Biased accounts of intelligent design

Yes I know that was your point but it's just a false assumption that there should be a greater difference between chimp and human bones. Why should there be?

Again, it is an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development of all species on earth, evidence that confirms rather than conflicts with the hereditary relationships developed from taxonomy based on morphology (Linnaeus was "the first to include humans (Homo) taxonomically grouped with apes (Simia), under the header of Anthropomorpha").

Closer matches of DNA mean closer relationships, especially when there are high correlations/matches in virus inserted snips of DNA in the same locations in non-coding/neutral DNA segments, segments that are not critical to expressed traits. In other words, snips of DNA that do nothing but that are in the same locations, and the only way logically for this to occur is that they share a common ancestor with this insertion.

We also KNOW this from DNA analysis where the hereditary relationship is known.

There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for human compared to any other species.

There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for chimps compared to gorillas.

There are about the same amount of such inserts common to both gorilla and chimps as there are for gorillas compared to humans.

This pattern -- evidence -- shows that humans and chimps are related and that both evolved from a common ancestor.

... Why should there be?

That is for you to answer if you claim that chimps and humans are NOT related: how did that common DNA pattern occur?

There is nothing in the ID paradigm to say what we should find through science, just that if there is something that science can't explain that alternate explanation/s should be considered. Science has no trouble explaining this close pattern via heredity from common ancestors, ie - evolution.

So as far as this thread is concerned, this is not evidence for design.

Enjoy

First, the Design MUST be without any TECHNICAL evidence. The Creation technology is clearly shown as fetching the good outcome from the Abyss of NATURAL potential outcomes (after adjusting the water properties).

Second, the Design evidence is Nature's overwhelming beauty and goodness, suffering at the corrupt man's hand. That must be quite enough for any true human.

Could you please translate that from gobbledygook to English?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Wow whqat a lot of mere assertion masquerading as science and you accuse ME of that.

Isn't pediatric cancer proof of Poor Design?

Diseases and death are the result of the Fall, not the original Creation.

If Diseases are the result of the Fall, they would not have been able to be cured by Man.

God's mercy has given us many ways to cure diseases despite our sins. He even sent Jesus to give us eternal life. But we still die on on our way there, and we still have plenty of diseases we can't cure.

ABE: Oh and disease and death took a long time to kick in after the Fall, it was a gradually accumulating thing.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Curiously, I almost predicted this response, it's so typical.

Wow whqat a lot of mere assertion masquerading as science and you accuse ME of that.

No Faith, evidence and an evidence based conclusion. I've said before that you don't seem to know what evidence is. Let's review:

Message 76: Closer matches of DNA mean closer relationships, especially when there are high correlations/matches in virus inserted snips of DNA in the same locations in non-coding/neutral DNA segments, segments that are not critical to expressed traits. In other words, snips of DNA that do nothing but that are in the same locations, and the only way logically for this to occur is that they share a common ancestor with this insertion.

This is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): We also KNOW this from DNA analysis where the hereditary relationship is known.

Such as hereditary comparison of humans in a family. Again this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity: when we see this pattern we recognize it as the pattern caused by heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for human compared to any other species.

This too is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): There are more of such inserts common to both chimps and humans than for chimps compared to gorillas.

Again, this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from shared common ancestors.

(ibid): There are about the same amount of such inserts common to both gorilla and chimps as there are for gorillas compared to humans.

And this is actually measured and observed ... it is a scientific FACT, not an assertion. This is evidence of heredity from a common ancestor.

(ibid): This pattern -- evidence -- shows that humans and chimps are related and that both evolved from a common ancestor.

This is an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development from common ancestors and the KNOWN signatures it leaves in DNA.

If you have a better scientific explanation (this IS a science thread) for these FACTS, then please elucidate.

... an evidence based conclusion, based on the preponderance of evidence in the hereditary development ...

Q.E.D.

Wow whqat a lot of mere assertion masquerading as science and you accuse ME of that.

Then provide a fact based conclusion using known evidence to support your position, don't just make non-scientific, rude comments based on ignoring this evidence. You don't and you can't because you don't have the evidence -- FACTS -- to support your assertions.

So prove me wrong and provide something other than bald assertions based on opinion and belief.

Enjoy

Diseases and death are the result of the Fall, not the original Creation.

This is an ID thread not a bible thread. Religious myth is not evidence.

And you didn't answer the question ... why do children get cancer: Is this design?

I don't think so.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

God's mercy has given us many ways to cure diseases despite our sins. He even sent Jesus to give us eternal life. But we still die on on our way there, and we still have plenty of diseases we can't cure. ABE: Oh and disease and death took a long time to kick in after the Fall, it was a gradually accumulating thing.

These bald assertions based on belief in the bible have no place on a science thread and no place on an ID thread.

Enjoy

JonF, your trust in the scientific community is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself.

And in reply one could say your trust in the ID is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself.

However many people have a hard time examining their own arguments, because they are partial to them. The open-minded skeptic will consider any argument as potentially possible, but also be skeptical that it is potentially wrong.

In your first post you said (Message 1):

... An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions.

So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is actually accomplished/activated? By what process is it implemented?

How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.

Enjoy

I believe in non compassionate intelligent design. The proof of intelligent design is the creation of the strings in String Theory and their quantity. The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. The question is why? A philosopher today would need a background in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

I believe in non compassionate intelligent design. ...

This seems logical to me -- at least non compassionate in terms of what was created by the design. My personal taste is god/s as artists rather than engineers (a common take, especially among engineer IDologists).

... The proof of intelligent design is the creation of the strings in String Theory and their quantity. The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ...

Now I wouldn't say "proof" as seems to be an incomplete logic construction. Again my take is that the universe was created by god/s primed for the development of life -- hence all the precursors to organic chemicals throughout space/time. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I), an old (2004) thread of mine. More pre-biotic chemicals have been found in space since then.

... The question is why? A philosopher today would ...

Glad to see you say philosopher, as I think of ID/Deism as more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific, Just as I consider religion more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific (and one that confines itself to certain precepts regardless of their relationship to reality).

... need a background in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

As I say in Is ID properly pursued? (another old thread of mine):

quote:

---

The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.

---

An open-minded skeptic, if you will, willing to consider concepts but reserving skepticism while there is no supporting evidence and no contrary evidence: such concepts are possibilities, but more evidence is needed before forming an opinion.

So tell me, what about string theory in particular that impresses you?

... The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ...

The Drake equation ...

But string theory isn't necessary for this aspect, is it?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

RAZD refers to my “trust in the ID”; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID.

I cannot give an account of how, e.g., the genetic code is implemented once it has been intelligently designed. Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research. Some who read Newton’s Principia correctly inquired how gravity worked; but the scientific community would have been wrong if it had said, “we don’t know how this works, so we’re going to ignore it ( or even assume it’s false).”

( If any of you feels that I am ignoring your posts, it’s just that I do not have time to answer everything.)