The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

Don't pretend that the number 10¹³⁰ is a "common estimate". It's a deliberate misrepresentation, a lie. It's the odds of a protein coming together from individual atoms in one step. No schoolchild would be foolish enough to think that chemistry works that way.If you want to calculate the real probability of a protein assembling spontaneously, you need to calculate the probability of each individual step in the process. To do that, you need to know the pathway. And if there is a pathway, the process is possible.Ergo, if you can calculate the probability of a protein assembling spontaneously, you've already conceded that it's possible.And as somebody else pointed out, if there are 10⁸⁰ atoms available and a huge number of interactions between those atoms every second of every day of every year of every millennium, your so-called "impossible" number of 10⁴⁵ is flooded into oblivion.The reaction is inevitable. No intelligence is required.Edited by ringo, : Fixed superscript. It's all about the math, baby.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Its definitely a lack of comprehension on your part, I get that now.Example: No, you provided him with the purpose OF life, just like with the eye. The purpose OF life is to live, the purpose OF the eye is to see.But the purpose FOR life, is different. That is why Mod gave you the example of the drill. The purpose FOR the drill was, humans needed to drill holes and designed a tool capable of that. The purpose OF the drill is to drill holes.The purpose OF life is to live. The purpose FOR life is what?And I'll take you ignoring the part about order as you recognizing your circular reasoning.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

What does that have to do with intelligent design? The DNA molecule follows exactly the same principles to form me as water molecules follow to form snowflakes. No intelligence required, just chemistry. No, not all designed things have blueprints. An artist creates a painting without a blueprint, often without a plan of any kind.And no, a template is not a blueprint. A DNA molecule is to a protein as a beaver's teeth is to the chips of wood that he makes. The shape of the teeth/DNA determines the shape of the chips/proteins. The chips aren't intelligently designed. Why would you think the proteins were?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Hi Dawn, Free For All is mostly unmoderated, so feel free to ignore this if you choose, but you've just given another example of why your thread has ended up over here in Free For All, so I thought I'd explain the problem in case it proves helpful to you. In English, as in most languages, there are many, many ways to say the same thing. Whether you say conclude design or prove design will make no difference, people are going to think you're saying the same thing.The problem before you is to make clear why you think there's a difference between the two. Perhaps in your native language there's a word that translates as conclude in English and another word that translates as prove in English, which in this context are pretty much the same, but in your language those words have completely different meanings.You're the only one who knows both your native language and English, so you're the one who's going to have to figure it out. And when you do then you'll be able to explain what you actually mean so that native speakers of English can understand you.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Exactly! Even people who work in the field of microbiology (if honest) will admit that 98% percent of DNA's function is still unknown. Just last month an article was published stating that at least one purpose was found for the so called "junk DNA," that everyone was trying to say was evidence that DNA could not be designed. I am sure after further study they will eventually find a purpose for the rest of it.Kind of remind me of how back in the day they had this big long list of vestigial organs supposedly left over from our evolutionary past. The problem is as science and understanding progressed the list got shorter and shorter. What do ya know...things like the thyroid, tonsils and appendix turns out did have a purpose.

"Junk DNA" and Vestigial Organs were NOT used as evidence against design except as a strawman on the Creationist sites, but they lie for a living.Vestigial organs are still guess what...? Vestigial organs. The appendix and tonsils are still pieces parts that we can easily do without and that serve no modern function.But the topic in case you missed it is "The evidence for design and a designer " and so far no one has presented any such evidence. Even more importantly, no one has addressed the very real issue that even if there was some designer it is of no interest, use, value or importance except as some historical footnote or in cases of Product Liability suits.Is there any chance you might have something related to the topic to contribute other than whining and word salad?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I need my boots on to wade through all this. I have been involved with this debate for many years now and I promise you I could go out and buy a new car if I had a nickle for every time I have had an evolutionary atheist use one of those arguments on me.Regarding topic, I actually have posted evidence. That of course is the apc observed in all living DNA. All attempts to refute this evidence, I have rebutted so far.

I simply don't believe that is true. In the time since the Creationists made up the term Intelligent Design in hope that it might fool people into not seeing that it was just the same old weak Creationism arguments in a new package, the only people I have run across claiming those arguments are the Creationist/Intelligent Design Snake Oil Salesmen.Perhaps you can provide us examples that support your allegation. If we assume it is a small new car, say $12,000, about 240,000 specific examples should do. Again, you may think you offered evidence but like Intelligent Design, you APC is just the nonsense of CSI repackaged in the hope that you might fool folk into thinking it was something new. Even more importantly, no one, particularly you, has addressed the very real issue that even if there was some designer it is of no interest, use, value or importance except as some historical footnote or in cases of Product Liability suits.Of course you also continue to imply that there is some relationship between evolution and atheism even though I've shown you numerous examples that prove that implication is false.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You couldn't even properly define the term. Typical creationist: spout some nonsense, then claim victory.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Your APC stands for Abstruse Particularized Communication, a phrase that appears on only a single webpage on the entire Internet, and that's in one of your messages in this thread. A phrase you invented yourself does not constitute evidence.--Percy

However much it is about DNA that science does not know, I certainly hope you're not citing our ignorance as evidence of design. This would be tantamount to arguing that the less we know the more evidence we have of design. Aren't you confusing purpose with function? Just because something performs a function doesn't mean it has a purpose. Or to express it another way, if everything with a function has a purpose then nearly everything in the universe has a purpose. Even drifting molecules in interstellar space have functions (light attenuation, gravity, potential eventual aggregation into a star, etc.), and if you insist on equating function with purpose then by your other claim that things with purpose were intelligently designed these molecules must have been intelligently designed. In the end this reduces to, "There's something instead of nothing, therefore it was intelligently designed."Purpose is a human construct implying intent, which is another human construct. Science has nothing to say about purpose and intent. Once you've started talking about purpose you've left the realm of science. The process of evolutionary change is driven by the need for adaptation to a changing environment, and so organisms are constantly forced to adapt existing organs and processes to new circumstances. This sometimes results in organs or processes that appear to be standing around with not much or even nothing to do. We call these organs and processes vestigial because they once played a more prominent role fulfilling an adaptational need that is either diminished or even no longer exists.In other words, the very nature of vestigial organs and processes is that they did once have a function, or for vestigial organs and processes that are still useful in some way that they did once have a more prominent function. So when you say, "What do ya know...things like the thyroid, tonsils and appendix turns out did have a purpose," you're only making clear your own misunderstanding of the how science thinks of the word vestigial. Vestigial organs have always been thought to once have a function. The term was invented to describe that very concept.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity.

Yes. Give it a whirl! You might start by checking the truth of your absurd claims. No, there's no sandbar there, above the Red Sea or below.

Why would I ignore it it is what I ahve been begging you to answerDawn Bertot writes:
Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design.Admin writesPlease tell me you are playing this simplistic. Admin or Percy I dont know which you wish, you conclude that these things (nature) are operating in and of thierself, you do realize you cannot prove such a conclusion, correct?Do you see any differnce in the two words now?For you to know such a conclusion concerning nature and its operation, you would need to know things which are not now available, your conclusion is the best you have presently, that doesnt mean you proved itYou just playing the dumb card, right?Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, Dawn, I'm not playing the dumb card. Given that English is not your native language I'm frankly puzzled at your rejection of all the feedback from native speakers of English that you're not making any sense.In the current context there is no significant difference in meaning between concluding design and proving design. If you think there's a clear distinction then you need to explain what you think it is.A better understanding of how native speakers of the English language interpret these and other words and phrases would be very good for you. Making an effort in this area would pay off for you in all threads in which you participate and not leave you relegated to Free For All.Added by Edit: We spent a great deal of time and effort defining the topic of this thread, and this was very specifically off topic.Edited by Admin, : Add AbE about topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You cant be serious, do you honestly believe Oni, that making a play with prepositions will help your cause. Ii thought the operative word was Purpose, only to find out Im being nit picked with prepositions, which only provide you with a strawman and do nothing to remove the REALITY of, for or by purposeYou cant be seriousI dont need a purpose FOR something or BY something to know that it has a purpose. This is why I asked you to demonstrate that the eye did not have a purpose.You know you cannot demonstrate the negative in the any logical, rational or physical fashion, so you make a play with words hoping no will notice how silly that actually isDoes the eye have a purpose, Yes or No?
Does the eye demonstrate order and law in its operation, Yes or No?These answers demonstrate without any fear of contradiction that design is a valid, logical and physical conclusion. My approval of such things is not necessary for it to be thus. Your disapproval does not change any of these facts In the end words dont define reality, only reality defines reality and order and purpose in reality conclude design.prepositional word play doesnt help your difficulty, or provide you a way outDawn Bertot