Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Hockeycowboy]

LOL!!!

When I indicated I'm not a YEC, @Subduction Zone replies,
"Really? So once again no Noah's Ark myth."

By what reasoning do you equate the Biblical Flood with a Young Earth?

As if one is necessary for the other to have happened.

That's just non-reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL!!!

When I indicated I'm not a YEC, @Subduction Zone replies,
"Really? So once again no Noah's Ark myth."

By what reasoning do you equate the Biblical Flood with a Young Earth?

As if one is necessary for the other to have happened.

That's just non-reasoning.

Because the two are tied together. You also claimed not to be a science denier besides that of evolution.

 

[gnostic]

No one knows how God did it. One can examine the creation, can examine cadavers and skulls and living matter, but no one but God knows how it really happened, and by that I mean put it all together. No one. Not one scientist.

"God did it", isn't the answer, nor it is an explanation of how the world works. "God did it" is simply ignorance and archaic superstition.

The Bible is filled with such superstitions.

If you were to seriously read the Book of Job, you would see that God's replies to Job (Job 38 to 41), are not knowledge; God bragging about his awesome powers were nothing more than silly superstitions.

Science is required “to explain” WHAT the phenomena is, to find and “explain” WHAT the properties, “to explain” HOW the phenomena work, and “to explain” HOW you use all that information, then try to figure out HOW to TEST it through observation of the phenomena, this “test” can be in the form of evidence or experiment.

You should notice that I use the word “explain” and “test” in my above description of what science do.

The Bible never explain.

Take for instance, what God say about lightning or thunder:

25 “Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunderbolt,

35 Can you send forth lightnings, so that they may go and say to you, ‘Here we are’?

9 Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?

None of these verses explain what lightning and thunder are, how they work and what cause them to occur.

God doesn’t show he know anything about nature, and this book only demonstrate god is “all-knowing”. All the book demonstrated is that God like to brag about his power, which is characteristic of petty child throwing a tantrum.

The book of Job has negative portrayals of God’s character.

If I want answer about the nature of lightning, would I ask God or would I ask a physicist with background in meteorology?

I would choose the later.

If I want to learn about anatomy and physiology of human heart, brain, stomach, skin, bones, etc, would I want to learn from a biologist or from God (or from the Bible)?

I would seek information from the former (ie biologist).

The Bible contain no explanatory information about human biology.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Re: Sternberg and the recriminations he suffered (the establishment is obviously afraid of honest questions that reveal weaknesses in the ToE):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html?referrer=email

I'm glad the Washington Post took this issue seriously: it's 3 pages long.

 

[gnostic]

Jones was more interested in upholding the Law (as he should be). He was misled into thinking that ID is religious, and he wanted to keep religion separate from the state.
(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he specifically stated that aliens could have seeded life on Earth! That is ID.)

Hockeycowboy.

The majority of members of the Discovery Institute (DI), are creationists, which include Bruce Chapman and George Gilder (both con-founders of the Institute), and senior members like Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, Dean Kenyon, etc.

Both Chapman and Gilder were former journalists, respectively in law and economics, and both are former politicians. Neither of these DI founders have backgrounds in science.

All except Behe are Young Earth Creationists; Behe is Old Earth creationist (OEC).

Kenyon co-wrote Of Panda and People with Percival Davis. Davis is both YEC and ID advocate, but I don’t know if he is member of the Discovery Institute, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he is.

Have you read the Wedge Document, Hockeycowboy?

It is a manifesto of the Institute, which is their strategy to employ the legal system and media to promote Christian creationism via “Intelligent Design”. Instead of using the word “Creator” or “God”, they will in public refer to god as “Designer”. Their most obvious goal is to pressure public schools to teach ID creationism in science subjects.

The problem is that ID isn’t science. ID is no more science than Grimms’ fairytale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Re: Sternberg and the recriminations he suffered (the establishment is obviously afraid of honest questions that reveal weaknesses in the ToE):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html?referrer=email

I'm glad the Washington Post took this issue seriously: it's 3 pages long.

A bit better. Let's look at some of the quotes from the article:

"Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper."

He was. What was wrong with doing this?

""They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists," said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. "I was basically run out of there.""

Oops, this appears to be a lie by Steinberg. He was not run out. His contract was already up. His time of running that particular publication was over but he was not run out of the Smithsonain

Richard M. Sternberg - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Back to your article:

"An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a "creationist."

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that "retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.""

Really? Then why did the U.S. Office of Special Counsel reject Steinberg's discrimination suit? Again check the above article and ask yourself why there was not a discrimination suit? It appears that Steinberg is not being honest and is referring to an unofficial letter from that office:

"Republican politicians and intelligent design advocates Rep. Mark Souder and Sen. Rick Santorum went to bat for the Discovery Institute and Souder issued a non-official statement in support of Sternberg's claims of religious discrimination.

The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it gaining any official standing by the Committee, which never formally accepted it. This is contrary to oft-repeated claims by the Discovery Institute and other design proponents that the report represents an official position by the Committee supporting Sternberg's claims of discrimination.*

This unofficial Souder report has been discredited but it has become a major playing card in the claim by the Discovery Institute and Ben Stein that Sternberg is a victim of religious persecution"

From the source that I linked.


Steinberg did not follow protocol for publishing a peer reviewed article. That would be just grounds for termination, but since his term was over and this was a final act of his all he got was scoldings. It appears that Steinberg is as dishonest in this article as he was in the article that he improperly published.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Really? Then why did the U.S. Office of Special Counsel reject Steinberg's discrimination suit?

It's explained in the letter, just read it. His status as an RA, and not being an employee of the SI, both played a role.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he specifically stated that aliens could have seeded life on Earth! That is ID.)

Known falsehoods do nothing but undermine your argument, I'm afraid. Dawkins promoted no such thing.

 

[Heyo]

Please...Your link only mentioned irreducible complexity twice.

There’s an interesting statement written by Judge Jones in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

The point is, though....what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.

So we agree that ID is not science?

No, just evolutionary biology. And only certain aspects of that. I also question dating methods, as they rely on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past.” It isn’t.

So, just evolutionary biology. And geology. And chemistry. And nuclear physics. And Genetics. (Which all either use or provide dating methods.) And science in general as the axiom "the present is the key to the past” is a rephrasing of one of three basic axioms of science: "the universe is orderly". You can't do science without.

So we agree that you have a general problem with science?

Certainly, it’s already been documented.

Google Richard Sternberg.

So we agree that you are a conspiracy theorist?

We are not YEC's.

In which points do you diverge from AiG's and the DI's position on the origin of species?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please...Your link only mentioned irreducible complexity twice.

There’s an interesting statement written by Judge Jones in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Jones was more interested in upholding the Law (as he should be). He was misled into thinking that ID is religious, and he wanted to keep religion separate from the state.
(Even the anti-religious Dawkins once promoted ID...he specifically stated that aliens could have seeded life on Earth! That is ID.)


The point is, though....what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court.


Not to certain factions in science, either, apparently.



No, just evolutionary biology. And only certain aspects of that. I also question dating methods, as they rely on the axiom, “the present is the key to the past.” It isn’t.

Certainly, it’s already been documented.

Google Richard Sternberg.

Here’s a link....
Smithsonian "discriminated" against scientist

We are not YEC's.

Aliens seeding the earth is not an example of intelligent design. Farmers plant seeds all the time, but they did not design the seeds from a handful of chemicals and water. Seeding the earth would not be the intelligent design that is promoted by the ID movement. It would be closer to farming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL!!!

When I indicated I'm not a YEC, @Subduction Zone replies,
"Really? So once again no Noah's Ark myth."

By what reasoning do you equate the Biblical Flood with a Young Earth?

As if one is necessary for the other to have happened.

That's just non-reasoning.

Hey. There's an idea. Keep moving the flood date back until you can feel comfortable that time and weathering are the reason there is no evidence. Though, you will have a tough time explaining it if you push it back past 300,000 years and the existence of Homo sapiens, but I bet you can do it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Re: Sternberg and the recriminations he suffered (the establishment is obviously afraid of honest questions that reveal weaknesses in the ToE):


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html?referrer=email

I'm glad the Washington Post took this issue seriously: it's 3 pages long.

The Origin of Species is 502 pages long.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

Possible, yes.
Plausible, no.

Shared "parts" falling into a nested hierarchy pattern, indicating a family tree, is not the pattern expected from designed productlines.
In productlines, one might expect interchangeable parts and a mix-match of shared things.

As in: in a designed world, there is no reason why we wouldn't find a mammal with feathers, for example.
Or a horse with wings (and thus 6 limbs instead of 4).

Only evolution properly explains the nested hierarchy we observe everywhere in life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? You exclude the possibility that God made earth and living matter from similar chemicals?

There's no reason to think this god did.
There's actually not even a reason to think this god is real and capable of doing anything.

I can't exclude the possibility.
Just like I can't exclude the possibility that it was a undetectable 7-headed dragon, who also follows me around everywhere I go. Neither can I exclude that undetectable graviton pixies are regulating the forces of gravity.

There's an infinite list of things that my imagination can produce which I can not exclude.
You're suggesting the "possibility", upto you to come up with evidence that not only makes it possible but also plausible.

At this point, your claim is on par with my dragon or pixies.

 

[ratiocinator]

For the sake of discussion and possibilities just in concept, whether you believe in God or not, just suppose for a moment for the same of reasoning, if there is a God, could he have decided to make/create organisms with similar genetic structure? Just wondering your reasoning on the matter, or whether you will consider that as a possibility, even if you don't believe it happened that way.

Remember the genetic evidence for evolution is not just similarity between genetic structures. For example, there are "fossil" or pseudo-genes: mutated versions of genes that used to work in our ancestors. We can even use the exact way in which these genes are mutated in various species to confirm their relatedness. It's really very difficult to explain this sort of evidence in terms of separate creations using similar designs and genetic structure. This is just another reason (amongst many, many more) to reject special creation in favour of evolution and common descent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why? You exclude the possibility that God made earth and living matter from similar chemicals?

No, read what I wrote. I can imagine a scenario in which it's POSSIBLE that some creator being MIGHT have CONCEIVABLY decided to make Earth and living matter from similar chemicals, but that is NOT evidence of anything, other than the fact that I can imagine it. That fact that I can IMAGINE that the universe was the result of a magical pixie farting is NOT evidence that a magical pixie actually farted out the universe.

In both cases, just I can IMAGINE it, does not in any way shape or form make it TRUE.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Known falsehoods do nothing but undermine your argument, I'm afraid. Dawkins promoted no such thing.

He said “it was possible”:

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

I understand, I have back problems.

The last part of my OP briefly touched on that. Our bodies rejuvenate and heal up to a point, but as we age, that ability becomes less effective. Scientists have no explanation, as to why the process breaks down.

The Bible does, though.
(Why did those people who existed long ago, according to the Bible, live for centuries? Because they were only a few generations removed from Adam & Eve. Their genetic makeup was closer to A & E’s perfection. As people were born and more generations removed, lifespans declined.)

 

[We Never Know]

I understand, I have back problems.

The last part of my OP briefly touched on that. Our bodies rejuvenate and heal up to a point, but as we age, that ability becomes less effective. Scientists have no explanation, as to why the process breaks down.

The Bible does, though.
(Why did those people who existed long ago, according to the Bible, live for centuries? Because they were only a few generations removed from Adam & Eve. Their genetic makeup was closer to A & E’s perfection. As people were born and more generations removed, lifespans declined.)

If you get time read this. Since you believe in a creator, why didn't he create all species this way?

Turritopsis dohrnii is now officially known as the only immortal creature.

Immortal Jellyfish – The creature that defies death

 

[YoursTrue]

100% wrong as usual. He was not misled about ID, it is a religious belief and it is not science....

You know what's wrong? It's the idea that you actually think yo

If you get time read this. Since you believe in a creator, why didn't he create all species this way?

Turritopsis dohrnii is now officially known as the only immortal creature.

Immortal Jellyfish – The creature that defies death

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know how many times this thing goes back to immaturity and then rejuvenates, do you? But anyway, they can die, I see, if they get consumed by another fish (I'd hate to eat jellyfish) or if a disease strikes the jelly.
The article also says, "While the process of reverting from its adult-phase to a polyp was observed several times, it hasn’t been observed yet in nature, only in laboratory environments."