|
Author
|
Topic: The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8536 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 5.0
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
I forget about the "E". Enchilada? Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 11:55 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
Message 394 of 648 (588017)
10-22-2010 12:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 389 by Buzsaw
10-21-2010 10:19 PM
|
|
Re: The Biblical Designer Did The Whole Enchilada
The point is that none has ever been shown.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 389 by Buzsaw, posted 10-21-2010 10:19 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 452 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2010 10:13 AM | | bluescat48 has not replied |
|
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 369 Joined: 08-26-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Given that you couldn't explain your concept of APC coherently on that other thread I'm not sure we need it intruding into this one. I think I explained it quite "coherently" there. I can not help it if their willful blindness clouded their cognition. As for my intrusion, it's my understanding that these threads are open to all. How are my interjections then at all an intrusion?
And once again, just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it a better argument. No but it sure helps when you are communicating with folks who are hard of hearing.
Why don't you try explaining why you believe that DNA is an abstruse particularized communication code from an independent source, i.e. provide some evidence supporting this. Let me see if I am understanding what you really are asking me here. You seem to be asking me to prove that the arrangements of nucleotides in a DNA molecule are complex, and also to prove that they are arranged in a specific pattern (like language) to perform a particular function. Is this really what you are asking me to prove? While I am at it would you like me to prove that water is wet and fire hot? As for why I believe it originated from an independent intelligent source, well that is because in all of human observation, there has never been anything reported to have been observed forming with this amount of apc, through natural unguided processes. In fact there are no reports of even low grade apc forming by natural processes. (This could be easily falsified if anyone could produce even one example to the contrary.) The concept I am applying to detecting intelligence in the design of a DNA molecule, is the exact same concept that the SETI scientists apply to searching for extra terrestrial intelligence. No one seems to have a problem with the concept if its ramifications only imply some ET out there. But if it implies an infinitely superior being to which we are culpable... well then... "Katie bar the door... and hold the hell on their buddy... cuz now you are talking nonsense." I find this kind of unreasonable bias astonishingly illogical.
And having failed to make a convincing argument for organismal design they now retreat to the molecular/genetic level to try and spin enough FUD there that they can slip some ID in. Don't mistake my comments on the apc of a DNA molecule, as a "retreat." Much to the contrary I am willing to step it up to even the cosmic level if you like. APC can be observed in our own solar systems makeup. But personally I think we have a full plate just sticking with molecular biology.
|
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 369 Joined: 08-26-2010
|
|
|
Message 396 of 648 (588031)
10-22-2010 3:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 360 by ringo
10-21-2010 11:48 AM
|
|
For the sake of perspective, if 6 x 1023 molecules of water weigh 18 grams, how many molecules are there in the ocean? I wouldn't even begin to guess. But since we are putting things in perspective, consider the fact that most common estimates of the total number of atoms available in the entire universe are around 10 80, while most common estimates of the odds of generating one protein by unguided forces is one in 10 130. I don't know if you ever caught the movie "Dumb and Dumber," but there was a scene where Lloyd (played by Jim Carey) asks Mary Swanson (played by Lauren Holly), "What are the odds of you and me getting together?" Her reply was, "About one in a million." And then he replies with a grin, "So you're saying we do have a chance?" Unfortunately it seems that many people likewise see the odds of one in a 10 130 chance for life to form by unguided forces and they instantly respond with a grin, "Oh, so you did say there was a chance."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 360 by ringo, posted 10-21-2010 11:48 AM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 451 by ringo, posted 10-22-2010 10:12 AM | | Just being real has replied | | | Message 455 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 10:41 AM | | Just being real has not replied |
|
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3958 days) Posts: 369 Joined: 08-26-2010
|
|
|
Message 397 of 648 (588032)
10-22-2010 3:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 373 by Damouse
10-21-2010 1:32 PM
|
|
Evolution has positive and negative reinforcement to changes. Positive changes are accepted and quickly spread to the entire population. Negative changes stop right there. Your metaphor doesn't take that into account. But you aren't following the logic of what you are suggesting. One simple change of a letter in the play-write of Shakespeare would not possibly improve the play. It would take several simultaneous changes in key places to have any real effect. "Nature" could not possibly hold on to one change and wait until it received all the others, because now you are implying that "nature" has the wherewithal to know what to hold onto and what not to hold onto. And this is only sneaking intelligence into evolution through the back door. According to the NeoDarwinian theory, when a random mutation occurs that improves the organisms ability to survive in an environment, then "natural selection" does its thing and selects that new mutated organism (all of him). But no such selection occurs if it has no "positive" effect.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 373 by Damouse, posted 10-21-2010 1:32 PM | | Damouse has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 403 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2010 4:17 AM | | Just being real has not replied |
|
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: 05-11-2010
|
quote:
But the evolutionists claim that life was not designed. Our claim is that there is no firm we can telephone.
I agree completely. There is no one who was there, no historical documents hinting to it. Just interpretation of data from experiments, that hint. So I have one, hint that is. Stop calling evolution science, if it's foundation is based on hints.
quote:
Getting a busy signal? Then we are right. It's if you ever get through that we might be wrong.
So if God answers prayer, then you are wrong?
quote:
The rest of your nonsense is the same. About the fourth time you wrote it, didn't you start to see the problem?
The only thing that concerns me is that you, and many others in this forum conclude that complexity and co-dependances of the diverse life came from simplicity.
|
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: 05-11-2010
|
|
|
Message 399 of 648 (588034)
10-22-2010 4:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 343 by Larni
10-21-2010 8:10 AM
|
|
quote:
How is that in any way different from a human being? Be specific.
It wouldn't. Actually, what one person sees as being complex (physically speaking) another may not. It's a matter of opinion as to what people consider more or less complex. A car looks very simple from the outside, as does a house, because you can't see the internal parts working together for specific purposes. If you asked a mechanic and a carpenter which was more complex, each would probably favour those that they understood better. Everyone knows that physical appearance has little to know bearing on complexity however, so it's irrelevant, but his point, I believe, was to show that one could assume trees to be simple.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 343 by Larni, posted 10-21-2010 8:10 AM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
The only thing that concerns me is that you, and many others in this forum conclude that complexity and co-dependances of the diverse life came from simplicity. I didn't hink anyone would use the term complexity without an ability to measure it. How are you measuring complexity? Please, by specific.
but his point, I believe, was to show that one could assume trees to be simple. By that definition all life can be considered simple and thus not needing design. Edited by Larni, : Last point.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 3:57 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I agree completely. There is no one who was there, no historical documents hinting to it. Just interpretation of data from experiments, that hint. So I have one, hint that is. Stop calling evolution science ... Evolution is science. According to these people --- I don't know if you've ever heard of them? --- called scientists. Who would be people who know about science. The clue's in the name. Let's hear from some of them, shall we?
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). But perhaps you feel that you know more about what is and isn't science then the world's best scientists.
So if God answers prayer, then you are wrong? No. If something contradicts anything that I actually said, then I am wrong. That's kind of what "wrong" means.
The only thing that concerns me is that you, and many others in this forum ... ... and all those scientists ...
... conclude that complexity and co-dependances of the diverse life came from simplicity. I note that you have not even tried to defend your claims. That is very sensible of you. The next step would be for you to stop making claims that you yourself apparently find indefensible. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 3:57 AM | | dennis780 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 414 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:11 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 402 of 648 (588038)
10-22-2010 4:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 400 by Larni
10-22-2010 4:07 AM
|
|
I didn't think anyone would use the term complexity without an ability to measure it. There's these people called "creationists". One day you might meet one.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 400 by Larni, posted 10-22-2010 4:07 AM | | Larni has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 407 by Larni, posted 10-22-2010 4:33 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
But you aren't following the logic of what you are suggesting. One simple change of a letter in the play-write of Shakespeare would not possibly improve the play. Whereas the mutations that we can observe demonstrably improve organisms. Which is one of the major differences between biology and the subject that you apparently wish to discuss instead. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 416 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:15 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I think I explained it quite "coherently" there. And you are ludicrously mistaken. As usual.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 417 by dennis780, posted 10-22-2010 5:17 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
As for why I believe it originated from an independent intelligent source, well that is because in all of human observation, there has never been anything reported to have been observed forming with this amount of apc, through natural unguided processes. I think this is the problem, right here. Your statement is false: DNA has formed through natural and unguided processes. What makes you think it has not?
Unfortunately it seems that many people likewise see the odds of one in a 10130 chance for life to form by unguided forces and they instantly respond with a grin, "Oh, so you did say there was a chance." You do understand that unguided does not equal random, don't you? Edited by Larni, : Last point
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 406 of 648 (588042)
10-22-2010 4:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 308 by dennis780
10-21-2010 12:56 AM
|
|
Re: Clear purpose
Origins have nothing to do with purpose, if you are asking for a christian perspective. You should probably tell Dawn that, not me.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 308 by dennis780, posted 10-21-2010 12:56 AM | | dennis780 has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
One day you might meet one. Then from now on I'm staying in.
|
™ Version 4.2