A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

There are no Hebrew writing at that time. And not a single Bronze Age passage of the Torah or OT that might even hint that such belief (Moses’ religion) existing at that time.

The earliest literary evidences discovered, points to the Torah or Pentateuch, the 5 books “traditionally” attributed the authorship to Moses was written in the 1st millennium Iron Age to the time of King Josiah in Judah.

Fragments of the Silver Scrolls, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave that served as tomb, containing very small passage from Numbers 6, relating to the Priestly Blessings. This Sivler Scrolls have been dated between late 7th century BCE (so possibly as early as Josiah’s reign) or early 6th century BCE (before the fall of Jerusalem in 587 or 586 BCE).

No other OT passages found predated this fragment of the Silver Scrolls.

All other fragments found have all been dated later than the Silver Scrolls.

All this tell us, that no one wrote the Genesis and Exodus in the late Bronze Age, supposedly the time of Moses and Joshua.

If you are going anyone that Genesis and Exodus are truly as old as Christians, Jews and Muslims say about Moses, then you would have found such writings by now, whether written on walls, stones, clay tablets, papyri or parchments, by now.

Note that clay tablets were the most popular form of writings outside of Egypt, during the 2nd millennium BCE, like late Bronze Age clay tablets were found Babylonia and Assyria, in Levantine Syria (Mari and Ugarit) and Canaan (eg Megiddo), in the Hittite empire.

The Gezer Calendar and the inscriptions found on Zayit Stone are two oldest artifacts found containing early palaeo-Hebrew alphabets, but neither of these related to Genesis or Exodus.

At the site of Megiddo, some clay tablet fragments were found, some are written in Middle Babylonian, that traced back to the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Babylonian myths, just show popular and how far Gilgamesh myth have reached the west. And yet all these founds of fragments found at Megiddo, nothing contemporarily related to Moses or Joshua, or later in the times of the judges, or Saul and David.

The stories within Genesis may be and mostly set in the time of 3rd to mid-2nd millennium BCE, but Genesis was certainly not written or composed originally during these time.

Anyone can write stories of the distant past, but it doesn’t mean they are historical records or historically accurate. Genesis 10, regarding to Egypt, Uruk/Erech and Assur are examples that the authors to Genesis knew very little about archaeological origins of these kingdoms and cities.



Agenda, BilliardsBall?

This is a debate forum. You are the one who claimed that there “...are literally thousands of proofs of the Bible in modern archaeology”, I have provided several examples (Genesis 10, regarding to Egypt and Nimrod With Erech/Uruk, and Exodus 1 with regarding to city called Ramesses) that showed that your argument is not true.

Isn’t that how debate works. Claims and counters.

I gave you several examples why Genesis 10 don’t provide historical or archaeological accuracy. You have yet to provide any example, where you show your “proof”.

If you bother to look up the history of Egypt, you would know that Egyptian cultures (eg Faiyum culture in Lower Egypt and Naqada culture in Upper Egypt) are dated earlier than the Bronze Age. Look up these cultures or look up Predynastic Egypt, and then you would understand how wrong Genesis 10 is regarding to Egypt/Mizraim.

The 4th millennium BCE, is known as the Chalcolithic period in Mesopotamia, Levantine and Egypt, where people discovered how to make copper tools, but still used stone tools for other tasks. And in Egypt the Chalcolithic period have different Egyptian cultures (known as proto-dynastic or predynastic period) that survived to the Bronze Age (eg 1st dynasty, started around 3050 BCE).

Likewise, in Uruk, Uruk flourished in the Chalcolithic period, throughout the 4th millennium BCE, and by mid-4th millennium BCE (3600-3400 bce), the earliest temples to the sky goddess Inanna, in the Enanna district of Uruk. The earliest cuneiform inscriptions were found in this area, predating the Sumerian civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE. Uruk around this time, was the largest city in the world, which is why archeologists called the period from 4000 to 3050 BCE - the “Uruk period”.

You can look them all yourself, about Uruk and Ur and Eridu, which all predated the Bronze Age Sumer civilization (3rd millennium BCE). Uruk is example of how wrong Genesis 10 is, claiming this city was built by Nimrod is.

Yes, I believed that the whole Genesis narrative to the creation and the Flood, and of course, the post-Flood, are allegory, not history. But my point is not about allegory vs literal of Genesis, but ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS OF PROOFS OF THE BIBLE TO ARCHAEOLOGY.

I am still waiting for your one example of that archaeological proof.

It's simple:

1) I'm aware that we don't have extant writings from Moses's day
2) Archaeology has confirmed events of the Penteteuch, we can date the Penteteuch early, safely, logically
3) Your criticism of Genesis 10 hinges upon a date for the Flood that is not acceptable, not to thousands of historians and scholars
4) You did not address my point, "Nimrod started what are now large cities".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ok, so dopey strawman about birthing dolphins aside, I guess when you wrote this:

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.​

You were just trolling.

Nice.

Huh? Which of those systems is optional for survivability, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is the Evolution vs. Creation forum.

Don't let the door hit you....

You are neither loving nor accepting of those who differ from your opinions in this forum? Should I take that as axiomatic proof the Bible is true, since the Bible says skeptics are rude, to a person?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 ID is falsifiable, the argument is based on 2 assumptions,

a) That specified complexity can only come from a mind

And you fail immediately since you have not been able to define this term. In fact when you tired you ended up with a "complexity" that did not require intelligence.

b) Life is specified and complex

Each of these assumptions is testable, and could in theory be proven wrong.

Is natural abiogenesis falsifiable? How?

2 well as an agnostic you do grant that the existence of the designer is at least possible. Given that the existence of a designer is at least possible and given that it is possible that a designer would what to create life. I don’t see why shoud one reject design by default

3 well because science presupposes naturalism,

And number two fails for the same reason.

You need a working definition, not a circular argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, please avoid smokescreens for the real issue, animals bear after their kind/family.

Of course they do. That is what the theory of evolution says as well. "Change of kinds" is a creationist strawman.

 

[exchemist]

STOP STOP STOP. I NEVER SAID a land animal gave birth to a dolphin. I said if X births Y multiple systems have to move at once. You are adding the ridiculous odds of multiple needed systems to your odds for your JUST SO STORY.

But X does not birth Y. That is the point.

X births X+δX, where δX is a small change in X such that other systems do not need to change immediately to accommodate it. (If they did, the organism would not be reproductively successful and would not have descendants carrying the change on, obviously.) And then, after a lapse of time, you may get a small change δr in the respiratory system r or whatever. And so on by small degrees, with changes in various systems and features of the organism that are either environmental advantages or environmentally neutral. (Neutral changes may be quite important, as they may become advantages later.)

It is particularly silly piece of creationist misrepresentation to pretend that evolutionary change takes place in huge jumps, so that multiple changes are required, simultaneously, to keep the organism viable.

 

[exchemist]

The analogy concerns the origin of life. There was no natural selection before the origin of life

Ah yes quite right, sorry I was not paying attention.

 

[Bear Wild]

It's simple:

1) I'm aware that we don't have extant writings from Moses's day
2) Archaeology has confirmed events of the Penteteuch, we can date the Penteteuch early, safely, logically
3) Your criticism of Genesis 10 hinges upon a date for the Flood that is not acceptable, not to thousands of historians and scholars
4) You did not address my point, "Nimrod started what are now large cities".

Since genesis and the flood are a mythological creation story and mythological renewal of the life on earth designed to teach rather that absolute fact then it does not matter about any of the days. Myth in religion is important and includes creation stories. They are designed to teach relationships and morals. Creating absolute accounts of history degrades the myth in a way because you lose sight of what it is truly trying to say. Creations myths such as Sky Woman of North America are very valuable in teaching relationships to the earth, morals and values. I would suspect most people accepting this creation story do not believe that the muskrat brought up the actual mud to create North America. Despite this lack of absolute truth the creation story transmits valuable teaching to those of that culture. Genesis can do the same for those who follow that tradition as well as the flood. Trying to make it the true story of the world loses the point of the myth.

 

[Bear Wild]

You seen to be avoiding my questions.

Does your study show that the mechanism of natural genetic engineering evolved by random mutations? Which study is that ?

Is evolution by random mutations and natural selection the main cause of the complexity of life? Yes / No / Maybe,/ we don't know?

I am very bad in understanding texts so please try to provide direct and clear answers

The mechanism of natural genetic engineering is an idea based on the increasing complexity that organisms can increase variation. Some of these mutations include interactions with the environment or the ability to incorporate additional genetic material to increase the number of base pairs which increases the chase of variation.
Are they random? They are random with respect to the fact that the cell does not chose the genetic addition. Some are less random than others since the mechanism to incorporate extra genetic material has been naturally selected for to increase variation giving greater possibilities of more successful reproduction.
Thus absolute yes or no answers has been a technique by lawyers and some ID people to oversimplify an answer thus make the incorrect assumption that they have found the ultimate flaw in an argument.
Better to ask is there any evidence that their is any proof that an intelligent designer is constantly inside all cells of all organism directing the genetic material. There the answer is clear. No.

 

[tas8831]

You are neither loving nor accepting of those who differ from your opinions in this forum?

"The point: If you claim your biology or evolution knowledge trumps mine, my Bible knowledge by the same measurement trumps yours, inviting you to leave ReligiousForums.com and join EvolutionForums.com."

Should I take that as axiomatic proof the Bible is true, since the Bible says skeptics are rude, to a person?

Were I to write a book in which I sought to sway people to seeing things my way, I would also try to demonize those unlikely to join me.

You've been had - and speaking of rude, I'd not be so quick to hurl stones.

 

[tas8831]

Huh? Which of those systems is optional for survivability, do you think?

So, upon having your internal contradiction pointed out, you seek to change topics.

Typical.

 

[tas8831]

STOP STOP STOP. I NEVER SAID a land animal gave birth to a dolphin. I said if X births Y multiple systems have to move at once. You are adding the ridiculous odds of multiple needed systems to your odds for your JUST SO STORY.

"If we accept taxonomically that a land animal eventually birthed a dolphin, ALL those SYSTEMS had to be in place simultaneously in a single (or very few) generations."

If X = terrestrial mammal and Y = aquatic dolphin, then...

The systems don't need to "move". What are you even talking about, I mean besides shifting goal posts?

 

[tas8831]

Again, please avoid smokescreens for the real issue, animals bear after their kind/family.

You do realize that the taxonomic rank of Family can contain many hundreds of genera and thousands of species*, yes?

Take microbats - 6 Superfamilies.

In one Family,Rhinolophidae, there are 10 genera and 130 species.

Can you explain how that much "microevolution" took place in only 4500 years (since the ark myth was claimed to have occurred)? What mechanism allows for so much evolution with nobody noticing?

Please explain.


*there are over 1000* species of bats recognized so far, from some 93 genera

 

[tas8831]

How would this specified complexity be inferred?

Well you have something with:

1 Many parts

2 organized in a pattern (for example a pattern that would allow a function)

3 the laws of nature allow many (trillions and trillions) of possible combinations, but only one (or few) combinations would produce the pattern

How was this determined?

Take for example a car,

OK, so you are looking at mechanical objects (made by humans), in an argument via analogy.

But we all know that this is really about living things, yes?

If I show you a DNA sequence, or an amino acid sequence, how would you go about discerning its CSI?

1 it has many parts

2 each of the parts is organized in a pattern that allows a function (move and transport people)

3 the laws of nature allow for many combinations, there are trillions and trillions of possible ways in which one can put each of the parts.

Cars are not made by nature, they are made by humans.

And how was this 'trillions and trillions of possible ways' thing calculated, based on what parameters?

Is there any question on how specified complexity can be inferred?

For human contrivances? No.

If not

Which of the assumptions would you say is wrong

1 specified complexity can only come from a mind?

It is not wrong if and only if we are talking about things like cars - since we know humans make cars.

2 life has this attribute of specified complexity?[/qoute]
Justify the extrapolation of human analogies to living things.

Are you really claiming that the only justification for the inference of CSI and thus 'a mind' designing something is via analogies to human activity?

How can natural abiogenesis be falsifiable? Why are you avoiding this question?

I was not aware that you had asked me about abiogenesis. I am not advocating for abiogenesis - YOU, however, are advocating for CSI/IDC.

ID tries to show that life was intelligently designed, whether if the designer is God, an Alien or something is beyond the scope of intelligent design.

Uh huh...

Sorry, but I think more than argument via analogy is warranted for addressing such important questions about origins.

Sure I personally believe that God is the designer, but I am not claiming that one can arrive at that conclusion by this argument. (Additional evidence would be required)

OK.

 

[savagewind]

Nice picture. It looks like a semi-metal of some kind, being both black and lustrous. What is it?

It's carbon. And, please imagine. It's black. I have a theory about black. It is black because it absorbs all light so really and truly it is perfectly white. That is if we could see what it is for real. But, we can't.

(The "many parts" are the atoms, and their constituents, of course.)

Isn't love grand?

 

[exchemist]

It's carbon. And, please imagine. It's black. I have a theory about black. It is black because it absorbs all light so really and truly it is perfectly white. That is if we could see what it is for real. But, we can't.

Isn't love grand?

Carbon is interesting because one allotrope has quasi-metallic properties, but in two dimensions only, due to the sp2 hybridisation of the bonding, which leaves delocalised π-electrons above and below each plane of hexagons. The other of course is diamond and has no metallic properties at all (sp3 hybridised). Anthracite is made of the graphite allotrope.

Silicon, the next member of the same group of the Periodic Table is definitely a semi-metal, but one can see traces of this even in carbon. I have always found the metal/non-metal diagonal in the Periodic Table fascinating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's carbon. And, please imagine. It's black. I have a theory about black. It is black because it absorbs all light so really and truly it is perfectly white. That is if we could see what it is for real. But, we can't.

Isn't love grand?

Actually it was a picture of coal. Anthracite to be specific. The metallic luster gives it away. I do not think that pure carbon has such a luster, though I could be wrong. Coal is mostly a rather complex hydrocarbon. By mass it is from 92% to 98% carbon, but by number of particles it can be almost half hydrogen.

 

[leroy]

OK, you asked. These are just a few articles related to self-organization related to origins of life.

How life may have first emerged on Earth: Foldable proteins in a high-salt environment
Chemical evolution: Progenitors of the living world
Clay-armored bubbles may have formed first protocells: Minerals could have played a key role in the origins of life
Clay may have been birthplace of life on Earth, new study suggests
Was life inevitable? New paper pieces together metabolism's beginnings
Origin of life: Simulating how Earth kick-started metabolism
A protein that self-replicates

.

Do you honestly and sincerely believe that those articles prove natural a biogenesis, I mean come on, you certainly most have higher standards.

Take for example the first article, the author “showed” that maybe perhaps there is a possibility that protein folding can occur with the 10 amino acids that where suppose to exist before life. Even if we grant it, that doesn’t solve the fundamental problem,

The folding problem concerns the fact that self replication requires multiple macromolecules to work in perfect synchrony, each molecules has to be folded in a very precise manner.

So even if we grant that only 10 aminoacids are required for folding, you still have to explain how/why did they fold in the precise way and perfect synchrony
Required for self replication.

I can find many more if you are interested. Now, none solve the question of the origin of life. But they do show that the relevant chemicals are capable of quite a bit of self-organization.

That is nice, but what you have to do is prove that amoniacids self-organiced in the pattern required to produce self replication

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you honestly and sincerely believe that those articles prove natural a biogenesis, I mean come on, you certainly most have higher standards.

Take for example the first article, the author “showed” that maybe perhaps there is a possibility that protein folding can occur with the 10 amino acids that where suppose to exist before life. Even if we grant it, that doesn’t solve the fundamental problem,

The folding problem concerns the fact that self replication requires multiple macromolecules to work in perfect synchrony, each molecules has to be folded in a very precise manner.

So even if we grant that only 10 aminoacids are required for folding, you still have to explain how/why did they fold in the precise way and perfect synchrony
Required for self replication.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage? But since it is in that stage, and various hypotheses of abiogenesis have been tested and confirmed there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. The same cannot be said for ID. ID is an ad hoc explanation at best and has no supporting scientific evidence. So one cannot say that abiogenesis is "proven" there is still more and more evidence that supports it every year and to date no evidence for ID.

 

[leroy]

How was this determined?

OK, so you are looking at mechanical objects (made by humans), in an argument via analogy.

But we all know that this is really about living things, yes?

If I show you a DNA sequence, or an amino acid sequence, how would you go about discerning its CSI?


Cars are not made by nature, they are made by humans.

And how was this 'trillions and trillions of possible ways' thing calculated, based on what parameters?


For human contrivances? No.


It is not wrong if and only if we are talking about things like cars - since we know humans make cars.

The car analogy is not part of the argument I simply used the analogy to explain the concept of specified complexity.

So do you understand the concept? Yes or no? if not, please let me know what do you find confusing and I will explain.