The flaws in Intelligent design

[Jollybear]

Ill respond to the others tomorow or another time, its getting late.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had to take a break from this for a few days cause its getting on my last nerve.

Are hardrives designed? Do they have code in them?

Likewise, DNA.

This has been explained to you several ways. At this point all that can be said is that you do not understand how ideas are simplified for lay people, that is people that are not in the field. You are desperate to make DNA a "made thing" when we can understand how it is not. Perhaps you should try to concentrate on how specific genes have evolved over time.

Few questions.

1, how do you know what i want to believe?
2, want and reasons for belief are different, do you know that?
3, do you want to believe what you believe?

From your posts. You desperately want to believe that evolution is false. We can all see that. Most of us simply want to believe correct things. If creationism was shown to be correct we would believe it. But all of the evidence out there says that it is wrong so of course we don't believe it.

Evidence is another concept that you could work on. It will help you understand the theory of evolution and make you a better debater too.

Thats false. I have found alot, then infer a conclusion from it. But, you "WANT" to believe that i just conclude and try to line everything to it. Thats what you want to believe because it makes you more comfy in your atheism.

Projection and error. Dan is not an atheist. He is a Christian like you. Well not exactly like you. Not all Christians believe the myths of Genesis. And no, you are not reasoning logically. For the sciences one starts on the scientific method and the concept of evidence.

I already corrected this. If you "WANT" to persist in your ignorence, go for it. But, if something is true, then it can never be falsified, logically.

However, by your definition of falsifiability, then darwinian naturalism is unfalsifiable.

ID is falsifiable? What reasonable test could show it to be false? You have yet to come up with such a test. You gave a nonsensical test in the past. Your tested depended upon evolution being shown to be wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong that would not be evidence for ID.

And there are several tests that could possibly refute evolution. Once you understand the scientific method and evidence I will gladly go over them.

Thats false. Furthermore, you dont even see my face, yet you think im freaking out here emotionally? Seriously, i wish you could see my face, im calm as a lake with no wind blowing.

But hey, if you "WANT" to believe im being emotional, go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

Then show us that he is wrong. Reason logically for once, don't rely on logical fallacies. Gladly release old refuted ideas. Your posts do appear to be quite emotional at times.

Its not religion, that is a misrepresentation of ID. And not only is it a misrepresentation, but its stubbornly being persisted after multiple corrections. And this is partly why i took a break from this thread because its....getting on my nerves.

And if its pseudoscience, then darwinian naturalism or materialism also would equally fit pseudoscience.

Sorry, you can keep telling yourself this, but it is wrong. There was even a trial where ID was shown to be religion. The theory of evolution is not. It is testable falsifiable science. That is why it is legal to teach evolution and illegal to teach ID.

So why cant ID be a competting hypotheses for the origin of life?

That is the fault of believers in ID. They are afraid. Real scientists put their ideas to the test. They put their ideas in the form of a testable hypothesis. That means they find a test that could conceivably show it to be wrong. The reason that there is no evidence for ID is that first one must have a testable hypothesis, without one one cannot even begin to claim to have evidence.

No, it has not been tested in the lab and shown that life can come from none intelligence. That has not been shown. Nor has it been tested or shown that codes come from unguided forces in the lab. If you deny that, PROVIDE A PROVEN source. PROVEN one. I repeat, proven one. I mean it, dont waste my time giving me a bs source that just speculates.

Really? Where? Where did they properly reproduce the early Earth environment and prove that abiogenesis is impossible? I am only aware of test after test that demonstrated that it was possible.

Ugh, that's enough. I will let Dan handle the rest.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thats false. I have found alot, then infer a conclusion from it. But, you "WANT" to believe that i just conclude and try to line everything to it. Thats what you want to believe because it makes you more comfy in your atheism.

Except Dan's a Methodist.

Weird how you assumed Dan was an atheist just because they hold a contrary position to you on the subject of evolution. It's almost as if you're making assumptions designed to fit what you want to believe rather than what is actually true.

 

[Jollybear]

This has been explained to you several ways. At this point all that can be said is that you do not understand how ideas are simplified for lay people, that is people that are not in the field. You are desperate to make DNA a "made thing" when we can understand how it is not. Perhaps you should try to concentrate on how specific genes have evolved over time.



From your posts. You desperately want to believe that evolution is false. We can all see that. Most of us simply want to believe correct things. If creationism was shown to be correct we would believe it. But all of the evidence out there says that it is wrong so of course we don't believe it.

Evidence is another concept that you could work on. It will help you understand the theory of evolution and make you a better debater too.



Projection and error. Dan is not an atheist. He is a Christian like you. Well not exactly like you. Not all Christians believe the myths of Genesis. And no, you are not reasoning logically. For the sciences one starts on the scientific method and the concept of evidence.





ID is falsifiable? What reasonable test could show it to be false? You have yet to come up with such a test. You gave a nonsensical test in the past. Your tested depended upon evolution being shown to be wrong. That is a logical fallacy. Even if evolution was shown to be wrong that would not be evidence for ID.

And there are several tests that could possibly refute evolution. Once you understand the scientific method and evidence I will gladly go over them.



Then show us that he is wrong. Reason logically for once, don't rely on logical fallacies. Gladly release old refuted ideas. Your posts do appear to be quite emotional at times.



Sorry, you can keep telling yourself this, but it is wrong. There was even a trial where ID was shown to be religion. The theory of evolution is not. It is testable falsifiable science. That is why it is legal to teach evolution and illegal to teach ID.



That is the fault of believers in ID. They are afraid. Real scientists put their ideas to the test. They put their ideas in the form of a testable hypothesis. That means they find a test that could conceivably show it to be wrong. The reason that there is no evidence for ID is that first one must have a testable hypothesis, without one one cannot even begin to claim to have evidence.



Really? Where? Where did they properly reproduce the early Earth environment and prove that abiogenesis is impossible? I am only aware of test after test that demonstrated that it was possible.

Ugh, that's enough. I will let Dan handle the rest.

The only thing that makes me emotional is the constant misrepresentation.

It happening the odd time i can deal with, but constantly, aspeasaly after correction, yea, thats gonna make me angry.

 

[Jollybear]

The same way you apparently know what a code is. I can say with as much certainty that DNA is not that, it is an acid.

I agree DNA IS an acid, but the 4 nucleotides in the DNA, there multiple combinations are codons. Those ARE a code. The ATCG bases.

But it isn't - I've already explained why. If you can understand why "Every Australian I have ever met has a beard, therefore all Australians have beards" isn't logical, you should be able to understand why your argument - "every example of code I've seen is designed, therefore all codes are designed" - isn't.

Heres the difference between Australians and codes. I can prove some australians have beards. You cant prove 1 code comes from none intelligent forces, not one. And thats the difference. This is an issue of two competting hypotheses and which one is the best explanation.

But ID as an assertion wouldn't be. Just because you may have a very particular conception of a creator that requires a DEMONSTRABLE link between biological life and intelligence, doesn't render the assertion of life being a result of intelligence falsified. The claim still stands.

It depends on who is making the assertion. Everyone has a different level of what will or will not convince them an idea is true or not. An assertion does not stand on its own, people have to make it. I told you that if in the future they prove life, DNA code, the universe came from natural forces, then i would give up ID. However, i PREDICT this will not happen.

Now you can reject that if you want too, but, thats the facts in my case. And again, your talking to ME, not someone else. You should consider that.

That makes no sense. How would proving an intelligence created life not falsify the atheist position? And what does the atheist position have to do with anything we've been debating? I've talked exclusively about evolutionary theory, not atheism.

I just told you how it would not falsify atheism, atleast for some atheists. Why didnt you pay attention? Now i gotta waste time typing the same answer out.

Heres why: if in the future life is proven to have arose from intelligence, some atheists will assert then that this intelligence evolved from none intelligent forces. In fact, richard dawkins is already ahead on saying this. He said that if in the future its shown that alien intelligence made life, then that would bump darwinian, natural, unintelligent forces having made the aliens further back.

So, for some atheists, atheism will not be falsified. Just like for SOME theists, theism will not be falsified. But, i explained to you that i am not one of those kind of theists.

Not really.

Oh yes really, two can play this game. Although i dont want to, but it seams it has to be done. The door indeed swings both ways.

While that's true, what matters is whether or not we can DEMONSTRATE an idea to be true or not true, and an idea such as a supernatural creator is, by is very nature, impossible to demonstrate to be not true.

Thats NOT true. If in the future its proven that none intelligence made life and the universe, then intelligence would then be demonstrated to be not true.

Also you dont need a supernatural being to prove intelligence. Wer intelligence, but wer not supernatural.

No, a scientific prediction is testable. You cannot test for something "never being proven".

Yes you can. I predict in the future the universe and life coming from natural forces will not ever be proven. Thats a testable prediction because it will either be proven or not proven in the future. Period. No more to it, thats it. You can deny this if you want to, but it serves to only show that your own view is unfalsifiable.

This is a debate about various positions and the umbrella terms that they come under and their implications. Also, you've repeatedly asserted things about positions that neither of us hold.

I hold to the ID position, you hold to the naturalist position. Can we get past this now?

Not in the same sense we talk of ID in the debate regarding evolution. For example, people like Kenneth Miller do not hold that ID is a valid position because ID asserts that intelligence is actually inferable scientifically. He does not hold this position, and clearly delineates his religious beliefs from his scientific ones. Being a theist does not make you a proponent of ID because a theist doesn't necessarily hold that their position is scientific.

And gauss what? Miller is not consistent. Furthermore, miller is not smart enough to see that natural forces having made it is just as "inferable" as ID is inferable. I dont care if miller is a scientist, hes not consistent and hes not smart on this line.

Except I haven't said that.

So your not saying natural, none intelligent forces made the universe, life and the code? Your only arguing against ID, but your not adhering to the ulternative to ID, which is natural forces having done it?

What then are you saying made us then?

Based on what? And you do realize that intuition can also be wrong, right?

Yes, i am aware intuition can be wrong, sometimes, not always. Thats why we need to use a combination of methods. Intuition, experiences, and analysis.

Once again, you are making an assertion without answering the question, which is HOW?

Except "appearance of design" is nonsense, because something can have a look of being deliberately ordered and yet be a result of natural forces, and something can have an appearance of being entirely random and still be a result of intelligence.

Youd look at the bird nest, youd see its order and design. Youd see its not growing out from the tree branch, so youd know its not grown on the branch. So, youd wonder to yourself, hmmm, thats odd, its not part of the tree, but its made in a circle, with a bed or hole in the middle and its latched on the branch. Some kind of intelligence must have put that nest there.

Except you cannot identify what differentiates design from non-design without utilizing prior knowledge. I've already challenged you to do this and you couldn't.

I cant, no, but i proposed a test on children. Thats a viable test proposal.

Already tested and failed. There are no known extant examples of irreducibly complex structures or of specified complexity. And even if there were, this wouldn't indicate inherent design, it would just potentially falsify evolution.

Well then, evolution is potentially falsified then. Do you agree there is complexity?

Except he never says that design is EVIDENT in the process, nor does her assert his position on God as being testable or in any way scientific.

In other speaches callins says he cant prove God, but the evidence tips in his favor.

That depends entirely on how an individual defines God. You may believe God set the Universe in motion but sat back and allowed it do progress via natural, unpredictable processes from then on.

I dont believe God plays dice.

ID is a new name given to the creationist movement, a movement which specifically opposed the teaching of evolution in schools and sought to have a theistic alternative taught instead. It is specifically conceived as a reaction to evolutionary theory. Look into the "Of Pandas and People" controversy to see clear proof of this.

ID is not against evolution as in mutation, adaptation, natural selection. ID merely says that these things dont account for the ARRIVAL of the fittest in the first place. And therefore promotes a competting hypotheses.

***mod edit***

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree DNA IS an acid, but the 4 nucleotides in the DNA, there multiple combinations are codons. Those ARE a code. The ATCG bases.

No, they aren't. We INTERPRET them as a code. They are the physical makeup of an acid with specific biological and chemical properties which humans TRANSLATE into coded language for the purpose of simplification. This does not mean that it is a literal code.

Heres the difference between Australians and codes. I can prove some australians have beards. You cant prove 1 code comes from none intelligent forces, not one. And thats the difference. This is an issue of two competting hypotheses and which one is the best explanation.

Once again, you're missing the point of the analogy. You are still committing a fallacious argument. If you admit that saying "I've never seen an Australian without a beard, therefore all Australians have beards" is fallacious, you MUST acknowledge that the argument that all codes must be man-made is equally fallacious.

It depends on who is making the assertion. Everyone has a different level of what will or will not convince them an idea is true or not. An assertion does not stand on its own, people have to make it. I told you that if in the future they prove life, DNA code, the universe came from natural forces, then i would give up ID. However, i PREDICT this will not happen.

Now you can reject that if you want too, but, thats the facts in my case. And again, your talking to ME, not someone else. You should consider that.

I've considered it more than you have considered my position. I've never debated that you wouldn't change your mind, or that you were never capable of doing so, I'm simply pointing out that ID means something distinct to just "theism", and makes additional claims that theism in general doesn't (specifically, the design is demonstrable in nature). That's the point I'm explaining.

I just told you how it would not falsify atheism, atleast for some atheists. Why didnt you pay attention? Now i gotta waste time typing the same answer out.

Heres why: if in the future life is proven to have arose from intelligence, some atheists will assert then that this intelligence evolved from none intelligent forces. In fact, richard dawkins is already ahead on saying this. He said that if in the future its shown that alien intelligence made life, then that would bump darwinian, natural, unintelligent forces having made the aliens further back.

But that wouldn't be a God, and it could still be demonstrated, potentially, that those aliens were created by a God.

So, for some atheists, atheism will not be falsified. Just like for SOME theists, theism will not be falsified. But, i explained to you that i am not one of those kind of theists.

Okay, but I don't know what you think atheism has to do with the evolution debate.

Oh yes really, two can play this game. Although i dont want to, but it seams it has to be done. The door indeed swings both ways.

Again, not really, because we don't have to make such a claim.

Thats NOT true. If in the future its proven that none intelligence made life and the universe, then intelligence would then be demonstrated to be not true.

This is circular reasoning: "if it's proven x is false, then it is proven x is false". The question is HOW you can prove x false, because if there is no objective method of doing so, the claim is unfalsifiable.

What's more, all the above would mean is that such intelligence cannot be proven or remains elusive to our abilities to detect them.

What possible thing do you think can serve as proof that not kind of intelligence, supernatural, omnipotent or otherwise, is involved in creating or maintaining the Universe?

Also you dont need a supernatural being to prove intelligence. Wer intelligence, but wer not supernatural.

But a supernatural intelligence cannot be falsified, that's the point. It doesn't matter if a non-supernatural intelligence is falsified, a supernatural intelligence can still be asserted and never falsified.

Yes you can. I predict in the future the universe and life coming from natural forces will not ever be proven. Thats a testable prediction because it will either be proven or not proven in the future. Period. No more to it, thats it. You can deny this if you want to, but it serves to only show that your own view is unfalsifiable.

Again, your logic here is circular. This is not a TESTABLE prediction.

I hold to the ID position, you hold to the naturalist position. Can we get past this now?

Nope, because I've never asserted such a position and am not arguing for it. I am specifically debating evolution and ID.

And gauss what? Miller is not consistent. Furthermore, miller is not smart enough to see that natural forces having made it is just as "inferable" as ID is inferable. I dont care if miller is a scientist, hes not consistent and hes not smart on this line.

Uh huh. So you think you are smarter than the former head of the human genome project? What about his position, specifically, is inconsistent or "not smart"?

So your not saying natural, none intelligent forces made the universe, life and the code?

Yep. I've not made such an assertion. I simply leave that open as a possibility.

Your only arguing against ID, but your not adhering to the ulternative to ID, which is natural forces having done it?

Yes. I argue that ID hasn't met its burden of proof and assuming its truth is fallacious.

What then are you saying made us then?

I've not said anything made us. To me, that is a pointless debate until we have more information.

Yes, i am aware intuition can be wrong, sometimes, not always. Thats why we need to use a combination of methods. Intuition, experiences, and analysis.

So what experiences and analyses do you have of life coming into existence from a designer?

Youd look at the bird nest, youd see its order and design. Youd see its not growing out from the tree branch, so youd know its not grown on the branch. So, youd wonder to yourself, hmmm, thats odd, its not part of the tree, but its made in a circle, with a bed or hole in the middle and its latched on the branch. Some kind of intelligence must have put that nest there.

Then you'd notice the treed branches and twigs falling, and you'd notice that the shape of the branches and twigs that they fall through create a curious, if unlikely, formation that result in twigs and branches landing in such a way as to balance and create formations that look like nests. Thus, you assume natural causation.

Is the above situation impossible?

Well then, evolution is potentially falsified then. Do you agree there is complexity?

Depends what that means. I already told you that there are no known extant examples of specified or irreducible complexity, and I think that complexity is a nebulous term applied to things difficult for a brain to grasp rather than an inherent facet of a thing itself.

In other speaches callins says he cant prove God, but the evidence tips in his favor.

I see. And this evidence is?

I dont believe God plays dice.

That's what you believe, it's not necessarily what all theists believe, which is my point.

ID is not against evolution as in mutation, adaptation, natural selection. ID merely says that these things dont account for the ARRIVAL of the fittest in the first place. And therefore promotes a competting hypotheses.

And what do you mean by "arrival of the fittest"?

Thats a lie.

No, it isn't. If it is, please present a single, testable, positive prediction made by ID theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I had to take a break from this for a few days cause its getting on my last nerve.

Are hardrives designed? Do they have code in them?

The were designed by people. They record code. They are not code.

Likewise, DNA.

There is no evidence that DNA is designed no matter how much you want there to be. It could be. No one has any evidence indicating that it is.

Few questions.

1, how do you know what i want to believe?

Because you post it here.

2, want and reasons for belief are different, do you know that?

Sure. You want to believe that ID is science, there is evidence for design and you understand science so much that you convince yourself of things that you have not and in many cases cannot demonstrate. It is pretty clear.

3, do you want to believe what you believe?

I do believe what I believe. I also know that I cannot demonstrate it objectively to others. You should work to understand that. Understanding reality does not undermine your beliefs. It just places them in context.

false. I have found alot, then infer a conclusion from it. But, you "WANT" to believe that i just conclude and try to line everything to it. Thats what you want to believe because it makes you more comfy in your atheism.

I do not have to 'want to believe' what you think, I see what you think and believe when I read your posts. There is no objective evidence for design. Pretty sunsets are evidence of sunsets and that some people think they are pretty. You have a conclusion and now you are trying to circle the wagons so that they fit your conclusion. ID is doing the same thing. Actual science goes where the evidence takes it, that is why it does not go to intelligent design. There is no evidence to support the conclusion.

I am not an atheist. I am a Christian. I am just not a voodoo, witchcraft Christian, bubbling over in excess emotion with no understanding or evidence, and in denial like you.

Did I not call it correctly that the only reason you are interested in my personal beliefs are to use them as an assault. Your attacks are more evidence of an emotional, and not analytical or intellectual, response to these discussions.

I already corrected this. If you "WANT" to persist in your ignorence, go for it. But, if something is true, then it can never be falsified, logically.

You have done nothing but hover over denial. All of science, educated laymen and the courts recognize intelligent design as religion and not as science, because intelligent design cannot be falsified. You persist in this out of ignorance and emotion.

However, by your definition of falsifiability, then darwinian naturalism is unfalsifiable.

By the definitions of science, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. I understand that, but did not create the definitions in use. I do not know what darwinian naturalism is. Did you just make that up? I suspect that is probably the case, since you have no real evidence.

I agree.



I agree.

Strange. You agree, but all your posting says otherwise.

Thats false. Furthermore, you dont even see my face, yet you think im freaking out here emotionally? Seriously, i wish you could see my face, im calm as a lake with no wind blowing.

But hey, if you "WANT" to believe im being emotional, go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.

It is correct based on the evidence of your posts. You offer no evidence. You get angry and go on the attack when you feel cornered--which is most of the time--and you appeal to emotions, ignorance and incredulity like you take breaths.

Your words give me evidence to conclude that you are very emotional. Your last sentence in this part of your post I am addressing here is what I would expect from someone operating mostly on emotion. Tandem repeats in written responses, capitalization, calling others liars, and other things you do are what I have come to recognize as the work of an emotionally charged person.

Its not religion, that is a misrepresentation of ID. And not only is it a misrepresentation, but its stubbornly being persisted after multiple corrections. And this is partly why i took a break from this thread because its....getting on my nerves.

It is a religious view designed to replace science--especially the scientific theory of evolution--and inject a version of Christianity into the classroom. My view is based on the evidence. You are the one that has jumped on the bandwagon of misrepresentation. You are the perfect candidate for ID. Someone that thinks he knows things, but really is not that educated on the subjects he feels he is an expert in. Based on your writing, most of what you know appears to be based on untested assumptions and not on evidence.

And if its pseudoscience, then darwinian naturalism or materialism also would equally fit pseudoscience

False equivalence, incorrect and more emotional response.

So why cant ID be a competting hypotheses for the origin of life?

It is religion and unfalsifiable. This is well established and not just my acceptance of the evidence.

Oh i know they wont. And i know also youl never believe. Atleast, truely.

Funny. You are trying your best to paint me as something I am not, while trying to obscure the very accurate picture of you that I am developing.

I do not care what you believe, but you are out in the world proclaiming that your beliefs are science and they are not. You are proclaiming, without evidence, that your religious views are the only real views and should replace science, but you cannot demonstrate that.

False, false, and false. Stubborn and misrepresentation. Just stop doing it. If all you can do is misrepresent, then logically you got NOTHING.

It is correct and remains correct. The views of the intelligent design movement and your views are religious with the aim of wedging science out of the picture, so all views are relevant and available for discussion.

Note the tandem repeats above. A strong indicator that emotion and not intellectual honesty is the driving force behind your words.

No, it has not been tested in the lab and shown that life can come from none intelligence. That has not been shown. Nor has it been tested or shown that codes come from unguided forces in the lab. If you deny that, PROVIDE A PROVEN source. PROVEN one. I repeat, proven one. I mean it, dont waste my time giving me a bs source that just speculates.

I agree. The origin of life has not been demonstrated. No scientist I know of is making that claim. Only the religious make that claim. Religions like the intelligent design movement that is trying to remove science and replace it with religion.

I have not denied that. I have asked you to provide a valid argument for you to support your claims about intelligent design. So far, you have given me nothing but personal attacks, denial, misrepresentation, logical fallacies and a lot of emotional rhetoric.

If im biased, then so are you.

Of course I am. Everyone is. You are just much more biased in this discussion. Biased beyond the limit of realistic discussion in many instances.

You just want to attack just to attack, thats what this looks like to me.

No. Attacking me is your means--apparently your only means--to try and overcome my well supported and logical responses. I cannot say win your argument, because all you have done is make assertions without support.

I cant believe that i gotta even respond to this. I mean, seriously, do you say this because you really think i dont know that humans are more intelligent then ants? Im very aware of that.

No one is making your respond to anything. That is your choice. Do not try and pass off another passive aggressive attack on me.

I made a statement of fact. Ants and birds do not think about, plan or execute the mounds or nests they build like humans do when we build things. Their building is instinctual behavior. I have seen birds so driven by instinct that they made a dozen different nests in every available optimal location for a nest before finally settling down and using the last one. That is not planning or design. I observed this in a pair of American robins one year and have read similar accounts. That is why OCD is often referred to as nest building behavior.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My gosh, the birds and ants use there little brains to build there nests and hills. Yea, they do it with instinct, but, there using there little intelligence to do it. Why do i got to argue this? Its incredable to me.

They do not have the intelligence to design. I argue this based on the evidence and years of experience as an entomologist.

Everything is incredible to you.

Its a test, yes it is. Gosh. You guys like to deny everything. Literally everything. Theres no credability in that.

This seems like projection to me, considering that you deny evidence and reason out of hand like taking a breath.

Apples to oranges. Design is not a mirage.

No. A very apt analogy. One fitting your views and efforts. Design in not established either. Believing design is established does not make it established.

Yea, if you say so. Ill let you believe that, go ahead. Its false, but hey, no amount of rational argument from me is gonna change your mind. Thats for sure.

What you offer here is an example of extreme bias and rejection of evidence, theory and reason. My observations support that.

Yea.....ok then, if you say so.

Irreducible complexity is a failed concept. It is not just me. Many have worked this out logically and practically. Just as I have. Michael Behe has recognized that it cannot be established and has never been demonstrated.

You can deny the predictions of ID if you want. Have at it. If it makes ya feel better, have at it.

There is nothing really to deny. They are of no value.

, so DNA, whats the homology there? And our bodies, what about that?

Considering that you have no basis to build useful questions about science on, I must assume that you are looking for something, but are not able to articulate it properly. Perhaps you should think about these questions some more and come back to them when you can formulate something that is comprehensible.

Remember you Said your like francis callins? Your actually not. Francis callins still said theistic evolution, God DESIGNED that process. He also said that the evidence tips toward God. Yes, he used the word evidence. While you say theres no evidence. He also uses the fine tuning of the universe. But you deny the fine tuning.

Francis Collins and I are scientists. We share similar views on a belief in God. He is not claiming his beliefs are scientific fact or that he can show his beliefs in the work he does. Neither do I.

I do not know that the universe is fine tuned. I know that is claimed on some evidence, but not all the evidence is available. Fine tuning is not a natural law. It is a claim.

Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God.

Yes. You said this. So, he stated his belief and recognizes that he has no evidence that can support that belief. He and I are alike in that.

Theistic evolution states that God made the laws, God started life, then let the universe and life run and or evolve on its own.

OK. So what?

If you deny this, then your a walking contradiction.

I do not know that I can fill your shoes and would not even begin to try.

And theres nothing in the constitution that is against evidence. Theres evidence of ID whether you like it or not.

There is no objective evidence that would lead anyone to accept ID. It is a belief system dressed up to look like science, but it has demonstrated nothing.

Yes.

Really? Are you sure? You do not seem to get that point across in your posts. That understanding seems stunningly missing from those posts.

I should learn to be a walking contradiction, like you? Hell no!

Are you walking? If so, then you have succeeded. I am not a contradiction. My views are very clear. I have on one hand, my beliefs and on the other, what I can demonstrate. You have nothing to demonstrate, but follow the contradictory view that you do and are an expert at it. Have you ever heard of Dunning Kruger?

Also id like callins speak for himself. He is not contradicting himself like you do.

I have not contradicted myself. You are really pressing the attack. I thought you said that you were calm?

He says the evidence tips in Gods favor.

Repeating it will not make it become a natural law. I recognize that he is a believer like I am.

Ive never said beliefs should replace science. But materialistic naturalism for the origin of DNA and life and the universe is no more science then ID would be by your definition.

Another contradiction. You support a religious position which holds the singular intent of replacing science with belief.

The material world is all we have evidence for and the only place science can operate. It is not ghost of Bigfoot telepathically communicating with aliens during near death experiences.

No you dont know that. Thats a misrepresentation and you stubbornly hold to it because you frankly got nothing of substance to refute ID.

If you say misrepresentation, I am starting to recognize that as I 'hit the nail on the head'. ID is refuted for lack of evidence, not being science, being a religion, and not having falsifiable theoryies. It is a done deal. All this is, is me discussing this with people in denial.

You have been hoodwinked by your own stubborness.

It is you who have been hoodwinked and who are in very emotionally stubborn denial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree DNA IS an acid, but the 4 nucleotides in the DNA, there multiple combinations are codons. Those ARE a code. The ATCG bases.



Heres the difference between Australians and codes. I can prove some australians have beards. You cant prove 1 code comes from none intelligent forces, not one. And thats the difference. This is an issue of two competting hypotheses and which one is the best explanation.



It depends on who is making the assertion. Everyone has a different level of what will or will not convince them an idea is true or not. An assertion does not stand on its own, people have to make it. I told you that if in the future they prove life, DNA code, the universe came from natural forces, then i would give up ID. However, i PREDICT this will not happen.

Now you can reject that if you want too, but, thats the facts in my case. And again, your talking to ME, not someone else. You should consider that.



I just told you how it would not falsify atheism, atleast for some atheists. Why didnt you pay attention? Now i gotta waste time typing the same answer out.

Heres why: if in the future life is proven to have arose from intelligence, some atheists will assert then that this intelligence evolved from none intelligent forces. In fact, richard dawkins is already ahead on saying this. He said that if in the future its shown that alien intelligence made life, then that would bump darwinian, natural, unintelligent forces having made the aliens further back.

So, for some atheists, atheism will not be falsified. Just like for SOME theists, theism will not be falsified. But, i explained to you that i am not one of those kind of theists.



Oh yes really, two can play this game. Although i dont want to, but it seams it has to be done. The door indeed swings both ways.



Thats NOT true. If in the future its proven that none intelligence made life and the universe, then intelligence would then be demonstrated to be not true.

Also you dont need a supernatural being to prove intelligence. Wer intelligence, but wer not supernatural.



Yes you can. I predict in the future the universe and life coming from natural forces will not ever be proven. Thats a testable prediction because it will either be proven or not proven in the future. Period. No more to it, thats it. You can deny this if you want to, but it serves to only show that your own view is unfalsifiable.



I hold to the ID position, you hold to the naturalist position. Can we get past this now?



And gauss what? Miller is not consistent. Furthermore, miller is not smart enough to see that natural forces having made it is just as "inferable" as ID is inferable. I dont care if miller is a scientist, hes not consistent and hes not smart on this line.




So your not saying natural, none intelligent forces made the universe, life and the code? Your only arguing against ID, but your not adhering to the ulternative to ID, which is natural forces having done it?

What then are you saying made us then?



Yes, i am aware intuition can be wrong, sometimes, not always. Thats why we need to use a combination of methods. Intuition, experiences, and analysis.



Youd look at the bird nest, youd see its order and design. Youd see its not growing out from the tree branch, so youd know its not grown on the branch. So, youd wonder to yourself, hmmm, thats odd, its not part of the tree, but its made in a circle, with a bed or hole in the middle and its latched on the branch. Some kind of intelligence must have put that nest there.



I cant, no, but i proposed a test on children. Thats a viable test proposal.



Well then, evolution is potentially falsified then. Do you agree there is complexity?



In other speaches callins says he cant prove God, but the evidence tips in his favor.



I dont believe God plays dice.



ID is not against evolution as in mutation, adaptation, natural selection. ID merely says that these things dont account for the ARRIVAL of the fittest in the first place. And therefore promotes a competting hypotheses.



Thats a lie.

And i deleted some of your post because of time, not because anything stumped me.

So, with that, farewell until later.

You are a Christian and believe in God. I think that is great. I do too.

The difference between us is that I do not believe so deeply that I am confused about what I can demonstrate.

The intelligent design movement has been carefully constructed to entice people that believe, are ignorant of science and who would like evidence for that their beliefs are based on something substantial. It is a religious argument with a lot of claims and no support. I probably recognize this more easily, since I am both religious and trained in science.

I understand that a person would want to jump on that bandwagon and people often do that without critical review or full understanding. But it is just that. A bandwagon, and one going in a circle and not anywhere else.

The fact that the intelligent design movement is not science should not be a threat to you. Belief in God is based on faith and even where personal evidence exists, it is not evidence that can be objectively shared to demonstrate the validity of belief. Surely you realize that before anyone ever contrived the ID religious movement dressed as science, people believed and had no evidence then either.

I doubt my words or those of others will reach you, but your belief is as firm and safe without the ID movement as it was before that movement existed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yea, chemical reactions, sure.

But, in every website that defines and explains DNA, it does so by also describing it as codes as well.

Remember hubert yokey? He is not an ID proponent.

Heres and exerpt from this page with a quote from hubert >

The God of the gaps is not the scientific argument for God

"Many of the principles of human language apply to DNA, the language of life.
In the primary text on the application of algorithmic information theory to the question of the origin of life, titled Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life, physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey explains how many of the principles of human language are also applicable to DNA, the language of life:

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. [1]""

But many key principles that also apply to human language are not shared by DNA. We have discussed this, though you admitted you did not understand the science behind that.

 

[Bear Wild]

I had to take a break from this for a few days cause its getting on my last nerve.

Are hardrives designed? Do they have code in them?

Likewise, DNA.



Few questions.

1, how do you know what i want to believe?
2, want and reasons for belief are different, do you know that?
3, do you want to believe what you believe?



Thats false. I have found alot, then infer a conclusion from it. But, you "WANT" to believe that i just conclude and try to line everything to it. Thats what you want to believe because it makes you more comfy in your atheism.



I already corrected this. If you "WANT" to persist in your ignorence, go for it. But, if something is true, then it can never be falsified, logically.

However, by your definition of falsifiability, then darwinian naturalism is unfalsifiable.



I agree.



I agree.



Thats false. Furthermore, you dont even see my face, yet you think im freaking out here emotionally? Seriously, i wish you could see my face, im calm as a lake with no wind blowing.

But hey, if you "WANT" to believe im being emotional, go ahead and believe it if it makes you feel better.



Its not religion, that is a misrepresentation of ID. And not only is it a misrepresentation, but its stubbornly being persisted after multiple corrections. And this is partly why i took a break from this thread because its....getting on my nerves.

And if its pseudoscience, then darwinian naturalism or materialism also would equally fit pseudoscience.



So why cant ID be a competting hypotheses for the origin of life?



Oh i know they wont. And i know also youl never believe. Atleast, truely.



False, false, and false. Stubborn and misrepresentation. Just stop doing it. If all you can do is misrepresent, then logically you got NOTHING.



No, it has not been tested in the lab and shown that life can come from none intelligence. That has not been shown. Nor has it been tested or shown that codes come from unguided forces in the lab. If you deny that, PROVIDE A PROVEN source. PROVEN one. I repeat, proven one. I mean it, dont waste my time giving me a bs source that just speculates.



If im biased, then so are you.



You just want to attack just to attack, thats what this looks like to me.



I cant believe that i gotta even respond to this. I mean, seriously, do you say this because you really think i dont know that humans are more intelligent then ants? Im very aware of that.



My gosh, the birds and ants use there little brains to build there nests and hills. Yea, they do it with instinct, but, there using there little intelligence to do it. Why do i got to argue this? Its incredable to me.



Its a test, yes it is. Gosh. You guys like to deny everything. Literally everything. Theres no credability in that.



Apples to oranges. Design is not a mirage.



Yea, if you say so. Ill let you believe that, go ahead. Its false, but hey, no amount of rational argument from me is gonna change your mind. Thats for sure.



Yea.....ok then, if you say so.



You can deny the predictions of ID if you want. Have at it. If it makes ya feel better, have at it.



Ok, so DNA, whats the homology there? And our bodies, what about that?



Remember you Said your like francis callins? Your actually not. Francis callins still said theistic evolution, God DESIGNED that process. He also said that the evidence tips toward God. Yes, he used the word evidence. While you say theres no evidence. He also uses the fine tuning of the universe. But you deny the fine tuning.



Francis callins admits he cant prove it, but he did say the evidence tips in favor of God.



Theistic evolution states that God made the laws, God started life, then let the universe and life run and or evolve on its own.

If you deny this, then your a walking contradiction.

And theres nothing in the constitution that is against evidence. Theres evidence of ID whether you like it or not.



Yes.



I should learn to be a walking contradiction, like you? Hell no!

Also id like callins speak for himself. He is not contradicting himself like you do.

He says the evidence tips in Gods favor.



Ive never said beliefs should replace science. But materialistic naturalism for the origin of DNA and life and the universe is no more science then ID would be by your definition.



No you dont know that. Thats a misrepresentation and you stubbornly hold to it because you frankly got nothing of substance to refute ID.



You have been hoodwinked by your own stubborness.

You have it backwards, ID has nothing of substance to support it. They have misrepresented scientific studies and created nonsensical mathematical models not based on real life information and completely underestimate the complexity of the natural world and ignore all of the evidence in support of evolution created but the natural forces present.
ID is opinion only, nothing more and worse uses deceiving means to support their opinion.

 

[Jollybear]

You have it backwards, ID has nothing of substance to support it. They have misrepresented scientific studies and created nonsensical mathematical models not based on real life information and completely underestimate the complexity of the natural world and ignore all of the evidence in support of evolution created but the natural forces present.
ID is opinion only, nothing more and worse uses deceiving means to support their opinion.

All of that is a load of crap.

 

[Jollybear]

But many key principles that also apply to human language are not shared by DNA. We have discussed this, though you admitted you did not understand the science behind that.

Do you know the difference between acting honest and being honest? If so, tell me.

Also, no, i did not make up that francis callins said the evidence tips toward God.

Francis callins two quotes

"COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence."

Also

"COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

One more

"Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation."

A hell one more

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

Another

"COLLINS: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation."

God vs. Science, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins interviewed by D. Cray | Inters.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of that is a load of crap.

Why do you say that? ID was shown to be unscientific in the Dover trial. There is no scientific evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only thing that makes me emotional is the constant misrepresentation.

It happening the odd time i can deal with, but constantly, aspeasaly after correction, yea, thats gonna make me angry.

You keep repeating mistakes, so you will constantly be corrected. What Of yours has ever been misrepresented? I am willing to bet that you are even more guilty of that and in more serious ways.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know the difference between acting honest and being honest? If so, tell me.

Also, no, i did not make up that francis callins said the evidence tips toward God.

I know that you can be dishonest and act honest. Does that help? I do not think you are dishonest. I think your bias is so strong that you want things to be the way you believe them to be rather than the way the evidence indicates. Does that help? I think that you understand very little about science and the science we are discussing here. Does that help?

I do not believe I claimed that you made that up. I may have been referring to something else that you did, but not that particular statement. I also noted that you stated he understands that he does not have enough evidence to show that God exists. Since you did not repeat that numerous times as you did the other, maybe you overlooked the significance of that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know the difference between acting honest and being honest? If so, tell me.

Also, no, i did not make up that francis callins said the evidence tips toward God.

Francis callins two quotes

"COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence."

Also

"COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

God vs. Science, Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins interviewed by D. Cray | Inters.org

When I said 'you' in my last post, I was not referring to 'you' in particular, but people in general.

I respect Francis Collins for his belief, his science and his ability to keep his belief out of the science he reports. His personal views about belief are his belief and not science. I personally recognize that there are aspects of morality that I cannot find answers for in science and have to turn to my beliefs for guidance, but my adherence to belief does not make science able to demonstrate a creator.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of that is a load of crap.

That is a completely emotional answer, devoid of critical review and analysis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All of that is a load of crap.

His words are also correct. That you are wrong has been explained to you by many people now. Intelligent design is a religious position and is not science. There is no evidence objectively demonstrating intelligent design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You keep repeating mistakes, so you will constantly be corrected. What Of yours has ever been misrepresented? I am willing to bet that you are even more guilty of that and in more serious ways.

It is a common occurrence with creationists. They have these gut feelings, but they have neither the knowledge nor the analytical ability to pull those feelings up from their guts and examine them with their heads.