Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[tas8831]

This thread has already degraded into a pissing contest. Can we agree to just make assertions, provide supporting commentary, but just let people have their own opinions?

Sure, OK - all opinions are equally valid, right?

OK, it is my opinion that the Holocaust never happened and that Hitler was a great man.

My opinion, so it must be valid*.



*not my opinions at all - just an exercise in the shallow-mindedness of the 'all opinions are valid' trope

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bull

No, demonstrable.

 

[tas8831]

You did no such thing, wow, sad

But you just paraphrase and plagiarize creationist claims. You never actually discuss anything, you operate on the notion that anything a creationist says is true, or so it seems.

How do YOU know that what your sources claim IS true?

I think that is a major issue among anti-evolution types. You all just seem content to dismiss science, and when asked why, you hide behind some cut and pastes. And when the cut and pastes are debunked, you paste some new ones, or like here, just start a new thread with the same debunked pastes.

At some point, you cannot keep hiding like this.Especially if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[shmogie]

First of all, why are you framing this as an atheistic issue?


I did address his points, and all @Hockeycowboy did was respond with a very short sarcastic remark and "lol".

Well, would say conversation between the two of you has ended.

I am framing it as an atheistic issue because the new atheists are virtually always sarcastic and condescending.

You will disagree. We disagree. finito.

 

[tas8831]

This is 'shredding'?

<a href="Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?">Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?</a>

It's the only response you gave, with any substance. It refutes nothing!

Lol.

To be honest and objective, you would have to admit that all you presented was a list of fairly thin assertions. You provided no evidence for any of these assertions. Why should anyone else be expected to do what you did not?
Why do you think your mere assertions should be taken at face value, but someone countering them must do more than assert?

 

[tas8831]

4) Irreducibly complex systems. Like the bacterial flagellar motor (which apparently came after the T3SS), the blood-clotting cascade, and others, suggested by Behe.

The same Behe who, while acting as a witness in the Dov er trial, claimed that there was no researchon the evolution of the immune system, and upon having a stack of such research plonked down in front of him, he just dismissed it anyway?

The same Behe that said it is not up to him to test his own claims?

THAT Behe?

But these evidences support an Intelligence behind them. Antony Flew finally recognized this.

Oh? Johnny Bananas recognized the flaws with ID and creationism, so you should doubt them both. Right? Isn't that your intent? that if you name drop others will bow down?

Funny thing - every evolutionist I know had never heard of Flew until creationists starting calling him "the world's greatest atheist." I have still never read anything of his, and don't intend to. I don't care what some old crank felt.

What is next in the creationist bag o' tricks? Darwin=Hitler? I don;t suggest it - @BilliardsBall tried it, and he ended up refuting himself,...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting. As a creationist, I have been pointing out, in much less detail, the uniqueness and impossibility of the information encoded in DNA to have come about by natural processes.

So how come that the people who actually study DNA, like molecular biologists and geneticists, aren't impressed by your (and other) creationists rambling about how the things they discover and test on a daily basis, are apparantly "impossible"?

The obvious explanation is that the information was imparted by God.

That's neither obvious nore an explanation.
What it is, really, is nothing but the religious beliefs that you already dogmatically held before coming in.

The obvious explanation is that you believe this, simply because you already believed it

Believe in little green men from outer space as the source if you choose.

To be honest with you: that's still better then an undetectable sky magician...

We share many similarities with chimps.

Not mere 'similarities'.

We share a large proportion of DNA with Chimps

And a bit less with gorilla's.
A bit less still with oerang oetangs.
Less still with cats and dogs.
Less still with birds.
Less still with fish.
Less still with trees.

Exactly as evolution would expect: nested hierarchies of shared (shared... not just just merely similar) traits and genetics.

Does that mean the similarities exist because we evolved from apes ?

The nested hierachical patterns of shared traits and genetics, does.
It's not the "similarities" that is the evidence for common ancestry.

It is THE PATTERN thereof.

If I am going to build a funny car for drag racing, I could begin with the frame of a Ford, because it is the strongest. The fiberglass body I choose may be a replica of a 55 Chevy, because I love the style.

My engine might be a Mopar 426 Hemi, with an after market full race cam, and Hooker headers. I might choose a Paxton supercharger ( old school). I might have a Borg Warner transmission, with the rest of the running gear from Ford.

Is the Car a Ford, Chevy, or dodge ?

First of all, it is a car.
As in: it doesn't reproduce with variation, it isn't in competition for limited resources, it is not in a struggle for survival,.... in other words: it lacks all properties it needs in order to be subject to an evolutionary process.

Secondly: what you described, would result in random matches/similarties. Not in a pattern of matches. And definatly not in a pattern of nested hierarchies.

It is the pattern of matches that is the smoking gun evidence of common ancestry. It is this pattern, which is universally present in all life, which makes common ancestry of species a genetic fact.

Shared genes and whatever else does not necessarily mean we evolved from lesser primates

The patterns of these shared genes, does.

It very well could mean we share components of a design.

Nope. Nested Hierarchies are the exact opposite of what is expected from designed things.
Evolution on the other hand, can ONLY result in nested hierarchies.

An engineer who would design a wide range of products in such a way that their traits would fit a nested hierarchy, would be instantly fired in any company. It would be incredibly stupid, inefficient, unelegant and a complete waste of resources. It would be incredibly stupid design.

But, once again: such a pattern of matches is the only possible outcome of the evolutionary process.

As in: if this pattern did NOT exist in life, then evolution would be false!

Shared parts don´t make my car a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge, it is unique as I designed it.

Yes. And I explained above how this analogy falls flat on its face.

Shared whatevers don´t make us evolved monkeys, it makes us uniquely designed humans.

The pattern of shared traits / genetics, does.


For example, in a created world, there is NO REASON AT ALL for why we couldn't find a reptile with hair, birds with mammary glands, dolphins with gils mammals with feathers....
However, in a world that evolved, NONE OF THESE CAN EXIST.

To find any of such, would instantly falsify evolution.



Tell me, what would falsify creationism?

 

[tas8831]

Sayin' it, ain't showin' it.

Sayin' 'these 5 things are a problem for evolution' ain't showin' it.

Is it?

adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

 

[tas8831]

You've "observed" this? No, you've been told this.

You observed Jehovah transforming the dust of the ground into a fully formed adult human male?

Why expect of others that which you do not expect from yourself?



adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, would say conversation between the two of you has ended.

I am framing it as an atheistic issue because the new atheists are virtually always sarcastic and condescending.

You will disagree. We disagree. finito.

After nearly 25 years of debating with creationists on the internet and knowing them personally, I would say their delivery has not changed at all.

Meet the new creationists. Same as the old creationists.

Though, if sarcasm and condescension is the metric, it removes science as either atheistic or theistic.

 

[tas8831]

Now, don't present a straw-man. I said micro-evolution occurs, did I not?

You should want speciation to occur, and plenty of it. Otherwise, your ark story sinks.

Human immune system is not functioning like it was designed. (At one time, I was immune to poison ivy, sumac , etc. Not anymore.)

How do you know ho wit was designed?

And it seems like you do not understand how the immune system works - for your do not responds, 'allergically', to something you become allergic to. You must first be exposed and go through an immune response.

Of course, if it was designed, and now no longer works the way it was designed to, sounds like a crappy design.

adjustments of science and the issue of creationism/JW

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After nearly 25 years of debating with creationists on the internet and knowing them personally, I would say their delivery has not changed at all.

Meet the new creationists. Same as the old creationists.

Though, if sarcasm and condescension is the metric, it removes science as either atheistic or theistic.

To be fair, there has been a little bit of change in their "delivery" over the past decades.
They seem to be spending a bit more energy on trying have their nonsense sound more "sciency".

Here's a joke I made up about that:

What do you call a creationist dressed up in a lab-coat?
Answer: a cdesign proponentsist

 

[tas8831]

you and I and everyone here will possibly die. That wasn't part of Jehovah's original design, either.

Right - all of humanity is punished with death due to Jehovah's original creationists not doing what he wanted them to.

How loving and how rational.

Be that as it may, design is evident everywhere...including in nature, in the Laws that control it, and in the interaction between them.

Nope - evidence for evolution is everywhere - DNA, homology, geology, etc.

 

[wellwisher]

There is a third possibility here. The mechanisms explained by Darwinian evolution are not enough. There maybe additional mechanism that yet to be discovered or proven out that will augment the theory of evolution.

Dubbing these yet undiscovered mechanisms as "intelligence behind them" is just more superstitious nonsense. You can't just make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence of intelligence design when it comes to life. My own body proves it to me that the pain coming from my knees everyday all throughout the day is because my knees are not designed very well. Or at least lack the necessary healing abilities to fix my torn maniscuses.

The current theory of evolution uses an unintelligent design approach. Pride makes it difficult to upgrade. This unintelligent approach makes use of statistical arguments to add change. This approach is a type of blind and prophesy that has no future plan and therefore requires no intelligence. It is like a drunk walking and wherever he falls we pick that. With that approach, if you need a particular something, to fill in a gap, you assume random and poof it magically happens, in theory. Why is that even called science? It sound like a form of magical religion to me.

Picture building an automobile using a variation of the current evolutionary approach of random mutations and selection. What kind of factory would that be? It would not need to be full of intelligent people, and it would have a huge junk yard of misfit toys. We do not see the huge junk yard in nature.

The way a modern factory works is based on a variation of intelligent design. The R&D people anticipate what they need or want, before they build, test and integrate into a production design. This is not a mutation approach and therefore their junk yard is tiny, like in nature.

After integration go the new designs, you will still have to market the new and improved auto. The environment will tell you whether these intelligent choices will give your company and car a market advantage. The Darwin part is fine. The front end R&D approach, using s blindfold, makes no sense. That was added decades after Darwin.

To me intelligent design means extrapolating the principles of nature, inherent in previous aspects creation, to make future aspects. This is like the engineer making use of materials and principles of thermodynamics to build a new exhaust system. He uses imagination and makes his design follow from what has already been defined in nature.

Intelligent design, in the contest of life, means the same thing. Inherent with the creation of atoms is a path that leads to life and allows life to evolve. It is similar to the fusion of hydrogen atoms, to oxygen atoms, in the hot core of the sun, already contain the future potential to form water; H2O, once conditions are correct. This is already part of a larger plan in time even before the conditions make it possible. Water itself, contains specials features that then make carbon based life possible. This is not random but was defined in the very beginning based on the original design in the very first things.

 

[shmogie]

After nearly 25 years of debating with creationists on the internet and knowing them personally, I would say their delivery has not changed at all.

Meet the new creationists. Same as the old creationists.

Though, if sarcasm and condescension is the metric, it removes science as either atheistic or theistic.

We disagree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We disagree.

I agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We disagree.

Though, looking at both sides and how the conversations develop, the weight of evidence seems to be on my conclusion. By your metric, and noting the evidence, evolution or science would be neither atheistic nor theistic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be fair, there has been a little bit of change in their "delivery" over the past decades.
They seem to be spending a bit more energy on trying have their nonsense sound more "sciency".

Here's a joke I made up about that:

What do you call a creationist dressed up in a lab-coat?
Answer: a cdesign proponentsist

I was thinking in terms of the creationist on the street, but you make a good point about some of the specific actions of parts of creationism

I see what you did there. Pretty good.

 

[shmogie]

The same Behe who, while acting as a witness in the Dov er trial, claimed that there was no researchon the evolution of the immune system, and upon having a stack of such research plonked down in front of him, he just dismissed it anyway?

The same Behe that said it is not up to him to test his own claims?

THAT Behe?

Oh? Johnny Bananas recognized the flaws with ID and creationism, so you should doubt them both. Right? Isn't that your intent? that if you name drop others will bow down?

Funny thing - every evolutionist I know had never heard of Flew until creationists starting calling him "the world's greatest atheist." I have still never read anything of his, and don't intend to. I don't care what some old crank felt.

What is next in the creationist bag o' tricks? Darwin=Hitler? I don;t suggest it - @BilliardsBall tried it, and he ended up refuting himself,...

For what it is worth, and to you nothing, I never heard of the guy till a month or two ago, or ever read anything he wrote.

 

[wellwisher]

Instead of just talk philosophy let me put my money where my mouth is. When proteins are manufactured in the cell, they fold into very specific shapes, based on the composition of amino acids contained in the protein.

Our bodies are mostly protein and water, so the outward and inward expression of life; skin, muscles and organs, is primarily based on the shapes and positioning of all our proteins, acting as a huge integrated composite.

That being said, below is what is called an energy landscape diagram. This shows a protein that has been manufactured by the cell dissolved in the water of the cell. The peaks of the first diagram are high energy aspects of the protein relative to the water. In the second diagram, these peaks are induced to lowered energy. The packing of all protein is done in a way that will minimize the free energy of the water.This results in perfect packing that is always the same.There is one sweet spot in the water.

Any unique lift form, anywhere in evolution, is structurally based on water and how water impact all protein shapes and how all these add together to suit the needs water. This was always the way, from the beginning even before the first replicators.

These energy landscape diagrams also apply to DNA and RNA as well as their static and dynamics shapes, with active and static protein. It is doubtful that mutations are random since protein folds are so exact due to the local and global interactions with water.