Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
29 online now:
frako, PaulK, vimesey (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,361 Year: 1,109/23,288 Month: 1,109/1,851 Week: 233/320 Day: 5/87 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 331 of 377 (608658)
03-12-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:20 AM


It's physical all the way down

well everything has a physical aspect but is that enough to explain genetics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:20 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 11:28 AM havoc has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 332 of 377 (608659)
03-12-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:25 AM


havoc writes:

It's physical all the way down

well everything has a physical aspect but is that enough to explain genetics?

Yes, fully and completely. What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available.

Until the proponents of ID or Creationism can ever be anything more than a silly comedy they need to present evidence on the level of that presented in the OP.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:25 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:33 AM jar has responded
 Message 336 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:46 AM jar has responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 333 of 377 (608660)
03-12-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Granny Magda
03-12-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Design Evidence
You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution

Because you say it does not make it so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 7:02 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 334 of 377 (608661)
03-12-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by jar
03-12-2011 11:28 AM


Yes, fully and completely.

Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 11:28 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 11:47 AM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 342 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2011 12:44 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 347 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2011 1:27 PM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 335 of 377 (608662)
03-12-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Granny Magda
03-12-2011 7:02 AM


Re: Design Evidence
And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be. A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars.

So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a “liar for Darwin’s sake”? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 7:02 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 12:27 PM havoc has responded
 Message 341 by NoNukes, posted 03-12-2011 12:41 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 343 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 12:46 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 350 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2011 1:34 PM havoc has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 336 of 377 (608663)
03-12-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by jar
03-12-2011 11:28 AM


What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available.

Faith statement?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 11:28 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 11:48 AM havoc has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 337 of 377 (608664)
03-12-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:33 AM


havoc writes:

Yes, fully and completely.

Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information?

Are you aware that that statement has almost no meaning and is still totally irrelevant to the issue or topic?

Do you understand that the "information" is simply the chemical and physical properties?

Are you aware that it is totally irrelevant whether a scientist is secular or religious?

And until you present evidence that actually has something to do with the topic and at a level at least equal to the evidence presented in the OP, Creationism and Intelligent Design will simply remain the laughingstock creations of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:33 AM havoc has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 338 of 377 (608665)
03-12-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:46 AM


havoc writes:

What's more, it is the ONLY option that is available.

Faith statement?

Of course not, fact statement.

Until you present evidence that actually has something to do with the topic and at a level at least equal to the evidence presented in the OP, Creationism and Intelligent Design will simply remain the laughingstock creations of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:46 AM havoc has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 339 of 377 (608667)
03-12-2011 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:43 AM


Re: Design Evidence
Hi havoc,

For future reference, just the one reply to the one message would have been sufficient. You can always edit a message if you feel you wish to add more.

Granny writes:

You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution

havoc writes:

Because you say it does not make it so.

NO, the fact that it is so makes it so. If you would like to discuss some of the evidence for macroevolution, I would be glad to discuss it with you. The current Animals with bad design. touches upon one of the classic pieces of evidence; whale evolution. Or you might like to address the issue in the thread Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???.

The topic of this thread is not the evidence for macroevolution though, it is "What is evidence of design?". I was initially attempting to coax Drevmar into trying to provide with some design evidence, but apparently, he isn't interested. Or hasn't got any. Probably both.

So why do these scientists claim to be Christian?

Because they are Christian. Ken Miller for instance, is a scientist, a vocal advocate of evolution and a devout Catholic. Francis Collins, another scientist and evolutionist, is an evangelical Christian.

You can pretend that Catholics and Evangelicals are not Christian if you like, but it will only serve to make you look like a fool.

By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a “liar for Darwin’s sake”? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old.

For the record, Drevmar's entire response to my post;

Drevmar writes:

Yep, knew all that, thanks.

That kind of reply does not qualify as either discussion or debate.

Initially, Drevmar made a number of claims about his reasons for believing in God. I addressed those reasons and did so quite politely. Drevmar responded with a trite and dismissive one-liner. I regard that as extremely rude and rather pathetic. that's why he got a going over in the next post. I regard that as completely fair.

If Drevmar is unwilling to address criticisms of his posts, then he should not be posting here. Further, if he knew that evidence for macroevolution existed, then he ought not tell lies by denying it. This is not a venue for drive-by proselytising. It is a debate site. If participants can't stand the heat...

Now. Do you have any of that design evidence that I hear is so impressive? Or are you just going to continue whining?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:43 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 12:49 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 359 by Drevmar, posted 03-13-2011 12:11 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 340 of 377 (608668)
03-12-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:20 AM


So are you saying that the nucleotides have an affinity to each other or Condons to each other or the amino acids to each other.

No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the process by which proteins are produced from DNA sequences is entirely a physical/chemical process. There is nothing special about it.

How do you explain that different condons code for the same amino acid?

It's mostly explained by "wobble" in the third base. You realise there are less tRNA types than amino acids, right?

Or in other words it is the code that gives them meaning not chemical properties of the DNA.

I'm very dubious of the notion that DNA has "meaning" outside of our interpretation of it. DNA certainly encodes proteins and when interacting with the correct cellular setup will produce proteins but does that mean it has "meaning"? I'm not so sure. And, if it does, that meaning is certainly not something extra on top of the physical interactions that needs explaining.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:20 AM havoc has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 341 of 377 (608669)
03-12-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:43 AM


Re: Design Evidence
havoc writes:

So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian?

You cannot possibly be this obtuse.

Perhaps, like me, they are Christians because despite not subscribing to your particular interpretation of Genesis, they consider Jesus Christ their personal Lord and savior and try to live according to his teachings?

I agree with you that calling people liars because of their sincerely held beliefs is foolish, but apparently you're not above posting similar foolishness yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:43 AM havoc has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 488 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 342 of 377 (608670)
03-12-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:33 AM


havoc writes:

Are you aware that many (most) secular scientists think that genetics is best understood in the terms of information?

Funny that in all the time I've spent studying and reading books on genetics; the only time I've come across anyone saying anything of the sort is when talking to Creationists.

I assure you, while Information Theory - which is categorically not the same thing as the layman's idea of what information is - is relevant to some areas of genetics, it is not viewed by scientists as the best was to understand genetics. Or, if it is, they're doing a damn good job of hiding it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:33 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Wounded King, posted 03-12-2011 1:27 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 32019
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 343 of 377 (608671)
03-12-2011 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by havoc
03-12-2011 11:43 AM


Re: Design Evidence
havoc writes:

And you knew that there were countless Christian scientists who support evolution? But you still wrote as if scientists were all godless infidels? That, again, would make you a pathetic and disgusting liar. I guess that's what you must be. A liar for Jesus. Another one. Because Jesus loved liars.

So why do these scientists claim to be Christian? By your definition they don’t believe half the bible why do you consider them Christian? Or are you misleading people with your description here. Would that make you a “liar for Darwin’s sake”? Attacking people like this does not bolster your argument. Quite the contrary, it makes you sound like a 5 year old.

Almost all of the recognized major Christian sects have no problems with either the fact of Evolution or the Theory of Evolution.

This is not a secular vs religious issue except when some (usually a minor Christian) sect make it an issue.

Of course, that also is totally unrelated to the topic of this thread.

We are still waiting for some supporter of Special Creation or Intelligent Design to present evidence in support of their assertions comparable to the level of evidence presented in support of the examples in the OP.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 11:43 AM havoc has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by AdminPD, posted 03-12-2011 1:32 PM jar has not yet responded

havoc
Member (Idle past 3137 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 344 of 377 (608672)
03-12-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Granny Magda
03-12-2011 12:27 PM


Re: Design Evidence
Now. Do you have any of that design evidence that I hear is so impressive? Or are you just going to continue whining?

How about you backing up any of your assertions instead of whining and crying about this and that. See how sophisticated we sound. Your method of debate is most commonly found in a person who realizes there argument is week.

The whole he was rude first argument is quite juvenile.
Maybe the glove fits.

It is funny how you lecture me about topic integrity when all I did was comment on your topics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 12:27 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Granny Magda, posted 03-12-2011 1:16 PM havoc has not yet responded
 Message 346 by Son, posted 03-12-2011 1:26 PM havoc has not yet responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 345 of 377 (608674)
03-12-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by havoc
03-12-2011 12:49 PM


Re: Design Evidence
How about you backing up any of your assertions instead of whining and crying about this and that.

I've told you already; I am more than happy to discuss any problems you have with macroevolution in the proper threads.
I even provided you with a couple of links.

Beyond that I don't see what more there is to say.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by havoc, posted 03-12-2011 12:49 PM havoc has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020