A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Let me just say that I do not want you to be dishonest. It could be that you are zealous in your faith to the point that you move out of verifiable facts and into unsupported claims without realizing it along with other habits that can be misconstrued as tactics. I must be honest and tell you that I have seen similar actions taken by others that was clearly willful ignorance and deceit. Having been the brunt of that sort of activity for nearly 20 years on the internet, I am alert to it, but I am open to the possibilities.

The way I look at it, I have little to lose, since I am choosing to be honest in my responses to the best of my ability and maintaining a level of review of my own conduct. I recognize that I can get rather sharp when I am telling someone something and providing support and they continually ask me the same question or sort of question that I have answered, over and over. Part of that is my lack of patience with people running games.

I must not consider you too badly, since I continue to talk with you. I do not know if that is any small comfort. I have already identified others that I see little value in talking to at all.

If you honestly want to learn what the opinion of people practicing science is, I would be glad to tell you what I know and what I think. If you are playing a game, I will tell you anyway, but the conversation will cease shortly after that.

THANK YOU.

In addition to honesty, I seek love, when communicating, with Christians and non-Christians alike. The Bible reminds us that perfect love drives out fear--yet lately, your remarks to me are as if academia should fear assaults by creationists on evolution! I'm not afraid of the Moon hoax crowd or Flat Earthers, but I do know how to care for them. And, like you, I am zealous against Internet trolls. We don't need more Flat Earthers or Holocaust deniers out there, but intelligent people see through them, and God's children see through everyone, even themselves at times.

I'm not running a game, I do SINCERELY appreciate your catching yourself and as you wrote, "reviewing your own conduct". I try to do the same!

I need no dishonest tactics of any kind. I find rather:

* God is able, and He loves to tell us both the truth!
* I note a reluctance from my evolutionist friends to answer a few questions, most they DO answer!

For example, my gedanken was "I assumed in my ignorance the cecal appendix evolved once, scholars think it may have been 30-40 times, can someone tell me the likelihood/unlikelihood of this incredible (to me) occurrence."

More specifically, I hear "Evolution has guiding principles we understand. For an analogy, a ball tossed in the air is unlikely to strike the ground, until you see it shall strike the ground based on gravity, a guiding force/principle." In other words, Evolution works beautifully, powerfully, without ID or special Creation, because it has laws and principles at work (even though many of them, like abiogenesis principles, are yet fully unknown).

So, why can no one on this forum except me even attempt to run numbers? The study looked at 500 lines, saw appendixes evolving 30-40 times. I was told growing up that evolution had miraculous power, power that could overcome chirality, thermodynamics, negative mutations, an Earth that changed its atmosphere and temperature and stability across many epochs.

Organic life is far more sophisticated than our modern technology. I think man could create organic life in billions of years, I don't think mechanistic action can create life without ID. Now, incredulity is no argument, after all, I believe in resurrection and crucifixion that saved my immortal soul, however...

 

[tas8831]

Now that billiards is back, hoping to see some follow-up on issues left dangling, in no particular order:

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design

A simple case for intelligent design


And especially this one -

A simple case for intelligent design

Thanks, bro!

 

[tas8831]

For example, my gedanken was "I assumed in my ignorance the cecal appendix evolved once, scholars think it may have been 30-40 times, can someone tell me the likelihood/unlikelihood of this incredible (to me) occurrence."

Why did you ask for the likelihood/unlikelihood?

Do you think if you can show that this is statistically unlikely that, what - Creation must be true? Evolution must be false?

More specifically, I hear "Evolution has guiding principles we understand. For an analogy, a ball tossed in the air is unlikely to strike the ground, until you see it shall strike the ground based on gravity, a guiding force/principle." In other words, Evolution works beautifully, powerfully, without ID or special Creation, because it has laws and principles at work (even though many of them, like abiogenesis principles, are yet fully unknown).

Where did you hear that evolution is at all like that analogy? Why conflate abiogenesis with evolution? Surely, having studied all this for so long you must know that they are two separate issues? Do you also conflate Germ Theory with abiogenesis?

So, why can no one on this forum except me even attempt to run numbers? The study looked at 500 lines, saw appendixes evolving 30-40 times. I was told growing up that evolution had miraculous power, power that could overcome chirality, thermodynamics, negative mutations, an Earth that changed its atmosphere and temperature and stability across many epochs.

Why would evolution have to overcome chirality? You seem to either be making things up, or not to have studied all this like you imply you have.
How did Jehovah overcome chirality and thermodynamics? I think I will use that argument from now on.

Organic life is far more sophisticated than our modern technology. I think man could create organic life in billions of years, I don't think mechanistic action can create life without ID. Now, incredulity is no argument, after all, I believe in resurrection and crucifixion that saved my immortal soul, however...

However what?

Can I conflate Hinduism and Christianity and argue against Creation by scoffing at the odds that a 50-foot tall blue guy was really a god?

 

[tas8831]

What is a Half-formed wing? Maybe this?

Not at all. I disagree with their conclusions - it looks more like, given what THEY present, that it is an atavism in those creatures currently possessing it.

Another ignored post.

 

[tas8831]

And if we removed faith from your post, we'd see why it's hard to talk to you. Of course, you haven't claimed you want to learn anything, and instead of reading my post you labeled in GIGO.

To read this, one would think that I simply ignored what you wrote and just wrote "GIGO!". In reality, I EXPLAINED my position - but you tend not to reply to most of other folks' posts, especially when doing so would require you to deal with your claims made in ignorance:

GARBAGE IN:

X includes (positive and negative):

*Beneficial mutations, no harmful ones, create a vestigial appendix​

Why do creationists do this? WHY 'no harmful mutations'?

Is it your learned and open-minded position that the existence of a harmful mutation anywhere in the gene(s) associated with the appendix nullify the beneficial mutations?

If so, please explain - with references - how this was determined.

Also let us know how many beneficial mutations (with, of course, no bad ones) were required to get a bit of cecum to expand into an appendix, and how this was determined.

After all, if you cannot provide your numbers and JUSTIFY them, why take you seriously?

*Colocated systems work with the cecal appendix​

Please explain the anatomy of the appendix and the cecum, and explain what structures must have also been altered to get the appendix.

Is it your understanding that, say, the cecum also has to be mutated in order to allow the appendix to be present?

*Evolution is powerful, and clearly includes rapid speciation
*Systems evolve to trigger release of appendix bacteria as appropriate
*Etc.​

Please establish that there must be a 'system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix - which you have indicated are now a liquid.


GARBAGE OUT:

Let's go with your side, and make X less than 1, much less than 1, a certainty!

Odds of 32 different iterations: 1:10,000,000

Now, we need only 10,000,000 planets in the universe with seafloor vents during their Hadean periods to spring abiogenesis (a mathematical certainty, I'll say, for those planets) and we got it right 32 times. Certainly if we push aside Fermi's paradox, Great Filter issues, Earthocentric issues, it works.

It's still unlikely it happened on Earth.

While I can cite other issues I have when I think about evolution, I can say from a more informed place--since you obliged me by challenging my assumptions and blinders, that I'm still on track.​

And there we have, a great example of GIGO.



Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors

"No correlation was found between appearance of an appendix and evolutionary changes in diet, fermentation strategy, coprophagia, social group size, activity pattern, cecal shape, or colonic separation mechanism."
"Keith's ideas were supported by numerous others in the following decades (Barker et al., 1988, Boroda, 1961, Bremner, 1964, Burkitt, 1969, Burkitt, 1971, Gelfand, 1956, Janssens and de Muynck, 1966, Scott, 1980, Trowell, 1960, Walker et al., 1973), culminating with the identification of the vermiform appendix as a “safe-house” for beneficial bacteria with the capacity to re-inoculate the gut following depletion of the normal flora after diarrheal illness (Bollinger et al., 2007, Laurin et al., 2011)."

I checked several of this paper's cites, and none indicated what you are implying ('system' to "release" bacteria from the appendix).


Again, I see no actual math, just a series of largely bogus assertions, culminating in a reiteration of your initial assertions.​

See? I EXPLAINED why I considered your 'inputs' garbage. Why did you ignore that? Why did you omit that from your reply? Easier for you to engage in denial? Easier to make your 'argument' if you ignore what was written?

I cited the ability of the magic known as natural selection et al to INCREASE the odds of beneficial mutation by not less than -1^16!

Natural selection has nothing to do with mutations.
Do you really know so little about that which you reject? Does it make it easier for you to reject it?

I am going overseas for two weeks, I hope you will calm down enough to read my posts before replying, when I return. If not, tell me where you teach, and I'll see if I can afford the expenses to debate you at a forum at your institution.

No thanks - public debates are what people that cannot do science rely on to woo the underinformed. I prefer exposing your failures in writing and preserving the results.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which article addressed the statistical likelihood/unlikelihood of an organ system evolving 30-40 separate times, rather than once, through an ancient line of descent?

It was not an organ evolving 30 to 40 times. It was a simple feature of an organ developing. Your articles answered your questions for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interestingly, I cannot find anything new or sophisticated (or clear) in your understanding of scripture--yet you constantly attack the Bible. Why?

What are you talking about? Why would I need something "new"? It is quite obvious that literalists have a worse understanding of scripture than those that realize that the Bible is largely a book of myths. One can't understand the Bible if one insists that it is true. One only ends up contradicting oneself. For example when one denies that there are failed prophecies when the Bible only has failed prophecies in it. That a God that advocates genocide and slavery is a "god of love'.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean by "learn"? I'm not a PhD in the field.

If you're truly interested in evolutionary biology (and you seem to be, since it appears you like debating it), I would suggest you take some time and read through a few science-based websites and then some books specifically written for laypeople, and then after that if you were still intrigued, browsing through a few journal articles on some specific sub-topics that pique your interest.

I most certainly would not rely on creationist sources for your info on evolutionary biology. After all, you wouldn't rely on Richard Dawkins for your info on the Bible, would you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I said, "I can think of reasons why God would create X but do not know for sure," would you continue to criticize me for attempting to think?

What I'd like is to discuss is actual evidence.

 

[Audie]

What are you talking about? Why would I need something "new"? It is quite obvious that literalists have a worse understanding of scripture than those that realize that the Bible is largely a book of myths. One can't understand the Bible if one insists that it is true. One only ends up contradicting oneself. For example when one denies that there are failed prophecies when the Bible only has failed prophecies in it. That a God that advocates genocide and slavery is a "god of love'.

Are you attacking the bible?

 

[ecco]

On what basis did you determine:

1) What eternity is like

I didn't determine what "eternity is like". I just accept common usage dictionary definitions...

e·ter·ni·ty
Dictionary result for eternity
/əˈtərnədē/
noun
infinite or unending time.​

2) Why I (not you!) will get bored of learning, eating, making love, etc.

Because with "unending time" you will be able to eat a bacon cheesburger with one slice of bacon an uncountable number of times; you will be able to eat a bacon cheesburger with two slices of bacon an uncountable number of times; you will be able to eat...need I go on? With unending time you will get bored to the point of insanity.

3) Why an omnipotent God cannot do something (alleviate boredom, which He does constantly now, in my Christian walk)

??

You are really trying to compare your Christian walks with unending time? But, maybe you are right. Maybe you would finding eating a cheesburger with one and one half slices of bacon something new an exiting - Yipee!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you attacking the bible?

Is stating the obvious "attacking"? If so yes.

 

[Audie]

Is stating the obvious "attacking"? If so yes.

I dont think you, or I ever attack the bible.

Actually, I think I have considerably more appreciation
for it than any fundy does, for the simple reason that
I try to appreciate it for what it is, not how I can warp
it to my own purposes.

I kinda think you are the same, in that.

 

[JChnsc19]

We determine design by contrasting design with nature. Where did you find an undesigned Earth to use for your comparison?

 

[Audie]

We determine design by contrasting design with nature. Where did you find an undesigned Earth to use for your comparison?

Well that is a smackdown arguement!

I reckon you have proved god, and all that's to
do now is abandon atheism, science, and, pick a
church. Great work!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never seen a paper in a creation science journal or on a creation website that sought to test:

1. how silicates were transformed into bio-organic compounds
2. why the geologic column is not universal
3. how sin causes mutation
4. why the fossil record has no modern fossils in undisturbed strata with long-extinct creatures
5. etc.

1. I will demonstrate how God turned silicates into bio-organic compounds as soon as we see science, on the case for a century now, demonstrates a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis! (PS. Why are we discussing whether the prime mover of the universe can synthesize compounds?)
2. You've never seen a paper showing the geologic column is not always oldest at bottom, newest at top? There are plenty from non-Creationists on this matter!
3. Sin causes genetic mutation? Is that in the Bible?!
4. You've never read a paper or article describing how fossils were formed and laid in strata during catastrophic epochs on a Creationist site? Do you read Creationist sites?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you still have a pre-formed conclusion NOW. You aren't operating from a genuinely Socratic position, because you are already arguing from the position that evolution is "just so stories".


Evolution.


Meaningless, since evolutionary change isn't driven by chance or probability but by myriad environmental and genetic influences.



Except it's not a problem with anything except your question. Your question betrays a fundamental presumption that evolution is driven by chance and probability, which it isn't.

***
From a "state of ignorance" -- how did the proto-cecal appendix separately evolve 30-40 times, rather than in one line of descent?
Evolution.

I see, EvolutionDidIt. Can I please converse with people who provide facts, not just so stories, PLEASE?

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. I will demonstrate how God turned silicates into bio-organic compounds as soon as we see science, on the case for a century now, demonstrates a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of abiogenesis! (PS. Why are we discussing whether the prime mover of the universe can synthesize compounds?)
2. You've never seen a paper showing the geologic column is not always oldest at bottom, newest at top? There are plenty from non-Creationists on this matter!
3. Sin causes genetic mutation? Is that in the Bible?!
4. You've never read a paper or article describing how fossils were formed and laid in strata during catastrophic epochs on a Creationist site? Do you read Creationist sites?

Because "God did it" isn't an explanation.
Some people are actually interested in investigating how things in our world operate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It was not an organ evolving 30 to 40 times. It was a simple feature of an organ developing. Your articles answered your questions for you.

Is a cecal appendix's functions as simple, say, as my liver, which has over 500 known bodily functions?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What are you talking about? Why would I need something "new"? It is quite obvious that literalists have a worse understanding of scripture than those that realize that the Bible is largely a book of myths. One can't understand the Bible if one insists that it is true. One only ends up contradicting oneself. For example when one denies that there are failed prophecies when the Bible only has failed prophecies in it. That a God that advocates genocide and slavery is a "god of love'.

The failure is using subjective morality to judge a moral law-giver, one is antecedent to humanity and absolute.