not eternally comprised of principles meas-
urable by science, my God anyway. I don’t see how the study of God is can pos-
sibly be a science, are you sure you mean Science-Science, not as mentioned
by theologians hundreds of years ago who meant something completely different?

(Still will look at Article, watching first video presentation of Koonin)

 

[Peter_Plato]

We perceive them as “mistakes”, but only because we are creatures that cannot, not claim
to, know the will of God. God guided, or established natural laws, whatever happened, it hap-
pened, meeting up with God’s plan. We see it as fault-prone, but do we understand the Mind
of God? I don’t, you shouldn’t claim to either.

Now I am not attributing all of our woes to God in this way, for at some point, humanity was
PERFECT! However long that lasted, at some point, that ended. From then on, we became
Nature’s uh . . . “female dog,” subject to all the pains having lost that state of grace, so we
suffer.

What your position appears to be is that evolution as defined by science can-
not be true because it doesn’t meet up with the Bible, and you know what we
call that? RELIGION, NOT SCIENCE!

My position, as it appears to you, is precisely the problem. Whatever it is that appears to you to be my position is NOT my position because I don’t have a position. You keep portraying your view of my position as my position, which I can assure you it is not.

My critique of Darwinian style evolution is that the incredible array of novel features found in living things could not have been consistently and elaborately developed by accidental random changes. The nature of genetic code and the manner in which it is transcribed and passed on generationally precludes that. Mutational errors do not improve code - never did, never will. They are insufficient to create the vast array of features - behaviours, body parts and adaptive mechanisms found in nature. How does a series of blind and random changes arrive at heat sensitive pits in vipers, hair triggers in a Venus fly trap, the decaying flesh smell in a rafflesia plant or the ability of salmon to return to the very spot of their hatching? These are just four of millions upon millions of unique and novel traits found in nature.

Do some study on the array of mechanisms that seeds employ to disperse from the mother plant or the symbiotic relationships between plant and animal species. The endless creativity in nature is highly tuned to drawing out the genetic potential of living organisms. This is not a cacophonous series of random coincidences, it is an elaborately orchestrated and precisely choreographed “dance” between the living characters and the staged properties that frame and enable their existence.

God is director and producer, not a disinterested investor who is in it for kicks and is quite content to allow things to work themselves out because the tax benefit at the end makes the quality of the production completely unimportant.

We don’t need to know the will of God to conclude life has NO resemblance to random strokes of chance on the mire of biological soup but is more like intricate and deft strokes of ingenuity on a sublime canvas.

To say we can’t look at creation and gasp with wonder and awe because “science” refuses to see a deliberate work of artistic genius is, pardon my French, absurde.

The analogy that comes to mind is an art connoisseur who completely misses the brilliance of a Renoir or Degas because of some prior commitment to analyzing the chemistry of the paints and fibers of the canvas. It is a fundamental misconception of what appreciating and knowing reality is all about. It is the error of focussing on the technical and “material,” all the while being oblivious to the “meaning” of it all. It is blind sightedness; seeing but not taking in, hearing but not listening.

To insist that “science” must see it that way is an intentional wearing of blinkers to NOT see what is simply there to take in, under the guise of “Don’t bother me with the big picture I’m only interested in the minutiae!”

 

[buffalo]

My position, as it appears to you, is precisely the problem. Whatever it is that appears to you to be my position is NOT my position because I don’t have a position. You keep portraying your view of my position as my position, which I can assure you it is not.

My critique of Darwinian style evolution is that the incredible array of novel features found in living things could not have been consistently and elaborately developed by accidental random changes. The nature of genetic code and the manner in which it is transcribed and passed on generationally precludes that. Mutational errors do not improve code - never did, never will. They are insufficient to create the vast array of features - behaviours, body parts and adaptive mechanisms found in nature. How does a series of blind and random changes arrive at heat sensitive pits in vipers, hair triggers in a Venus fly trap, the decaying flesh smell in a rafflesia plant or the ability of salmon to return to the very spot of their hatching? These are just four of millions upon millions of unique and novel traits found in nature.

Do some study on the array of mechanisms that seeds employ to disperse from the mother plant or the symbiotic relationships between plant and animal species. The endless creativity in nature is highly tuned to drawing out the genetic potential of living organisms. This is not a cacophonous series of random coincidences, it is an elaborately orchestrated and precisely choreographed “dance” between the living characters and the staged properties that frame and enable their existence.

God is director and producer, not a disinterested investor who is in it for kicks and the possibility of a tax refund at the end.

We don’t need to know the will of God to conclude life has no resemblance to strokes of luck in the mire of biological soup but more like intricate and deft strokes of ingenuity on a sublime canvas.

To say we can’t look at creation and gasp with wonder and awe because “science” refuses to see a deliberate work of artistic genius is, pardon my French, silly.

The analogy that comes to mind is an art connoisseur who completely misses the brilliance of a Renoir or Degas because of some prior commitment to analyzing the chemistry of the paints and fibers of the canvas. It is a fundamental misconception of what appreciating and knowing reality is all about. It is the error of focussing on the technical and “material,” all the while being oblivious to the “meaning” of it all. It is blind sightedness; seeing but not taking in, hearing but not listening.

To insist that “science” must see it that way is an intentional wearing of blinkers to NOT see what is simply there to take in, under the guise of “Don’t bother me with the big picture I’m only interested in the minutiae!”

Let’s mutate you first sentence.

My position, as it appears to you, is precisely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precisely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt position, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the probles.

One can see what is happening.

DNA - MUTATIONS
This page takes a very brief look at what happens if the code in DNA becomes changed in some way, and the effect that would have on the proteins it codes for. It is designed for 16 - 18 year old chemistry students. In fact, most chemistry students won’t need this - check your syllabus and past papers before you go on.

 

[buffalo]

We can comprehend science, but we can’t comprehend God. God is not a thing,
God is not made of elements, God is not eternally comprised of principles meas-
urable by science, my God anyway. I don’t see how the study of God is can pos-
sibly be a science, are you sure you mean Science-Science, not as mentioned
by theologians hundreds of years ago who meant something completely different?

(Still will look at Article, watching first video presentation of Koonin)

Where did we get these then?

1. 
   *]The Unity and Trinity of God
   
   The Existence of God
   
   The Natural Knowability of the Existence of God
   *] God, our Creator and Lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things. (De fide.)
   *] The Existence of God can be proved by means of causality. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *]
   *]
   *]The Supernatural Knowability of the Existence of God
   *] God’s existence is not merely an object of natural rational knowledge, but also an object of supernatural faith. (De fide.)
   *]
   The Knowledge of the Nature of God
   *] Our natural knowledge of God in this world is not as immediate, intuitive cognition, but a mediate, abstractive knowledge, because it is attained through the knowledge of creatures. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our knowledge of God here below is not proper (cognitio propia) but analogical (cognitio analoga or analogica). (Sent. certa.)
   *] God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men. (De fide.)
   *] The blessed in Heaven posses an immediate intuitive knowledge of the Divine Essence. (De fide.)
   *] The Immediate Vision of God transcends the natural power of cognition of the human soul, and is therefore supernatural. (De fide.)
   *] The soul, for the Immediate Vision of God, requires the light of glory. (De fide. D 475.)
   *] God’s Essence is also incomprehensible to the blessed in Heaven. (De fide.)
   
   The Attributes or Qualities of God
   
   The Attributes of God in General
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
   *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
   *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
   *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
   *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
   *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
   *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
   *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
   *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
   *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
   *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
   *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
   *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s mutate you first sentence.

My position, as it appears to you, is precisely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precisely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
My position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt position, as it appears to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt position, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the problem.
Mt posvtion, as it appefrs to yop, is precilely the probles.

One can see what is happening.

“One” can, but the question is, “Can the others?”

 

[buffalo]

“One” can, but the question is, “Can the others?”

Can the others?
Con the others?
Con the otters?
Con thy otters?
Con why otterb lol I mean nim

 

[vz71]

God is not part of science, ergo any branch of study claiming to be involved with subjects
on the Divine cannot be a science. What makes Intelligent Design so special, however, is
that Metaphysics doesn’t hold itself on par with biology, nor does Theistic Evolution go so
far as to say that it is science like chemistry and neurology, but Intelligent Design active–
ly portrays itself to the world as a science, despite what the scientific community claims.

What specifically disqualifies it.
I am not interested in the opinion of some group I do not know or trust, I want to know what specific property there is to the phrase “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this” That automatically disqualifies it from being science.

You darn right “outside of science,” because once you try to go beyond
Creation and find the Creator, you’re no longer in the realm of the study
of the Creation, called “Science,” but have now entered into a pseudo-
-scientific study based on one’s personal belief.

Who said anything about entering any other realm?
I simply put forward a sentence that I believe fits ID fairly well.
“random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”
You are the one that decided this was a theological search for the creator.
There are any number of other explanations that could fit.

 

[Skeptic92]

What specifically disqualifies it.
I am not interested in the opinion of some group I do not know or trust, I want to know what specific property there is to the phrase “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this” That automatically disqualifies it from being science.

Who said anything about entering any other realm?
I simply put forward a sentence that I believe fits ID fairly well.
“random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”
You are the one that decided this was a theological search for the creator.
There are any number of other explanations that could fit.

Oh, if you want to disqualify ID as a science that’s easier: the premise of the argument is non-falsifiable, and an argument from ignorance so is by nature logically fallacious. As it violates a principle of science, and is inherently fallacious, it can not be accounted as a scientific ‘theory’ or even hypothesis. Also the ‘must’ is problematic as the argument by nature is inductive, which can not demonstrate metaphysical necessity.

 

[edwest2]

My position, as it appears to you, is precisely the problem. Whatever it is that appears to you to be my position is NOT my position because I don’t have a position. You keep portraying your view of my position as my position, which I can assure you it is not.

My critique of Darwinian style evolution is that the incredible array of novel features found in living things could not have been consistently and elaborately developed by accidental random changes. The nature of genetic code and the manner in which it is transcribed and passed on generationally precludes that. Mutational errors do not improve code - never did, never will. They are insufficient to create the vast array of features - behaviours, body parts and adaptive mechanisms found in nature. How does a series of blind and random changes arrive at heat sensitive pits in vipers, hair triggers in a Venus fly trap, the decaying flesh smell in a rafflesia plant or the ability of salmon to return to the very spot of their hatching? These are just four of millions upon millions of unique and novel traits found in nature.

Do some study on the array of mechanisms that seeds employ to disperse from the mother plant or the symbiotic relationships between plant and animal species. The endless creativity in nature is highly tuned to drawing out the genetic potential of living organisms. This is not a cacophonous series of random coincidences, it is an elaborately orchestrated and precisely choreographed “dance” between the living characters and the staged properties that frame and enable their existence.

God is director and producer, not a disinterested investor who is in it for kicks and is quite content to allow things to work themselves out because the tax benefit at the end makes the quality of the production completely unimportant.

We don’t need to know the will of God to conclude life has NO resemblance to random strokes of chance on the mire of biological soup but is more like intricate and deft strokes of ingenuity on a sublime canvas.

To say we can’t look at creation and gasp with wonder and awe because “science” refuses to see a deliberate work of artistic genius is, pardon my French, absurde.

The analogy that comes to mind is an art connoisseur who completely misses the brilliance of a Renoir or Degas because of some prior commitment to analyzing the chemistry of the paints and fibers of the canvas. It is a fundamental misconception of what appreciating and knowing reality is all about. It is the error of focussing on the technical and “material,” all the while being oblivious to the “meaning” of it all. It is blind sightedness; seeing but not taking in, hearing but not listening.

To insist that “science” must see it that way is an intentional wearing of blinkers to NOT see what is simply there to take in, under the guise of “Don’t bother me with the big picture I’m only interested in the minutiae!”

"Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

“Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)”

Too bad that scientists MUST go in one direction and see the chain of events as nothing more than blind, unguided chance. What is survival of the fittest? Well, we are, just because. This circular reasoning ignores all kinds of external factors and linkages. Why are there ANY plants we can eat and even use as medicine?

Nope. Insufficient answer.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

More neat stuff about DNA. Information only comes from information. It was there right at the get go.

Overlapping DNA more instructions with fewer letters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, if you want to disqualify ID as a science that’s easier: the premise of the argument is non-falsifiable, and an argument from ignorance so is by nature logically fallacious. As it violates a principle of science, and is inherently fallacious, it can not be accounted as a scientific ‘theory’ or even hypothesis. Also the ‘must’ is problematic as the argument by nature is inductive, which can not demonstrate metaphysical necessity.

What, exactly, is the premise of the argument? For that matter what is the “argument from ignorance” that ID proposes?

There are a whole lot of “can nots” opined in your post but a scant supply of “whys.”

Before we can dismiss an argument we need to spell out what the argument is actually saying and why it doesn’t work as an argument. We haven’t seen that, other than as an oblique reference to ID, to “the argument,” or to “creationist ideas.”

I’d prefer to see something more substantial before dismissing it outright. What exactly is it that we are dispelling by invoking the incantations of “not falsifiable,” “fallacious” and “unscientific?”

I might superficially accept your claim that “It’s not a duck because it doesn’t quack like one,” but we have yet to hear your depiction of the argument make a peep, so we don’t know what sound it does make, only that you think it mimics Daffy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

"Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)

“Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Of Atheism)”

Too bad that scientists MUST go in one direction and see the chain of events as nothing more than blind, unguided chance. What is survival of the fittest? Well, we are, just because. This circular reasoning ignores all kinds of external factors and linkages. Why are there ANY plants we can eat and even use as medicine?

Nope. Insufficient answer.

Peace,
Ed

The portrayal of natural selection as merciless and cold with regard to the fate of substandard traits is a skewed depiction of the story. The other side of it is an environment that is finely tuned to provide for the requirements of living organisms within those intricate linkages and dependencies. In many ways, collusion is a far more dominant feature of nature than selection is.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So what? The interview is linked so you can go to the original source. What don’t you get about this? It is wrong because it is not popular? If it is popular it is correct? That is just plain absurd. For the sake of argument, let us assume NS is as claimed, it still has to act on less opportunities for RM as I have shown. Still needs more magnitudes time.

First, slow down with all your links, at the rate you’re going, I won’t be able to read them all.

Now, let’s focus on how this quote mining is being done:BOLD - The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism.
(unbold) It’s just that they’ve got nothing to offer but intelligent design or ‘God did it.’ They have no alternatives that are scientific.

Do you see that? The IDist source is getting you to focus on one sentence of one scientist alone, with no specific details behind it. WHAT criticisms? There are a lot. What specifically is she referring. Also the quote is self-defeating to IDists, don’t even know why the latter part was added, but I have an idea of why it was not bold. “Don’t pay attention to that part saying Intelligent Design or ‘God did it’ are not ‘alternatives that are scientific’.”

Did you see also . . .
**All scientists agree that evolution has occurred - that all life comes from a common ancestry, that there has been extinction, and that new taxa, new biological groups, have arisen. **The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution?
Any special reason why the blog did not mention that?

Answer: QUOTE MINING!

The point is, it doesn’t matter what ONE scientist says, it doesn’t matter what ONE team of scientists say,
what matters is the general consensus of the scientific community, which leads us into the next subject:

​

Now as for the popular vs non-popular issue you have, it isn’t the popularity alone that
matters, which would be an ad populum point, but WHY it is popular. Scientists don’t
just listen, determine by feeling if they like it or not, then cast their votes like a presid-
ential election. Scientists will check each other, as I said many times, review studies
of the novel idea in question, (And even old ideas, just in case), THEN the community
of scientists who CARE about science will reveal their findings.

If Intelligent Design is correct, maybe even a science, it will be found out in due time,
but for the time being, the majority of scientists have good reason to denounce IDists
as holding an actual scientific model, theory, concept, whatever.

Not BECAUSE of popularity, but WHY popularity is the determining factor.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

More neat stuff about DNA. Information only comes from information. It was there right at the get go.

Overlapping DNA more instructions with fewer letters.

“Information only comes from information.” Why?

That is a proposition which has no backing behind it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

“Information only comes from information.” Why?

That is a proposition which has no backing behind it.

The statement should be, “Information only comes from an intelligent source.” Where, besides genetic code, (and that IS the issue in contention,) do you see information deriving from random sources?

Do newspapers and magazines get blown together by wind and rain? Computers cobbled together by stones falling from mountains? Stories contrived by monkeys making random strokes on keyboards? Software by waves crashing against silica sand? Television and radio programs by irregular doses of electromagnetic interference?

Information, as in, “meaning conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things” is NOT found ANYWHERE except where intelligent human beings create it. Everywhere! EXCEPT one “other” place - genetic code.

Why ONLY there? No where else. The genetic code that resulted in a plethora of innovated life forms ending in human beings capable of creating and using information. Coincidence? Accident? Random event?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What specifically disqualifies it.
I am not interested in the opinion of some group I do not know or trust, I want to know what specific property there is to the phrase “random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this” That automatically disqualifies it from being science.

Because EVERYBODY knows that this implies GOD! God is not
a science. God is REAL, but God is not Creation. Science looks
at Creation, not the Creator, who for all metaphysical intents and
purposes, is beyond science.
I’ll bring the comparison up again: Aztecs discover the abandoned
city of Teotihuacán. SUCH MAGNIFICENT STONE WORK, LOOK
AT THEM, HUGE! Only logical conclusion: Built be the gods. That
is Creation-Sci… “Intelligent Design.”

Who said anything about entering any other realm?
I simply put forward a sentence that I believe fits ID fairly well.
“random mutation does not lead to positive results, there must be something guiding this”
You are the one that decided this was a theological search for the creator.
There are any number of other explanations that could fit.

I was using “realm” as a metaphor, if you read in context.

I’m the one deciding it to be a theological issue? That has
been the very root of Intelligent Design since it’s inception.
Just because they’ve toned down on the God-talk doesn’t
make it not about God, but let’s play the game.

“DNA is designed, therefore it must have a designer who designed it.”
“GOD?!”
“No no, could be aliens.”
“Alrighty, ‘aliens,’ but who is their designer? God?!”
“Not precisely, but perhaps another alien race.”
“Who created them?”
“Is not it obvious? Yet another alien race.”
“Then it’s an eternal progressions of aliens?”
“What? NO!”
“Then in the beginning of it all, GO-O-OD!”
“I did NOT say ‘God’?!”
“Then who created the universe?”
". . . . "

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The statement should be, “Information only comes from an intelligent source.” Where, besides genetic code, (and that IS the issue in contention,) do you see information deriving from random sources?

Do newspapers and magazines get blown together by wind and rain? Computers cobbled together by stones falling from mountains? Stories contrived by monkeys making random strokes on keyboards? Software by waves crashing against silica sand? Television and radio programs by irregular doses of electromagnetic interference?

Information, as in, “meaning conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things” is NOT found ANYWHERE except where intelligent human beings create it. Everywhere! EXCEPT one “other” place - genetic code.

Why ONLY there? No where else. The genetic code that resulted in a plethora of innovated life forms ending in human beings capable of creating and using information. Coincidence? Accident? Random event?

Where do I see information deriving from random sources? Nothing we can understand which is what ID is trying to do.

If you’re looking for God, you’re looking in the wrong area.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

50 years ago that seemed plausible. Evolution needs long time.

Good thing we have 4.5 Billion years to depend on and not 6,000 years which
you Creationists once tried to pull (some of you are still out there though).

Even the smallest changes will take trillions of trillions of years.

That is personal belief, if you’re making the rules, another case of Argument from Incredulity.