quote: Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose. Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code.
Why do you think the genetic 'code' is actually a code, and not merely complex chemestry?
What evidence do you have with the assertion that 'only intelligence can put togather a code'? How do you demonstrate this ?
In total then what we have been presented as the evidence for ID is some unsubstantiated assertions built upon a mound of personal incredulity; nothing of efficacy for the proposition.
Or are you not listening? You have not told me how the genetic code is not evidence for intelligence? So I have the evolutionary contention that it could happen without intelligence - but then that's because evolutionist's believe that that's possible, not because it necessarily is. It's no good to say we can't see the creator therefore we can't consider it. Prove that natural causes brought the genetic code forth and I will bow out.
If supernatural possibilities are automatically excluded then there is no falsification possible, no evidence necessary -evolution is the winner in the absence of choice. But is that science?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reply in the "no replies - single sumary statement only" parts of this topic "hidden".
Sorry Coyote -no broadband -can't watch the movie so you'll have to fill me in on how this computer model is better than others I have encountered.
So the model you refuted in post #294, you now admit you actually didn't even watch.
This is a fine place to summarize:
You have presented no evidence for ID, you have spent most of your posts dismissing the theory of evolution, and, if this one example is typical, you aren't even familiar with the data.
Creation "science" in a nutshell. All creation and no science. And ID, its illegitimate stepchild, is the same. There is no evidence to support it but it must be right and that evilution stuff must be wrong because we believe.
See you in the next thread, and we'll contend yet again.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
What an odd thread, but it highlights just why the creation/evolution debate, or the ID/evolution debate for those who insist on maintaining the charade, just won't go away. People everywhere, not just creationists, almost always refuse to follow the evidence when it goes against what they know is true.
Even so, creationism is a rather extreme example of this behavior. Not only do creationists not follow the evidence where it leads, they don't even recognize the established system for investigating nature, the scientific method. They formulate a hypothesis (the intelligent designer) based upon the appearance of design, then insist that the evidence is sufficient to claim status as theory, skipping all the other steps of the scientific method, like designing experiments to verify the hypothesis, and replication. They prefer a system which includes mechanisms (the supernatural) before they've ever been verified through the scientific method.
What creationists have going for them is the ability to keep the debate alive in the minds of the public, and then turning the debate into a battle for the minds of children. At the heart of this battle is a religion which holds itself up as the one, right and true religion (as do so many), and they justify their efforts as a battle for souls. Their incredible persistance is explained when it is understood that they regard this as a religious crusade where the stakes are salvation itself.
Those who would reach a hopeful conclusion from the utter thrashing ID has taken here where it was revealed the ID emperor is scientifically naked must understand that this battle will never end as long as fundamentalist religion believes its tenets are contradicted by scientific theories. With all eternity at stake the minds of fundamentalists can convince themselves of anything.
As we have all realised - there is little to no evidence for a designer being put forth. Beretta has pushed the idea that observations of life on Earth reveal design, and hence there muct exist a designer. Perhaps it is is time we turned things around. Let us accept for a moment that the appearance of design is indeed the result of very real design. Instead of asking for information regarding this designer, let us infer as much as possible regarding the attributes of this designer from the "design" itself. I have started a new thread, yet to be promoted, which concerns my own thoughts in this regard.