A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

What do you mean NEW information?

Please be specific in not only your definition of "NEW information", but also explain why it is needed.

How do you know?

A trait "blue eyes" that is recessive or expressed does not cross families, like limbs to wings or gills or lungs.

 

[gnostic]

1 evolution is controvertial in science

But it isn’t controversial, since the number of biologists, include those of atheistic or theistic backgrounds, far exceed those who followed the ID route, that life being “designed”, which make the ID being the one that’s controversial.

However, Intelligent Design isn’t even a competing alternative “Scientific Theory”, since it doesn’t meet the requirements of Scientific Method or being peer reviewed. You cannot detect, measure or test the “Designer”.

iD isn’t even a “scientific hypothesis”, because it was never “falsifiable”. And it was never falsifiable, because of the “Designer” was never testable.

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity was also never a scientific theory, nor a scientific hypothesis, for the very same reasons that disqualified Intelligent Design.

Secondly, the only organization that have been actively involved with both Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, is the Discovery Institute that are run by journalists, lawyers and politicians (I have already posted the backgrounds and qualifications of the founders of Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design, back in post 635).

Discovery Institute isn’t a scientific think-tank, but a theological/creation think-tank, that used propaganda, not science.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then how do you explain his unwillingness to admit that all of his claims he has made on irreducible complexity have been thoroughly refuted? He ignores the refutation to his works, that is just like a creationist. Make a ridiculous claim, when shown to be wrong pretend that it never happened.

It's just like you to take one (presumed) case and apply it to all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Whichever tree it was you referred to in post 437. Looking back at this I see you were talking of any old tree, not a tree of life, so my fault for misunderstanding.

But the point remains, there is no need to replicate a phenomenon to formulate a sound scientific theory about it.

Agreed. So, since creation cannot be replicated, tell me what 1) caused the singularity to expand after Planck time 2) created the matter and energy we see despite the Law of Conservation of same.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it is not. it is derived from the other physical principles.

And, like I said, the second law *can* be violated in systems with a small number of particles. This has been observed.

The second law is a *statistical* law: it deals with how large numbers of objects are likely to act.

How likely, would you say? Can you name anything on Earth in recorded history, for example, that without outside input, reversed from entropy?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Duplication of genes with subsequent mutations *does* increase total information.

What percentage of such mutations are proven beneficial/enhance survivability/help species cross families/have been shown to make species A reproduce in a different family kind for generation B?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is simply being silly. Nobody thinks like that and you should know it.

What is happening instead is that people (creationists) attempt to distort science in any way they can to *force* it to be consistent with the Bible. Doing so frequently produces outlandish suggestions (like a water canopy around the universe) that no serious scientist would ever consider a reasonable hypothesis. The dislike is towards the horrible distortions of science done in the efforts to force Biblical literalness.

In point of fact, I see the Bible as one of many useful sources to understand what people believed in the past. It has some good historical information, some horribly wrong historical information, and a lot of propaganda for one small group of people. it really isn't any more worth of 'hate' than Livy's history of Rome.

Why would no "serious scientist" (I note again you are using either hate or ad homs for all creation scientists here) consider an explanation for something outside the visible universe?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What's this obsession with,"new information?" What, exactly, is new information, and why would evolution need it? I smell a creationist talking point...
D.o.g, --- G.o-d. Nothing new, just a rearrangement of 'letters'.

No problem,

Explain how a species gives birth to a species in an entirely different family without new DNA information being present:

>>>> <<<<<

 

[Jose Fly]

Explain how a species gives birth to a species in an entirely different family without new DNA information being present

That's absolutely hilarious. All the time you've spent here debating and discussing evolution and you clearly haven't picked up hardly anything.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In this case "Statistical probability" means nothing more than "cherry picking to get the results I want."

Sorry but it's true.

I didn't cherry pick the facts of Israel's existence, its prophesied return as a Jewish nation, or the hundreds of prophecies Jesus fulfilled in His first advent.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am going to answer what I highlighted in bold, first.

That’s not how hypotheses are formulated.

Before you begin writing a hypothesis, you always start with some initial observation of phenomena, first. Always, this come first, regardless of what happened next.

The initial observations, is like preliminary testing, that start with viewing a specific phenomena.

The next step, scientists asking the questions, like (A) WHAT is this (observed) phenomena is, followed by the next question of (B) HOW does this phenomena work. Those questions provide the starting point of investigation of how scientists would answer these questions, and provide the the first idea or concept of what the concept is and how it work.

These two basic questions on WHAT and HOW, plus that initial observation that start off the questioning, is what start off the first step of SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is the FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION.

The formulation of question is important first step (in the scientific method), before they even started the next step to formulate the hypothesis.

To give you a real life example, a historical example: Albert Einstein and the dual nature of light - known as Photoelectric Effect (1905).

Einstein didn’t just write up the his hypothesis only from his “genius” brain, starting from nothing. Two things started off his hypothesis.

The first is that his hypothesis was building on knowledge of older discovery and older knowledge regarding to light (eg Heinrich Hertz’s discovering how spark can easily be made from ultraviolet light coming from electrode, and Maxwell Planck’s 1900 study of light being a packet of energy).

The second, come from his own observation of how light exhibited energy that have wave and particle properties, and that energy in light is carried in discrete quantized packets.

When he wrote and published this hypothesis on Photoelectric Effect in 1905, along with his hypothesis on Special Relativity, he and Planck (1900) have both started off Quantum Mechanics.

My point in this example, is that Einstein didn’t just conceive his hypothesis just “mentally”. His hypothesis started off with his own observations and build from existing theories or hypotheses before his own hypothesis.

Newton did the same things with gravity and law of motion. The idea first come from some initial observations and asking some basic questions, before he started with writing up his hypothesis.

And it was the same with Charles Darwin and his natural selection (started off with his voyage in 1830s, before he published his hypothesis on evolution, On Origin Of Species in 1859).

And it were the same for Friedmann, Robertson and Lemaître, who each independently used Einstein’s General Relativity to form the framework for the expanding universe during 1920s (better known as the Big Bang theory), but they started off only because of Edwin Hubble’s discovery in 1919, that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies in the universe. Before Hubble in 1919, all astronomers thought the Milky Way was the entire universe. Lemaître, Friedmann and Robertson both asked the questions of the how universe as they know it back then, HOW did universe all started.

The next stage (in Scientific Method) after “Formulation of the Question”, is the FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS, which is attempt to answer those questions, with more detailed explanations, with possibly some mathematical statements and with predictions.

Your producing hypothesis from just mental process, is not how most hypotheses started off. It always started off with some initial but actual observations first, and then asking questions.

That’s all I want to say for now.

I was reading the Bible some years ago, and observed this data:

1) The Bible kept saying "Watch as I, God, predict the future, showing my power and character."

2) I hypothesized that God would have to indeed fulfill prophecy to show prescience accurately.

3) I research outside the Bible and learned the Bible made hundreds, even thousands, of specific, successful prophecies.

I drew a conclusion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but just because some cities mentioned in the Bible, doesn’t mean they are true, because Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, regarding to the Trojan War, had also described many cities that existed, some that were in Bronze Age, but much of existed contemporary to the author(s).

Simply naming some cities and kingdoms, are not good enough for archaeology.

In the Old Testament, some are correct, in which we can verified archaeologically, eg Hezekiah's Tunnel that served as the aqueduct for Jerusalem is a physical and archaeological evidence and have been conclusively dated to the late 7th century BCE, so that part of the Bible is correct. The part about the Assyrian waging war against Judah (and Israel) by Sennacherib, has also been confirmed independent Assyrian records in Sennacherib's time.

In another example, of Israel and Aram besieging Jerusalem, with Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser coming to Ahaz's aid, and receiving tributes from Ahaz, also in Assyrian independent records.

But in many cases, there are no confirmation to OT from archaeology, or it is fictional.

For instances, there are no archaeological evidences of Solomon's Temple, nothing (of such building) dated to the 10th century BCE, the supposed reign of Solomon. According to 1 Kings, Solomon was so wealthy, it was legendary, and yet we have not a single gold or silver coin minted in Solomon's time, with Solomon's name.

There are more historical and archaeological evidences for Ahaz and Hezekiah than there are for Solomon and David, which are nonexistent. And unlike Ahaz and Hezekiah, there are no independent historical records from contemporary kingdoms to that of David and Solomon.

Likewise, in Exodus 1, where it stated the Egyptian kings forced the descendants of Jacob into slavery and having the built Ramesses and Pithom. According to 1 Kings 6:1, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign (967 BCE), 480 years have passed, since Moses led Israelites out of Egypt. But 480 years would put Exodus at 1447 BCE, and add another 80 years for Moses' birth 1527 BCE. 1527 BCE would put the date to Ahmose I's reign, the founder of the 18th dynasty.

Sorry, but Ramesses II was the one who had it built and named after him, as Pi-Ramesses, literally meaning "House of Ramesses". Ramesses II was the 3rd king of the 19th century, reigning from 1279 to 1213 BCE.

Your Exodus 1 and 1 Kings 6 is historically and archaeologically incorrect. Pi-Ramesses didn't exist in Ahmose's time.

A couple more examples including Egypt/Mizraim and Uruk/Erech (said to be built by Nimrod), both mentioned in Genesis 10, which according to the author, they didn't exist until after the Flood. Both untrue and just simply wrong.

Egyptian culture existed as far back the 4th millennium BCE. Egyptian hieroglyphs started around 3100 BCE. And in mid-3rd millennium BCE, the pyramids of Giza were built. They are the largest pyramids, but not the oldest. All these dates, predated the supposed Flood of circa 2350 BCE.

One of the big problems with Genesis and Exodus, it mentioned no names of the other players, like the kings of Egypt. You say the Bible is reliable and verifiable, but how can you possibly verify anything with the names of kings from Egypt?

While Uruk was a thriving city during much of the 4th millennium BCE (which modern historians and archaeologists called the "Uruk Period"), predating the Sumerian civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. But older settlements at Uruk, clearly indicated the earliest dating as far back as 5000 BCE.

Here, in Genesis 10, we do have a name, a single name, Nimrod, but the only problem is that there are no record of Nimrod in Mesopotamian literature, not in Sumerian, not Akkadian and not in Old Babylonian. Nimrod supposedly had Babylon and Accad (or Akkad) built, but the only names I could find is that of Sargon I (or Sargon the Great), in association with Akkad (or the Biblical Accad), the founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire. The empire lasted only 100 years, but it brought forth the Akkadian literature, in a Semitic language. I don't think Nimord is Sargon.

As you can see, Genesis and Exodus don't match with actual archaeology. The problem with the Old Testament is that as far as archaeology is concerned, it is spotty, full of holes in its claims, and mostly unreliable.

Look them all up, BilliardsBall.

1) Several thousand Bible facts, not just a few, have been verified by archaeology.

2) No archaeology has confirmed late dates for the NT/OT.

3) Many archaeology facts have confirmed early/conservative dates for the NT/OT.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Behe lied to the court, when he stated that his book (Darwin’s Black Box) had been “peer reviewed”.

One of Behe’s alleged reviewer, a biochemist named Professor Atchison, never read his book before it was published, so definitely not peer-reviewed. Atchison did say Behe’s editor did called him regarding to Behe’s manuscript, but no where did atchison claimed he had reviewed and analysed Behe’s work.

Either Behe is lying, or his editor had lied to him. Nonetheless, there were no peer-review on Darwin’s Black Box. And Behe finally admitted that Atchison didn’t read his book in the court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), much less than review as his peer.

In this court case, Behe as the expert witness, had to repeatedly backpedal what he claimed. It is example of how little Behe’s integrity is worth.

Possibly. I read Black Box and the more glaring statements like, "I remain an evolutionist, but one baffled as to how a one-celled animal is more complex than Chicago, Illinois," remains true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who are you trying to say hates the Bible? Please point to the place in the thread where I said that............I don't give a rat's butt about it, but there is no reason to hate a collection of stories.

There aren't two sides. There is science and there is mythology, if that's what you mean.....

Science harmonizes well with the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"I have met people with far more scientific relevance than him" means they have far more relevance than you, not being a scientist like BEHE, so how do you know who is right? Degree comparison?

One can check out the actual work that a scientist has done. What peer reviewed papers has he published. What sources does he use to publish his work. If a scientist avoids well respected professional peer reviewed journals then it is rather clear that his work is not scientific. Behe's very limited work is rejected by all experts in the field. That should tell you something.

Scientists welcome new ideas that work. All Behe had were unsupported claims that were later found to be in error. He based his claims on unsolved problems that were on the cutting edge of science when he came up with "irreducible complexity". One thing that he forgot is that problems on the cutting edge of science are usually there because they are in the process of being solved. All of his examples were solved relatively shortly after he came up with them. That is why no one takes the man seriously in the world of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science harmonizes well with the Bible.

Really? A worldwide flood that would have left mountains of evidence and left none is an example of science harmonizing with the Bible? The sciences tell us that three was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's just like you to take one (presumed) case and apply it to all.

I didn't. I know of more than one, how many bogus claims did Behe make? If he made more after his original failed claims that hardly counts. There will always be problems that are unanswered at one point in time. His tendency to make failed arguments and not own up to his failures alone disqualify the man.

 

[gnostic]

No problem,

Explain how a species gives birth to a species in an entirely different family without new DNA information being present:

>>>> <<<<<

Again, you demonstrated your complete ignorance, because no evolutionary mechanisms, state that any one species can “give birth” to a species of another family.

You are also forgetting that evolution works through populations, not a single line between parents and offspring.

What can occur is a scenario of parents of two subspecies of the same genus and species (therefore of the same family) can give birth to another subspecies, but it would still be of the same species, genus and family.

This has already being observed with a horse and donkey producing mule. Of course, that make most mules often infertile. That’s mainly due different numbers of chromosomes in the mare (horse) and the male donkey.

But different subspecies don’t necessarily equal to infertile offspring. For instance different breeds of purebred dogs can produce fertile mongrel offspring.

Another example is the polar bears being “sister species” to brown bears. So when they do meet in the warmer period, it is possible for polar bear to mate with the brown bear to produce a grizzly polar bear offspring, and that offspring won’t be infertile. They don’t often crossbreed, but it can happen, and have already being observed.

 

[exchemist]

Agreed. So, since creation cannot be replicated, tell me what 1) caused the singularity to expand after Planck time 2) created the matter and energy we see despite the Law of Conservation of same.

I'm not a cosmologist, but my understanding is we don't know and we don't have a theory of it underpinned by any observation, just speculative hypotheses. In other words, this stuff right back at the very start of the Big Bang is on a par with abiogenesis: we don't know and we don't have a proper theory.

We do have evidence of the Big Bang however, in the shape of measured universal expansion, the CMBR and so on. So the Big Bang as such is a proper theory.

Such gaps are quite normal for science. Science never claims to have an all-encompassing account of everything. In this respect it is less ambitious in its aims than many religions.

 

[Polymath257]

How likely, would you say? Can you name anything on Earth in recorded history, for example, that without outside input, reversed from entropy?

Entropy fluctuation probabilities depend on system sizes. So, with systems involving less than 10 atoms, it is quite likely that you will get entropy reversal. For systems that are 1000 atoms or more, it is quite unlikely.

Once again, the second law is a statistical law and not a fundamental one. it is an average of what happens for systms with large numbers of particles close to equilibrium. For systems far from equilibrium, it is difficult even to *define* entropy.