A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

That is stretching interpretation and does not answer the question. The correct answer is, Christ did not make the claim you assert.

Christ made the claims to be Lord of everyone and everything, and Adam's judge. How could He judge Adam without true knowledge of Adam?

 

[gnostic]

Christ made the claims to be Lord of everyone and everything, and Adam's judge. How could He judge Adam without true knowledge of Adam?

You are making things up again, BB.

 

[tas8831]

You are unfamiliar with OT hierophany claims? Adam is referenced in multiple passages as is Adam/Christ typeology: Romans 1, 5, 8, 1 Cor 15, Phil 2 & 3, etc. Jude regards Adam as THE first man (verse 14), Luke calls Adam "Son of God" (3:38, echoing Jesus as beloved son in 3:22). 1 Timothy explores teaching roles as dependent on a literal Adam and Eve.

Jesus said He personally knew some of the patriarchs. Jesus also said, "No one has seen the Father!" so who walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden? Jesus also built a bedrock of marriage teaching as a man, a woman and God--Adam and Eve wed by God in the Garden.

Whether our doctrines are literalist or more subjective, we should hold to doctrines that are fully evidenced in scripture.

Thank you.

You are a professor at a bible college, then?

 

[tas8831]

Ah, so THIS is the 'margin of error' the non-scientist was yammering about..I didn't see the connection before because it is so stupid..

So, if your claim that chimps and humans are only 2% different were true, then the same test used in a court of law could be used with only a 2% margin of error.....

This genius equates the 2% difference between chimps and humans (wherever that came from) to a 2% margin of error...

Which can really only mean.... the genius thinks that humans and chimps should be 100% identical, and that phylogenetics methods are not accurate enough to show this?

I can't tell what this dupe actually thinks half the time because he writes like a 4th grader when it comes to evolution. On par with his level of understanding, I suppose...

'Genetic strand'... LOL!

 

[tas8831]

Can you produce one of the organic polymer precursers poofed by Yahweh from dust of the ground? Surely you can provide one example of the billions needed.

Hello? No evidence for creation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are making things up again, BB.

And here I thought you read the Bible in the past! You are unaware that Jesus claims to be the Judge of All? Really?!

 

[tas8831]

Yah we know, people and apes just came from the same missing common ancestor according to evolutionists and that there is no evidence of it existing. But yet you still believe.....

Not sure about you, but doesn't even your evolutionary tree predict less and less and less as one goes backwards? Ahhh, so you can believe in one lifeform coming from dust evolving into billions, but we can't believe in at least two branching out to what we see for every Kind?

At least we are being logical and only asking that you accept two for each Kind mixing genomes to create variety within the Kind. While you ask that cloning produce all the different kinds........

Where did Asian and African and Nordic and Inuuit and Aborigine come from in the first place?

 

[Bear Wild]

And here I thought you read the Bible in the past! You are unaware that Jesus claims to be the Judge of All? Really?!

So what does this have to do with intelligent design? Are you proposing that Jesus is the intelligent designer since he is the Judge of all?

 

[tas8831]

Dude? Waiting for your keen analytical skills to tell us all about it!

Oh it’s not, you got other random matching algorithms that are just as pseudoscientific.

Really? Tell us all about them. Pick 3 - explain to us what in these phylogeny programs use "random matching algorithms".

Try these first:

https://www.geneious.com/academic/#1545182810291-c00b8530-87f6
Alignment and Tree Building
Perform pairwise and multiple alignments using trusted algorithms, including MAFFT and ClustalW. View and edit alignments with real-time translation and highlighting.
Build phylogenetic trees using peer-reviewed algorithms, including RAxML and PAUP*.​

​

 

[tas8831]

Which reminds me - one of your strawman refrains is this bit about how the appendix is needed for survival.

Yet not all mammals have one.

Please explain, without using god-did-it magic, how it is that so many creatures apparently do not need an appendix for survival.

And he never did (apologies for the thread resurrection).

 

[Tiberius]

People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.

The theory of ID is based on 2 premises

1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”

2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)


The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:

1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters

2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences

3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.

Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”


The argument is that life is specified and complex

even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”


*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.


In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.

I have not read through all 120+ pages of this thread, but I'll post a thought on the OP...

Intelligent design fails as specified complexity because it fails at point 3. There is a force that can arrange the DNA building blocks into the pattern we find them in today. It's called evolution.

 

[leroy]

I have not read through all 120+ pages of this thread, but I'll post a thought on the OP...

Intelligent design fails as specified complexity because it fails at point 3. There is a force that can arrange the DNA building blocks into the pattern we find them in today. It's called evolution.

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

And you are back to a God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dude? Waiting for your keen analytical skills to tell us all about it!

Really? Tell us all about them. Pick 3 - explain to us what in these phylogeny programs use "random matching algorithms".

Try these first:

Geneious Prime | Molecular Biology and Sequence Analysis Software
Alignment and Tree Building
Perform pairwise and multiple alignments using trusted algorithms, including MAFFT and ClustalW. View and edit alignments with real-time translation and highlighting.
Build phylogenetic trees using peer-reviewed algorithms, including RAxML and PAUP*.​

These algorithms are used as tools in many aspects of 'research' and do not indicate that the processes of abiogenesis and evolution are random.

 

[Valjean]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

These are two different disciplines. If you want evidence of evolution, Google "evolution." If you want evidence of abiogenesis, Google that.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

yes. The origin of life is an interesting and important problem. But it isn't relevant for whether evolution is true or not. So let's stay on topic, shall we?

 

[tas8831]

Wrong, even if evolution where true and successful in producing CSI you would still have to deal with the origin of life, (the origin of the first organic thing that can reproduce)

Isn't that a problem for ID advocates, too?

Merely positing God-magic is not really an explanation. It is a cop -out.

 

[leroy]

And you are back to a God of the Gaps fallacy.

It is not a God of the Gaps,

it is an appeal to the best explanation based on the scientific evidence that we have to date, but if you have a better explanation for the origin of life feel to share it, and explain why is that explanation better than design

 

[leroy]

yes. The origin of life is an interesting and important problem. But it isn't relevant for whether evolution is true or not. So let's stay on topic, shall we?

well isen´t the topic "inteligent design"?

 

[leroy]

Isn't that a problem for ID advocates, too?

Merely positing God-magic is not really an explanation. It is a cop -out.

ID proponents propose a positive case for intelligent design composed of 2 simple, testable and falsifiable steps

1 find an objective method that would allow us to detect design (even if there is no prior evidence for the designer)

2 Apply that method to life, and see if life was designed

ID proponents like Dembski have provided both steps, and concluded that life was a product of design, feel free to expose his failures.

in the context of the origin of life:
Do you have a positive, testable and falsifiable case for naturalism? would you share it?