A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

We can. So, what's the problem?

He wants a pathway by which RM/S occurred. But I'm betting that he cannot provide the same for ID...

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

The main issue for me is change of family or kind. For example, sea to land or land to sea requires all this and more:

1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system
9) Etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First off, there were no global flood, so Genesis 10 regarding to Egypt/Mizraim and to Uruk/Erech, are historically and archaeologically wrong.

The estimate date of the flood, using the time given in Genesis 5 & 11, Exodus 12 and 1 Kings 6, put the Flood to about 2340 to 2350 BCE mark.

But both Egypt and Uruk predated 2340 BCE. The Egyptians have started building pyramids since the first one (Step Pyramid at Saqqara) for Djoser, a 3rd dynasty founder, whose reign began in early 27th century BCE. Even Khufu’s Pyramid in Giza (4th dynasty) predated the imaginary and mythological Flood of Genesis. And the continued to build pyramids throughout the rest of 4th dynasty, as well as the 5th and 6th dynasties, to the end of Old Kingdom period (2181 BCE).

No, billiardsball. Egypt didn’t just pop into existence after the Flood, like Genesis 10 stated.

My point in regarding to Egypt, is there was no broken line or discontinuity in the Old Kingdom, which would suggest a global flood. Their writings (Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic) and their styles in arts are the same in 3rd dynasty to that of the 20th dynasty. The only time Egyptian culture changed slightly in art, was the brief reign of Akhenaten in the late 18th dynasty (reign mid-14th century BCE).

The Sumer and Akkadian civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE, make no mention of any king by the name Nimrod, a great grandson of Noah. Again, Genesis 10, Nimrod was mentioned as being founder of both Accad (Akkad) and Erech (Uruk).

But according Akkadian texts, including the Sumerian King List, Sargon was the founder of Akkad, not Nimrod. Although Akkad has never been found (location unknown), Sargon’s empire do exist, and Sargon himself exists, historically, whereas Nimrod don’t.

Also, Uruk predated 2340 BCE, by over 1500 years. Like Jericho, Uruk was a city, where younger settlements were successively built over older settlements, in its long history, and the earliest settlement has been dated to around 5000 BCE.

Uruk was a very important city by 4000 BCE, flourishing throughout the 4th millennium BCE, to the mid-3rd millennium BCE. Uruk was in decline by the time of Sargon of Akkad (reign 2334 - 2279 BCE).

According to this date, Sargon would have lived around the estimated time of the Flood. But guess what, Billiardsball, no Flood was ever recorded in Sargon or his successor’s reigns.

Genesis 10 make inaccurate claims.

We can do perhaps one or two points at a time, but why do you believe Sargon and Nimrod are different persons? The Bible was written in Hebrew.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

None of which explains, "But it can't be X, as the Bible perhaps claims, outside of the known universe/before the singularity expanded, darn it, it just can't!"

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I need to rephrase, clearly: The entire universe and all in it at a macro level is plainly subject to entropy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Irrelevant to your original question concerning information increase.

But, to answer your question, the way classification works means that, for example, humans are still mammals, we are still primates, and we are still apes. In the same way, birds are technically a type of dinosaur. So your question betrays a lack of understanding of how biological species are classified: we don't expect species A to change to a different family. What we *do* expect is that descendants of species A will be classified in the same family as A, but will diversify so that they have quite different structures. This is expected to take many generations, though.

So, cats and dogs have a common ancestor which was a carnivore. Both cats and dogs are types of carnivore. There was no change in their designation as carnivores. yet they diversified from the basic carnivore ancestor and acquired new characteristics that differentiate between them.

"So your question betrays a lack of understanding of how biological species are classified: we don't expect species A to change to a different family."

And sea animals become land animals or vice versa, and flying animals/insects become non-flight creatures via...

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that no serious scientist would consider a water layer encompassing the observable universe. Creationists are NOT serious scientists. They are not even technically scientists in their approach.

1) You are continuing to make an ad hom against the physicist who merely used his understanding of the Bible to consider gravitation effects.

2) Every serious scientist is interested in theorizing, gedanken and attempting to find testable hypotheses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, they were very much more relevant than me. I never said otherwise.
Also true - I am not a scientist like Behe, for I have never written a vanity press book in which I distort science in order to prop up my religious beliefs. I am also a scientist unlike Behe for I actually did research in a relevant field (evolution). In fact, unlike Behe, some of my work is cited at the Tree of Life web project site.

See above. I have a graduate degree, and I have published research on evolution.

You?


In the end, I fail to see why your hero-worshipping and unyielding faith in the infallibility of those heroes trumps my actual knowledge of the subject matter.

If that is axiomatically true, based on my own knowledge, you can't tell me anything--ever--about the Bible.

 

[gnostic]

how do we know that they where obviously cut from larger rocks?

How do you think the Egyptian pyramids were constructed?

They were feats of engineering, that began with different type of tomb, known as the mastaba design, possibly originally constructed during the pre-dynastic period, but it certainly were built for 1st and 2nd dynasties rulers of that time.

As I had mentioned earlier. The first pyramid, the Step Pyramid, was constructed as tomb for the first king of the 3rd dynasty, Djoser, around early 27th century BCE. According to semi-history, semi-legend, Djoser's architect/engineer was Imhotep, who designed and supervised the construction of not only the pyramid, but also the mortuary temple of Djoser.

Most people focused on the pyramids, that they often forget the pyramid was only part of the larger complex, such as the mortuary temple, the courtyard, the colonnade, etc.

By the 4th dynasty, the 1st king named Sneferu, built the first true pyramid, in the late 27th century BCE. Archaeologists called this pyramid, the Red Pyramid, which was constructed at Dahuhur.

Sneferu was father to Khufu, whose pyramid at Giza was the largest in history.

I have never been to Egypt, so I haven't seen these pyramids myself, but if you were to look at these pyramids close up, you would see that each block of stone, the shape and cuts were too regular to be natural. Definitely man-made, and they were cut from larger stones at some limestone quarry from other places.

How they actually cut and shape each stone, then shipped them to construction sites, are not known, but engineers have guess how they were done with the tools that they had available at that time. It was obvious that iron were not known, nor use at that time, so tools would be made from bronze and woods..

Everything were man-made construction.

How do you think they were made? Were they made by magic? By Gods? Fairies? Aliens?

 

[tas8831]

The main issue for me is change of family or kind. For example, sea to land or land to sea requires all this and more:

1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system
9) Etc.

Really?

well then please explain the anatomy of a dolphin to us all, and how it has a:
1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system

compared to that of terrestrial mammals.

Since you seem to think you know.

 

[tas8831]

If that is axiomatically true, based on my own knowledge, you can't tell me anything--ever--about the Bible.

Deal - now you stop making ridiculous claims about science.

But seriously, if WHAT is axiomatically true?

This:

"In the end, I fail to see why your hero-worshipping and unyielding faith in the infallibility of those heroes trumps my actual knowledge of the subject matter."

I was obviously referring to your belief that what your hero claimed was true by virtue of your adoration of him, not by your ability to discern whether or not the things Behe claims are true or rooted in fact.

Why was that so difficult for you to get?

 

[gnostic]

We can do perhaps one or two points at a time, but why do you believe Sargon and Nimrod are different persons? The Bible was written in Hebrew.

BilliardsBall, you are not looking at this logically.

Let's say the what the Genesis say is true (hypothetically speaking), that the Flood happened, and Noah and his descendants were real people. And supposed it did happen, the Flood, in 2340 BCE.

Now, except for the Shem's descendants all the way to Abraham in Genesis 11, Genesis 10 provided no dates, ages or years, and especially not in Ham's descendants.

In earlier chapters regarding to the Flood, there were no other survivors except for Noah, his (unnamed) wife, his 3 sons and their unnamed wives, so in total 8 adult individuals.

Clearly they didn't have children, the whole time they were building the Ark and then living in the Ark for 1 year, before they disembarked.

So we don't know how old Ham was, when his wife gave birth to Mizraim/Egypt and to Cush.

Since you want to focus on Nimrod, then let's look at him.

Cush could be name given for two possible locations, Nubia and Ethiopia in Africa, or to unspecific region in the Middle East. And there are no age given to Cush, when Nimrod was born. And in Genesis 10, Nimrod was said to found cities first in Babylonia and then in Assyria.

But the problem with this, Genesis 10's description, wouldn't Cush have to be born first, then grow up to adulthood, before becoming father to Nimrod, so what was Cush's age? 20? 30? 50? Genesis doesn't say, so we don't know.

And how old was Ham when Cush was born? 98-99 years old (2 years after the Flood), like his brother Shem with Arpachshad? 110? 120? Or even older? Genesis 10 doesn't say, so we don't know Ham's age when Cush or any of others were born.

And before started his building his empire in Babylonia and Assyria, wouldn't Nimrod have to grow up? So how old was he? 20? 40? 100? Again, Genesis 10 doesn't say, so we don't know.

It could be Cush was 20, when Nimrod was born, and Nimrod when he built his first city, but that would be speculating the minimum ages of these two men. But it could be lot more. Regardless of their age, they would have to wait for decades before Nimrod was old enough to start his city-building programs.

But if the gap between the end of the Flood and Nimrod is a mere 40 years, would there be enough population to help him build 3 cities in Babylonia and 4 cities in Assyria?

I think Genesis 10 is unrealistic, if you seriously think Nimrod can built all these cities, with just 4 couples who survived the Flood, are able repopulate the world and build new cities all in a very short period of time.

All of the above, about Genesis 10, are hypotheical, of course, because I am make my point, about the impossibility of Genesis 10.

According to both Sumerian and Akkadian literature, Sargon was said to be founder of Akkad, but most likely the city already existed, and that he was born in the city.

Whatever was the case, Sargon didn't built Erech/Uruk because it had already existed over 2000 years before his time (5000 BCE). Which would mean Sargon isn't the biblical Nimrod. Uruk was the greatest city in Mesopotamia during the 4th millennium BCE, and was still important in the first half of 3rd millennium BCE (3000 - 2000 BCE). As I stated in my earlier reply, Uruk began declined in importance, because of Sargon conquered all of Sumer.

Sargon also didn't build Assur, one of the cities that Nimrod had allegedly constructed. Archaeological evidences showed that Assur has been around, since at least 2600 BCE. Hence, Assur would have also predated Genesis mythological Flood (2340 BCE).

Genesis 10 is certainly not historical accounts, and a lot of is also weak in archaeological department.

Anyway, Nimrod isn't Sargon. Sargon may or may not be founder of Akkad, but he certainly wasn't founder of Uruk, nor that of Assur.

Of course, you are going to ignore the archaeological evidences about Uruk and Assur, because that's what you always do. All you do is make excuses, when you ignored the evidences, and then make false equivalent like with you linking Sargon and Nimrod.

What you need to understand, that we have both historical and legendary records, but even more important, we actually have archaeological evidences of the ages of many ruins, including that of Uruk, Ur (a city that Abram/Abraham was born in, which also predated the imagainary Flood of Genesis), Eridu, etc, which not only predated Sargon, but also predated the 3rd millennium BCE. And we have some archaeological of the Akkadian empire that Sargon started.

My point is that based on both historical records and archaeological evidences, there were no Flood that disrupted the Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation in the 3rd millennium BCE, and caused decades of gap.

The Bible was written in Hebrew.

This is the only part you got right, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.

BUT, Hebrew as a written language, didn’t exist until at least the 10th century BCE, perhaps even as early the 11th century, but that’s more likely Proto-Canaanite alphabets, not Palaeo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew).

The 10th century BCE inscriptions found on the Zayit Stone and the writings on the Gezer Calendar are the earliest evidences of palaeo-Hebrew alphabets. But neither of these discoveries contain any passage from the Old Testament.

The oldest evidence found containing passage from Numbers 6, is the badly damaged Silver Scrolls, where part of the Priestly Blessings survived. It has been dated between Josiah’s reign and the fall of Jerusalem (so either late 7th century or early 6th century BCE, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave that served as a tomb.

There are no 3rd or 2nd millennia BCE Bronze Age Hebrew Scriptures written in cuneiform or hieroglyphs. The Torah didn’t exist in the 2nd millennium BCE.

 

[exchemist]

None of which explains, "But it can't be X, as the Bible perhaps claims, outside of the known universe/before the singularity expanded, darn it, it just can't!"

Sorry? Oh, I see. I think.

Look, I've just told you where, according to my understanding, the current limits of scientific theories lie in this area. Perhaps though, I need to spell out something I had presumed you had already understood, namely that the limits of science are set by the limits of what is testable by (reproducible) observation of nature. So the reason science does not know what happened right at the start is that we cannot currently think of any observation of nature that could be made to discriminate between any hypotheses that might be put forward.

What the bible - of all things - has to say on the subject is obviously neither here nor there, as ( a ) it is not a source of scientific hypotheses about nature and ( b ) even if it were, it would not solve the problem of the lack of observations that could be made relating to that epoch.

I reiterate: science is not desperate to fill the gaps in our knowledge at any cost. The gaps remain until such time as a scientific, i.e. testable, theory can be put forward to deal with the issue in question. That is just how the scientific method of studying the physical world works. Science does not do the "God of the Gaps* ".

* That phrase, by the way, was popularised by Prof Charles Coulson, a committed Christian and sometime Chairman of the Methodists' Conference, whose mathematics lectures I attended in my first year at university. A charming man. I recall fondly his phrase: "Now, we integrate this beggar here....."

 

[leroy]

How do you think the Egyptian pyramids were constructed?

They were feats of engineering, that began with different type of tomb, known as the mastaba design, possibly originally constructed during the pre-dynastic period, but it certainly were built for 1st and 2nd dynasties rulers of that time.

As I had mentioned earlier. The first pyramid, the Step Pyramid, was constructed as tomb for the first king of the 3rd dynasty, Djoser, around early 27th century BCE. According to semi-history, semi-legend, Djoser's architect/engineer was Imhotep, who designed and supervised the construction of not only the pyramid, but also the mortuary temple of Djoser.

Most people focused on the pyramids, that they often forget the pyramid was only part of the larger complex, such as the mortuary temple, the courtyard, the colonnade, etc.

By the 4th dynasty, the 1st king named Sneferu, built the first true pyramid, in the late 27th century BCE. Archaeologists called this pyramid, the Red Pyramid, which was constructed at Dahuhur.

Sneferu was father to Khufu, whose pyramid at Giza was the largest in history.

I have never been to Egypt, so I haven't seen these pyramids myself, but if you were to look at these pyramids close up, you would see that each block of stone, the shape and cuts were too regular to be natural. Definitely man-made, and they were cut from larger stones at some limestone quarry from other places.

How they actually cut and shape each stone, then shipped them to construction sites, are not known, but engineers have guess how they were done with the tools that they had available at that time. It was obvious that iron were not known, nor use at that time, so tools would be made from bronze and woods..

Everything were man-made construction.

How do you think they were made? Were they made by magic? By Gods? Fairies? Aliens?

Yes that is exactly my point, you know that pyramids where designed because you saw a pattern that could have not been produced by any known natural process nor chance (say wind and erosion)


You can infer design even if you don’t know the exact mechanism used by the Egyptians, there are objective ways to detect design………agree?

 

[gnostic]

Yes that is exactly my point, you know that pyramids where designed because you saw a pattern that could have not been produced by any known natural process nor chance (say wind and erosion)


You can infer design even if you don’t know the exact mechanism used by the Egyptians, there are objective ways to detect design………agree?

But engineering is one thing.

Nature is another, and that doesn’t require design from any “Designer”.

The people who proposed design for life, for biology, is a matter of wishful, superstition and blind faith. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science or engineering.

 

[Polymath257]

"So your question betrays a lack of understanding of how biological species are classified: we don't expect species A to change to a different family."

And sea animals become land animals or vice versa, and flying animals/insects become non-flight creatures via...

Well, those are NOT changes in classification. Vertebrates became tetrapods became mammals, etc.

These changes happened through adaptation (natural selection) based on mutations (which provide variation).

 

[Polymath257]

1) You are continuing to make an ad hom against the physicist who merely used his understanding of the Bible to consider gravitation effects.

2) Every serious scientist is interested in theorizing, gedanken and attempting to find testable hypotheses.

And once again, such a proposal is *only* presented because of attempts to reconcile the Bible with science. There is no reason other than such an attempt to even consider such a proposal. And, the actual evidence is that this proposal simply doesn't fit with the facts.

 

[leroy]

But engineering is one thing.

Nature is another, and that doesn’t require design from any “Designer”.

The people who proposed design for life, for biology, is a matter of wishful, superstition and blind faith. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science or engineering.

The ID argument is that the complexity of life is analogous to the complexity of pyramids or cars, (called specified complexity) pyramids cars and life have many parts (many components) organiced in a very specific order and pattern, and there are many possible configurations allowed by the laws of nature, but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce something that you would call a pyramid a car or a living thing.


So the question is, which of the premises do you think is wrong

1 that the complexity of life is analogous to the complexity on a pyramid or a car

2 that this type of complexity indicates intelligent design?

 

[Polymath257]

The main issue for me is change of family or kind. For example, sea to land or land to sea requires all this and more:

1) New respiratory system while old works
2) New reproductive system
3) New mating system
4) New caring for young system
5) New prey for food
6) New circulatory system
7) New ambulatory system
8) New endocrine system
9) Etc.

1) Easily done. For most amphibians, oxygen diffuses through the skin as well as being available through gills (in young) and lungs (in adults). There is already more than one respiratory system in place.

2-9) Seldom required.

In fact, during the transition, most of these systems stay the same. For example, the eggs of amphibians are still laid in water, no caring is done for the young, similar strategies for finding food are used, no new circulatory system is required, the ambulatory system is based on the lobed fins of the ancestor fish, etc.

In going back to the water (say, with whales), there is a transitional stage (like with penguins, otters, sea lions, etc) where the species is both land-based and water-based.

 

[exchemist]

But engineering is one thing.

Nature is another, and that doesn’t require design from any “Designer”.

The people who proposed design for life, for biology, is a matter of wishful, superstition and blind faith. Intelligent Design has nothing to do with science or engineering.

Yes. The ID people fail to acknowledge that while human design can fairly readily be identified, that is because we know, culturally, how humans make things. Once you try to generalise it to define "design" without reference to any known culture or technology, it becomes an impossible task.

This is just one of several reasons why ID is pseudoscience.