The flaws in Intelligent design

[Hockeycowboy]

@Hockeycowboy the Silver Scrolls, the oldest biblical writing found, dates to about 586 BC. The Bible appears to have been written from the mid 600's BC to roughly 100 AD, much closer to my time range than yours.

Ketef Hinnom - Wikipedia

Where were they found?! Grief!

They were found in tombs used by the Hebrews, before the destruction by Babylon! That dates them prior to Jerusalem’s temporary demise!

Indeed, the script used was dated to the 7th century bce, during the First Temple period.

Anyway, I subscribe to Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in 607 bce.

So the scrolls were in existence before that event.

This is all moot, anyhow...dating a copy, has no bearing on when the original was written!

Since all the Israelite kings were required to copy the Mosaic Law, copies that are more ancient will be found, I suspect. (To your chagrin, no doubt.)

(‘Heaven forbid, the Bible be accurate. We can’t let that happen!’)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where were they found?! Grief!

They were found in tombs used by the Hebrews, before the destruction by Babylon! That dates them prior to Jerusalem’s temporary demise!

Indeed, the script used was dated to the 7th century bce, during the First Temple period.

Anyway, I subscribe to Jerusalem’s destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in 607 bce.

So the scrolls were in existence before that event.

This is all moot, anyhow...dating a copy, has no bearing on when the original was written!

Since all the Israelite kings were required to copy the Mosaic Law, copies that are more ancient will be found, I suspect. (To your chagrin, no doubt.)

(‘Heaven forbid, the Bible be accurate. We can’t let that happen!’)

The scholars appear to disagree with you.

 

[Bear Wild]

Is DNA a code of instructions or not?

From everything we know of concerning where instructiins come, it comes from intelligence. You have no KNOWN examples where information comes from none intelligence.

Where did the information come from?

DNA came from nature just as our intelligence comes from nature. The languages of animals comes from nature. We know that the DNA molecule is altered by natural events with no "intelligent" designer making changes to it. You have no evidence to the contrary yet we do have evidence that DNA has evolved without the help of an intelligent designer. That is why the desire to believe in an intelligent designer is just that, a desire alone without evidence. Do you really believe an intelligent designer is continuing to manipulate the DNA of all life all of the time?

 

[Bear Wild]

If you can find a shack fossilized in the Cambrian geological record with two trilobites holding beer mugs you probably might just have something. The natural creative forces are continuing to change genetic material to create increasing variation and novel proteins without the help of a mythical intelligent designer. You are limited in your understanding of our natural world because you cannot see beyond you human centered view.
Complex design and changes in the are seen in the natural world all of the time without any need of an intelligent designer and science (true science with actual evidence) supports this.

 

[Bear Wild]

[QUOTE="Wild Fox, post: 5982947, member: 62944"
The two flaws that I see in the argument

1. .... Just because something is complex does not mean it has to be made by an intelligent designer.....
.

If that was true why do some astronomer spend their time looking for patterns of sound or lights to confirm their belief that extraterrestial life exists ?
Could not any attempt to contact us simply be construed as a random pattern, no matter how complex ?

Who of us on traveling through a barren desert upon finding a shack asks himself: I wonder if this shack just appeared out of pure chance or did someone build it ?

Believing that complex structures just appear without a designer -simply put - flies in the face of true science, since there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.

This view might be considered simplistic, but sometime the truth is just not that complicated.

(tHebrew 3:4) Of course every house is consructed ty someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.[/QUOTE]
If you can find a shack fossilized in the Cambrian geological record with two trilobites holding beer mugs you probably might just have something. The natural creative forces are continuing to change genetic material to create increasing variation and novel proteins without the help of a mythical intelligent designer. You are limited in your understanding of our natural world because you cannot see beyond you human centered view.
Complex design and changes in the are seen in the natural world all of the time without any need of an intelligent designer and science (true science with actual evidence) supports this.

 

[tas8831]

Good luck with that. All that is ever offered is the claim that there is scientific evidence to dispute evolution. When the rubber hits the road so do the people that make the claim.

Oh, I know. If anything, it will be a link to some PRATT list.
It is almost as if they think that repeating it over and over will make it true.

 

[tas8831]

It is not just that I have never understood the reasoning, but it is that it almost offends me to hear someone comment about another person suffering in the midst of horrible tragedy, that 'God was watching out for them'.

I know of a family friend that was in a horrible car accident that left her paralyzed from the hips down, and took out her entire family and people made comments to the effect that 'God was watching out for her' because she survived. I am thinking 'How?' She was in a horrible auto accident. Her family was killed. She was crippled. She had to sit conscious in that vehicle with her dead and dying family for a long time while others had to find the wreck and then remove her.

It does not make any sense to me.

I feel the same way. X-number of people killed in a tornado, dozens of people lose their homes. 1 person survives unscathed - God was protecting him/her. smh...

 

[tas8831]

1. Archaeopteryx was presented as a creature transitioning from reptile to bird, but when the bones were studied by ornithologists, they stated that its skull and bone structure indicated that it was a bird, not a reptile in transition.

Hmmm.... Read that on the AiG website, did you?

Got a source?

How many birds have teeth and a bony tail?

2. Coelacanth was also promoted as an extinct transitory form until it was discovered that it is not extinct and is not in transition. It's still the same old fish according to ichthyologists.

LOL!

Right - because if it is alive, it cannot be a transitional form. Got it. Source?

0 for 2.

You see, I ask for sources because the only people I have ever heard say such things are creationists. And tthey usually do this via misrepresenting things that were actually written.

 

[tas8831]

All the research that has been done on Archaeopteryx indicate that it shares features of both its reptilian ancestry and the derived characters that are found in modern birds. That is a transitional form. That it may be somewhat more closely related to birds to the point that it can be classified as a bird does not alter the fact of its transitional nature.

Discovering a creature whose lineage was thought to be extinct, even for millions of years, is a noteworthy discovery, but it does not mean that it refutes evolution. The Coelacanth species found today, reveal a conserved external morphology with their fossil relatives, but they are not the same species as those fossilized relatives. The coelacanth exists in a very stable environment that is millions of years old and there has been no significant selection to drive larger evolutionary changes and, as a group, they have remained in what is known as evolutionary stasis. They still possess derived characteristics that place them in a transition from fish to land creatures.

Well sure, but, a non-ornithologist and a non-ichthyologist on ICR or AiG said so!

 

[Jollybear]

Same way that every other phony "god". They
made it up. Like, is that really so hard to figure?

Yes, it is very hard to figure. Practically impossible. Why would they and so many just make it up?

You think Joseph Smith REALLY found the Book of Mormon
written in an unknown language on gold pages, in a cave in
Upstate New York?

That bate and switch dont work on me. Weather mormanism is true or false has to be looked at on its own merits.

Mohammed really got his book from god?

Same thing, bait and switch. Ill let the mormons defend there religion and ill let the muslims defend theres. Ill defend mine.

Your question is as naive as your little bunny "evator"!!

I dont think its naive. We see design in the world. Even mike shermer and richard dawkins, atheist scientists, ADMIT that things LOOK designed, but the design is illusion they say. And this is coming from leading atheistic scientists.

Audie, come over to our camp, join forces with the God group and help me refute all the rest of these posts, because im outnumbered, lol.

 

[Jollybear]

You really should learn what equivocation is and try to
avoid it. It confuses you, and the rest of us roll our eyes at it.

So, atheists have no faith in anything? Lol

The blindness runs deep.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, atheists have no faith in anything? Lol

The blindness runs deep.

That's not what they said. They simply pointed out that not having faith that there is a God doesn't necessitate faith that a different proposition is true.

 

[Jollybear]

DNA came from nature just as our intelligence comes from nature.

And how do you know that?

Also do you have a PROVEN example where information does NOT come from intelligence? Just ONE example?

The languages of animals comes from nature.

No, it comes from there minds (a.k.a intelligence)

We know that the DNA molecule is altered by natural events with no "intelligent" designer making changes to it.

How did the information originate?

You have no evidence to the contrary yet we do have evidence that DNA has evolved without the help of an intelligent designer.

You got no evidence of how DNA code originated. No you dont.

That is why the desire to believe in an intelligent designer is just that, a desire alone without evidence.

Its not based on a desire, its based on evidence and logical inference to that evidence.

You have a desire NOT to believe.

Do you really believe an intelligent designer is continuing to manipulate the DNA of all life all of the time?

After an engineer builds a watch, the watch can run and tick on its own.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, it is very hard to figure. Practically impossible. Why would they and so many just make it up?



That bate and switch dont work on me. Weather mormanism is true or false has to be looked at on its own merits.



Same thing, bait and switch. Ill let the mormons defend there religion and ill let the muslims defend theres. Ill defend mine.



I dont think its naive. We see design in the world. Even mike shermer and richard dawkins, atheist scientists, ADMIT that things LOOK designed, but the design is illusion they say. And this is coming from leading atheistic scientists.

Audie, come over to our camp, join forces with the God group and help me refute all the rest of these posts, because im outnumbered, lol.

Has creationism or ID ever successfully predicted anything?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, it is very hard to figure. Practically impossible. Why would they and so many just make it up?

Good question. For me, the answer is kind of indicated by natural human cognitive bias. Several studies recently have pointed towards belief in Gods or God-like being sort of "hard-wired" into the brain, and that natural human instinct and cognition leads people to accepting explanatory frameworks which place a human-like intelligence at the centre of it. It's just naturally easier for people to look at and understand the world from a human perspective, so it stands to reason we adopt natural disposition to view the world from the other end with a still-human perspective.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And how do you know that?

Also do you have a PROVEN example where information does NOT come from intelligence? Just ONE example?



No, it comes from there minds (a.k.a intelligence)



How did the information originate?



You got no evidence of how DNA code originated. No you dont.



Its not based on a desire, its based on evidence and logical inference to that evidence.

You have a desire NOT to believe.



After an engineer builds a watch, the watch can run and tick on its own.

You invoke an engineer BUILDING a watch. Demonstrate how an engineer BUILT a life form, and you might have something. As it stands, evolution can explain the mechanics of organism change over time, other than saying "Goddidit" can ID or creationism do anything similar?

 

[tas8831]

Show you? You just showed me the instructions.

No, I showed you some DNA.

Its not my fault i nor you can read or speak DNA language.

Speak for yourself - I at least know what to look for to find coding sequence.

Do you even know what that means?

Can you read and speak ancient greek?

I can understand some anglicized Greek - I teach a class on scientific terminology.
You?

Just because you cant dont mean its not a language.

Just because something is metaphorically described as a language does not mean it is like English or Greek.

Thanks for admitting that you are totally clueless when it comes to actually supporting your assertions.

 

[tas8831]

That article itself even calls the DNA a code of information.

So, you didn;t read it.

I did a search for "code" and yes, they use the term code 3 times. Not once as part of the phrase "code of information".

These are metaphorical uses - shorthand, if you will.

But cool that you ignored the reason I linked to that article.

Yea, it talks of mutations that happen, some neutral, some harmful, but, how did DNA and its code arive in the first place?

Tell me what the 'code' is, then show me how to measure information in DNA - you can start by telling me how much information is in the DNA sequence I provided for you earlier.

 

[tas8831]

And how do you know that?

How do you know it doesn't?

Also do you have a PROVEN example where information does NOT come from intelligence? Just ONE example?

Do you have a PROVEN example that the 'coded information' in DNA was put there by Yahweh?

No, it comes from there minds (a.k.a intelligence)

Yes, the concept of information comes from a human mind.

Are you saying that Jehovah is a human?

How did the information originate?

You tell us, oh Master of Knowledge - with evidence, please.

You got no evidence of how DNA code originated. No you dont.

Then surely you DO. Present it please. The evidence, not a mere assertion.

Its not based on a desire, its based on evidence and logical inference to that evidence.

Then why can you and your kind never actually present any evidence?

Believe it or not, you merely writing over and over that 'information comes from intelligence' and that the 'information in DNA came from a mind' does not actually count as evidence.

You have a desire NOT to believe.

Projection.

After an engineer builds a watch, the watch can run and tick on its own.

Profound.

Human engineers build watches. We know this.

Which human engineer built DNA?

 

[tas8831]

Its not my fault the human genome projects own website calls DNA a code of instructions, is it?

Yeah, since I caught you fibbing about that in the article I linked to yesterday, I'm betting that this is false also.

Francis callins who was the leader of the human genome project, he calls it a language. He actually calls it "the language of God".

He also accepts evolution, to include the evolution of humans, and in that very book, all but claims that creationism is false.

But no, go ahead and refer to him.




The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief



p. 134



“This (genetic similarity) evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of ‘silent’ mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable–not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves.”