Is the Intelligent Designer Christian or Muslim?

[dust1n]

Lumping ID with " creationism" is a common ploy of evolutionist propagandists, IMO.

What's the difference between intelligent design and creationism, and which one are you?

 

[gnostic]

Firstly, my quoting the Discovery.org websites definition of ID does not mean I support Discovery Institute. Secondly, I am convinced that any individual, such as Ben Stein and Michael Behe, or organization, such as DI, who dares challenge evolution,will be vilified by many of the evolution theory adherents. Lumping ID with " creationism" is a common ploy of evolutionist propagandists, IMO.

It's not a ploy.

You haven't read DI's manifesto that I told you to read, did you?

That Wedge Doccument clearly connect both the organisation (DI) and their ID with creationism. This paper is dead-giveaway that they are nothing more than creationists, pretending not to be creationists.

The ploy come not from me, but from those who supported their pseudoscience "

Again, I urge you to read their manifesto - the wedge document (WD). Here I have provided you link to their Wedge Doccument.

At first, they deny it belonged to them, when their manifesto leaked out to the web, but later, the then vice-president of DI, Stephen Meyer, later confirmed it was their paper, said to be written by Phillip Johnson.

As to Michael Behe. His paper on Irreducible Complexity have been rejected by peer review and the international science community at large, because it was unfalsifiable, untestable, and didn't meet the requirements of going through the process of Scientific Method, therefore it isn't a "scientific theory".

As a biochemist, Behe should know quite that he has to present a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that he and other biochemists can test or gather evidences, as part of scientific method; he didn't.

Why he didn't is because the "Designer" is untestable like any god, spirit or fairy. If you can't physically test for designer, then the designer don't exist. His claims for intelligent designer and his Irreducible Complexity were thoroughly rejected and refuted among the scientific community, but also repeatedly rejected as being in the courtrooms, when he appeared to tried o get judges to force school boards in the U.S. to teach ID in school classrooms as "science".

Among his peers, Behe has become laughingstock among his fellow-biochemists. Yes, he is biochemist, but for someone who have his papers rejected repeatedly, just show how unscientific and desperate he is.

 

[rusra02]

How is this intelligent designer/cause not a deity? ID posits consciousness, intentionality, planning, &c -- attributes of a personage.
Not assigning a name to this designer can't hide his divinity.
This is completely false. Where did you hear this? What scientists promote such conclusions?
ID was not arrived at by the scientific method. It is not a theory, It's an unsupported religious or mythological doctrine.
This information doctrine is a straw man that ID proponents have been pushing, recently. They try to equate evolution with an increase of "information" and claim there's no accounting for this except by magic (ID).

I stated my source in the post. Of corse, intelligence implies a mind and a mind does not exist without a person. To claim that complex information exists without an intelligent source is to defy all logic, IMO. Two names carved in a tree is strong proof that an intelligent entity carved those names. Talk about magic? Talk about mythological doctrine? It is the evolutionists that need to explain how DNA has the information stored to produce a rabbit or a radish, without a Designer. At least, that is how I see it.

 

[Valjean]

But complex patterns can easily accrete over time, and once the ability to copy itself occurs, complexity takes off like a shot. The vicissitudes of environment will then begin reinforcing some patterns and delete others.
Before you propose the "mystery" of rabbit or radish DNA as necessitating magical agency you might want to look into the natural mechanisms of DNA development and evolution described by biologists.

People have always attributed natural phenomena they didn't understand to magical agents. As science discovered the actual mechanisms behind these, the theists would gradually and reluctantly yield, but as they abandoned one front they always managed to find another that was too complicated for them to understand, to proffer as irreducibly complex.

Why a deity should be considered the only logical explanation of mysterious phenomena is a question for psychologists and anthropologists.

 

[dust1n]

I stated my source in the post. Of corse, intelligence implies a mind and a mind does not exist without a person. To claim that complex information exists without an intelligent source is to defy all logic, IMO. Two names carved in a tree is strong proof that an intelligent entity carved those names. Talk about magic? Talk about mythological doctrine? It is the evolutionists that need to explain how DNA has the information stored to produce a rabbit or a radish, without a Designer. At least, that is how I see it.

I see some claims. Now can I see the science?

 

[viole]

I stated my source in the post. Of corse, intelligence implies a mind and a mind does not exist without a person. To claim that complex information exists without an intelligent source is to defy all logic, IMO. Two names carved in a tree is strong proof that an intelligent entity carved those names. Talk about magic? Talk about mythological doctrine? It is the evolutionists that need to explain how DNA has the information stored to produce a rabbit or a radish, without a Designer. At least, that is how I see it.

I would say that there is no intelligent source without complex information. Do you have evidence of brains existing without pre existing DNA?
If not, what makes you think that intelligence comes before complex information?

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

I would say that there is no intelligent source without complex information. Do you have evidence of brains existing without pre existing DNA?
If not, what makes you think that intelligence comes before complex information?

Ciao

- viole

Since DNA contains exceedingly complex information, it logically proves an intelligent Source, at least to me. The author of a book may be unknown to us, but a reasonable person does not conclude the book produced the author.

 

[dust1n]

Firstly, my quoting the Discovery.org websites definition of ID does not mean I support Discovery Institute. Secondly, I am convinced that any individual, such as Ben Stein and Michael Behe, or organization, such as DI, who dares challenge evolution,will be vilified by many of the evolution theory adherents. Lumping ID with " creationism" is a common ploy of evolutionist propagandists, IMO.

So I ask, again, btw. Are you a creationist, or intelligent design? What's the difference between the two?

 

[dust1n]

Since DNA contains exceedingly complex information, it logically proves an intelligent Source, at least to me. The author of a book may be unknown to us, but a reasonable person does not conclude the book produced the author.

There's a missing link here though.

Intelligent Source --> DNA

So how did this intelligent source make this DNA?

 

[rusra02]

There's a missing link here though.

Intelligent Source --> DNA

So how did this intelligent source make this DNA?

Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom. (Isaiah 45:12)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom. (Isaiah 45:12)

That is a shaft stroking attempt at the description of a subjective opinion on the value of what happened. That is in no way a description of what happened.

 

[dust1n]

Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom. (Isaiah 45:12)

And what empirical evidence that can be replicated by any disinterested party supports this claim?

 

[dust1n]

That is a shaft stroking attempt at the description of a subjective opinion on the value of what happened. That is in no way a description of what happened.

Right.

How does the moon circle the planet? Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom.

How do stars form? Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom.

How does the Ebola virus spread? Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom.

What allows birds to fly? Awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom.


Can any of this be observed in a laboratory, you know, under the constraints that constrain all claims about the natural world? Nope.

 

[dantech]

He's probably an atheist

 

[rusra02]

And what empirical evidence that can be replicated by any disinterested party supports this claim?

Uh, DNA but I doubt anyone can replicate this marvel of creative genius.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The question "who is the true God" will not be settled by scientists. I believe the true God will settle that question in the near future, when he brings judgment upon all false religions. (Revelation 17)

Naturally your statement implies that Yahweh and/or Jesus is the true God who is going to come back and judge all false religions, right?

It is the evolutionists that need to explain how DNA has the information stored to produce a rabbit or a radish, without a Designer. At least, that is how I see it.

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GT | Georgia Institute of Technology - News Center - New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Chemical evolution: The mechanism of the formation of adenine under prebiotic conditions

RNA world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When did life originate?

What most creationists fail to understand is that theses questions have already been answered - and for the most part they have been answered for a long time.

It is quite well known, for example, that nucelosynthesis produces the elements and compounds found in the Universe. The only thing required for all of existence is a little Hydrogen and Helium. These elements, during star death, create everything else that we know of, both organic and inorganic compounds. If you can find it on the periodic table of elements, it came from a star. The meshing of simple non-living molecules can repeatably reproduce early biological forms. These biological forms can produce living cells, systems, and organisms. And we know from Middle School level Biology class how simple cells, systems, and organisms can reproduce and become more complex cells, systems, and organisms.

The refusal to accept the answers that science has already provided is a problem for the creationist, not the evolutionist.
Evolutionary biology already has a working, testable system in place. Creationism, then, has to prove that their hypothesis is even worth testing. And so far, they haven't done that...at all.

The two names in the ID/Creationist movement with any merit at all are Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe, and they are admittedly associated with the Wedge Document - Meaning that the best chance creationism had for being taken seriously is headed by a couple of dudes who have founded their entire scientific principle on religious presupposition and propaganda.

"This flagella kinda looks like a motor. Therefore God exists" simply is not a good enough argument...

 

[rusra02]

Naturally your statement implies that Yahweh and/or Jesus is the true God who is going to come back and judge all false religions, right?



Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GT | Georgia Institute of Technology - News Center - New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Chemical evolution: The mechanism of the formation of adenine under prebiotic conditions

RNA world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When did life originate?

What most creationists fail to understand is that theses questions have already been answered - and for the most part they have been answered for a long time.

It is quite well known, for example, that nucelosynthesis produces the elements and compounds found in the Universe. The only thing required for all of existence is a little Hydrogen and Helium. These elements, during star death, create everything else that we know of, both organic and inorganic compounds. If you can find it on the periodic table of elements, it came from a star. The meshing of simple non-living molecules can repeatably reproduce early biological forms. These biological forms can produce living cells, systems, and organisms. And we know from Middle School level Biology class how simple cells, systems, and organisms can reproduce and become more complex cells, systems, and organisms.

The refusal to accept the answers that science has already provided is a problem for the creationist, not the evolutionist.
Evolutionary biology already has a working, testable system in place. Creationism, then, has to prove that their hypothesis is even worth testing. And so far, they haven't done that...at all.

The two names in the ID/Creationist movement with any merit at all are Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe, and they are admittedly associated with the Wedge Document - Meaning that the best chance creationism had for being taken seriously is headed by a couple of dudes who have founded their entire scientific principle on religious presupposition and propaganda.

"This flagella kinda looks like a motor. Therefore God exists" simply is not a good enough argument...

First question: Right.
The claim that science has proven evolution is simply not true. Repeating the statement will not make it so, nor wil vilifying those who reject the ToE.

 

[dust1n]

Since DNA contains exceedingly complex information, it logically proves an intelligent Source, at least to me. The author of a book may be unknown to us, but a reasonable person does not conclude the book produced the author.

There's a missing link here though.

Intelligent Source --> DNA

So how did this intelligent source make this DNA?

Through awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom. (Isaiah 45:12)

And what empirical evidence that can be replicated by any disinterested party supports this claim?

Uh, DNA but I doubt anyone can replicate this marvel of creative genius.

There's a missing link here though.

Intelligent Source --> DNA

So how did this intelligent source make this DNA?

Awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom.

And what empirical evidence supports the claim that awesome power and awe-inspiring wisdom is the link between an intelligent source and DNA?

DNA.

And round and round we go.

 

[dust1n]

Why does DNA exist and how does in function?

It exists because a creator used his magically fairy dust to make it and make it function.

And what evidence suggests this to be true.

DNA exists and it functions.

Alright kids, science class is dismissed.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The claim that science has proven evolution is simply not true. Repeating the statement will not make it so

Oh no?
There is no science which proves the natural process of transferring genetic information from one species to another, or from a simpler organism into a more complex organism?

That's an interesting claim considering the following articles exist...

Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution - J. C. Avise - Google Books

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Genotype-Environment Interaction and the Evolution of Phenotypic Plasticity

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
The Evolution of Self-Fertilization and Inbreeding Depression in Plants. I. Genetic Models

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Natural Selection and Random Genetic Drift in Phenotypic Evolution

Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan : Abstract : Nature

Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates: ingentaconnect

Do you have any legitimate rebuttals for these studies?
Do any of the creation scientists have any legitimate rebuttals to these studies?
Have any of those studies been published by an actual scientific journal?
Have any of those studies gone through a peer-review process?
Have any of those studies made any impact at all in the scientific community, and ultimately the world?
Have there been any scientific advancements made using Creationist studies?

Be it plants or animals, humans or fish, there is nothing in the creationist hand-bag that poses any threat whatsoever to the evolutionary model. The absolute best defense that you guys can posit is "The Bible doesn't say that, therefore it's not true." I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but essentially you have no other argument that that. For example, in my previous post I referenced at least 5 articles which contain explanations of how inorganic material can become, or "create", organic material. Your response to that was simply to say that "evolution is not true just because you say it is."

I am not saying that Evolution is true because I say so. I am saying that evolutionary science hold firm whether you accept it or not.
The evidence for such a claim can be supported with any of the thousands of articles or studies that have been done of the subject.
Refusing to accept incredibly substantial evidence is a creationist problem - not mine.

You can believe whatever you want, man.
But you can't claim your belief to be fact and then get upset when your claim is taken to task.