The flaws in Intelligent design

[Cooky]

"Goddidit" was not part of their scientific explanations.

If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you are an Atheist.

 

[Cooky]

Nobody can believe in God and at the same time deny intelligent design.

Don't lie to yourself. And don't lie to others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon.... they all attributed the origin of the physical universe to God. Yet their beliefs did not inhibit their searches and their discoveries. Are you saying their work wasn't science?

There work in science, was based on evidence. Their religious claims were based on belief that they could not demonstrate. As long as they stuck to the evidence in their science, they could attribute the universe to Van Halen if they wanted to.

Belief in God that requires evidence seems like pretty weak faith to me.

 

[Cooky]

Likewise if you ever sincerely seek to increase your knowledge of
science you will soon give up some of your cherished notions.

Try it!

Be quiet Audie.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you are an Atheist.

Not according to the line the intelligent design proponents are trying to sell. They claim the intelligent designer could be some dude that is not God.

 

[Jollybear]

That is not true. I am on point with what intelligent design states. You just do not understand it.

Mayby answer questions then.

I have never called you a fraud.

Actually you did, in another thread, then in yet another thread called me dishonest. You sure did. You either forgot, or your denying it.

How dare you make up lies about me. That is false witness.

Nothing is made up. Its facts.

I am a Christian. I am not a creationist, deifying the Bible.

Creationists dont deify the bible, they merely interpret it different then you do.

Of course. What I have to say relates to science, is not irrational and is based on logic, reason and evidence.

Ya, sure it is. Delute yourself till your blue in the face.

Define creationism then define ID please and thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

if a designer can be detected, directly or indirectly,
that seems a thing for science.


We infer the intelligent design in the nature of ancient
artifacts.

You dont have to know who, or why.

Maybe outer space monsters made the pyramids;
for sure, someone did, they did not just happen, as
creos might say, "randomly".

I think your point here goes directly to my second point about a designer being a physical material being. If that were shown to be the case, it sort of destroys a lot of creationist claims that I have heard over the years. It certainly would not support Genesis. I do not think that the ID proponents have thought this all the way through in their zeal. I have not, but far enough to see a direction it could go.

 

[Sapiens]

We disagree on all these points, of course, but the statement above is worthy of special notice for how it cracks me up. "... the evolution of life is virtually assured" -- That's funny!

I never find ignorance ha, ha, funny ... just funny, peculiar.

Why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

The full article at: A New Thermodynamics Theory of the Origin of Life | Quanta Magazine

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mayby answer questions then.

I did. Stop pretending I have not.

Actually you did, in another thread, then in yet another thread called me dishonest. You sure did. You either forgot, or your denying it.

I did not call you a fraud. Dishonesty and fraud may be related, but they are not the same thing. I think you are a true creationist with all that that implies about what you can demonstrate and what you believe.

Nothing is made up. Its facts.

Some of what you claim is made up.

Creationists dont deify the bible, they merely interpret it different then you do.

Yes you/they do.

Ya, sure it is. Delute yourself till your blue in the face.

What is delute? Is that like deguitar?

Define creationism thenndefine ID please and thank you.

You define it.

There seems no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You typically are defensive, uninformative and go into attack mode when you creationist beliefs are threatened with logic and evidence. Discussion with you goes in circles and I think that is what you want.

 

[Audie]

Darwinism is contrary to Catholic teaching, but the Church does not prohibit Catholics from believing that God has used some form of (unspecified) evolutionary process(es) in creation. I don't.
The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, but the Pope is not infallible in his personal opinions. Pope Francis has not changed any doctrines, so I have no disagreement with him in that regard. On the other hand, I disagree with many of his personal opinions as he has stated them, particularly about evolution.

Infallible, is it. Terrif!

So you, too are infallible when you speak against
evolution.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

First there is overlap in genetic material with well conserved portions that are common to all species but there are genetic segments that are clearly different. Since the fossil evidence shows changes in species then the intelligent designer must be visiting us all of the time to make corrections and the only way to make those corrections is to change the genetic code. That is unless you reject everything we understand about genetics. So until someone who believes in intelligent design can show an organism with brand new genetic segment never before seen with a new complex protein (and not a modification) never before seen then they are just trying to snow everyone into believing that nature does not have the creative ability that we have evidence of. Also how does this intelligent designer go in and alter the genetic code? Certainty a god that would talk to that gods followers could explain how that god places new segments of DNA into the genetic code. Maybe someone could ask the intelligent designer the believe in to find out.

There can be remarkable variations within a species, as we have learned through selective breeding of plants and animals and as we have observed in the natural world. This property enables adaptation, and survival, so it's obviously part of the design and already within the genetic code as written for each species. It does not require that God make any changes or corrections as a species or members of a species change.

What selective breeding and adaptation cannot do is change a species beyond its parameters. It cannot turn one species into another. There is no empirical evidence that such a thing has ever happened and the fossil record offers no evidence either.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

So you, too are infallible when you speak against
evolution.

Did I say I was? I'm saying I don't buy it and explaining why not. Try putting forth a real argument.

 

[Cooky]

Did I say I was? I'm saying I don't buy it and explaining why not. Try putting forth a real argument.

She has no valid points. Ignore her.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

She has no valid points. Ignore her.

Maybe she'll put one together. Meanwhile, thanks for your support.

 

[Jollybear]

I did. Stop pretending I have not.

Lies.

I did not call you a fraud.

Do i need to go back to the thread and find it and prove it to you? If i gotta do that then your gonna look more exposed and thats gonna make you look worse. You want me to do that?

Dishonesty and fraud may be related, but they are not the same thing. I think you are a true creationist with all that that implies about what you can demonstrate and what you believe.

Do you also deny calling me dishonest?

Some of what you claim is made up.

We shall see about that, atheist.

Yes you/they do.

No, we, i do not. You on the otherhand deify naturalism.

What is delute? Is that like deguitar?

Delusion.

You define it.

There seems no point in trying to discuss anything with you. You typically are defensive, uninformative and go into attack mode when you creationist beliefs are threatened with logic and evidence. Discussion with you goes in circles and I think that is what you want.

More delusion on your part, atheist.

Ok, i will define it.

Creationism is people who believe the bible. Usually a 6 thousand year earth. With God creating it in 6 days.

Intelligent design is detecting intelligence having made the world.

There different. If you claim there the same, then define them then. Go ahead, atheist.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

One of the growing disadvantages to evolutionists ever since the theory was published has been all the scientific progress that disputes it. But since the scientific community wants to keep it viable despite that, new theories must be introduced to support the old one. So now we have theory upon theory going on.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you are an Atheist.

What evidence do you have that he or she is an Atheist?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

There can be remarkable variations within a species, as we have learned through selective breeding of plants and animals and as we have observed in the natural world. This property enables adaptation, and survival, so it's obviously part of the design and already within the genetic code as written for each species. It does not require that God make any changes or corrections as a species or members of a species change.

What selective breeding and adaptation cannot do is change a species beyond its parameters. It cannot turn one species into another. There is no empirical evidence that such a thing has ever happened and the fossil record offers no evidence either.

What objective evidence do you have that your god exist?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Lies.



Do i need to go back to the thread and find it and prove it to you? If i gotta do that then your gonna look more exposed and thats gonna make you look worse. You want me to do that?



Do you also deny calling me dishonest?



We shall see about that, atheist.



No, we, i do not. You on the otherhand deify naturalism.



Delusion.



More delusion on your part, atheist.

Ok, i will define it.

Creationism is people who believe the bible. Usually a 6 thousand year earth. With God creating it in 6 days.

Intelligent design is detecting intelligence having made the world.

There different. If you claim there the same, then define them then. Go ahead, atheist.

What objective evidence do you have that your god is real?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

One of the growing disadvantages to evolutionists ever since the theory was published has been all the scientific progress that disputes it. But since the scientific community wants to keep it viable despite that, new theories must be introduced to support the old one. So now we have theory upon theory going on.

Creationists have failed to provide objective evidence that there is a god.