The flaws in Intelligent design

[Bear Wild]

Yes, DNA is my objective evidence for God.



How is objectivity measured in the first place? By MINDS.

Theres some NDEs where people wer out of body and saw things that they then verified after returning to there body. Thats basically ESP at the same time of an NDE.

How is that not objective?



Oh thats where your factually wrong. Im not stating an opinion on this. This is a fact. But, here it is, EVERYONE has faith.....in something. If you dont have faith in God, then you are having faith in something else. What is that something else? Its the alternative to God, which is that chance and time and perhaps nothing made the universe. Or mayby you have faith the universe was always here.

Either way, THATS YOUR faith. And yes, it IS faith.



DNA



Information and order and complexity is designed. Evolved is adaptations and natural selection.....or survival of the fittest.

Thats how you tell the difference.

DNA is your evidence? Seriously? DNA shows that an intelligent designer is not necessary since it regulates itself and becomes more complex with new arrangements and increased variation. Exactly what is predicted in evolution. If DNA is you only evidence then there is no more argument for intelligent design.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

We find it very unlikely that you are going to make
a real effort to understand the things you are so sure
must be wrong.

What you find is not exactly what it is.

 

[Audie]

What you find is not exactly what it is.

Terrific! How do you plan to proceed?

 

[Audie]

As for the Cambrian explosion (The word explosion is deceiving considering that the Cambrian period lasted over 50 million year) there are good biological reasons for the increase in diversity without an intelligent design stopping on earth to genetically rearrange life.

Life is estimated to have begun in the oceans about 3.5 billion to 2.8 billion years in the Archean Eon. By the Proterozoic period starting 2.5 billion years ago you have Cnidarians and Kimbrella fossils with some bilateral body symmetry. Sponge like creatures date 650 million years ago and Coronacollina acula which are sponge-like fossils with hard body parts that date back as far as 560 million years.

During the latter part of the Precambrian era is the development of the Hox genes that control the body plan of an embryo along the head-tail axis. So shortly animals appear on earth the primordial homeobox gene duplicated to form a protohox cluster of two genes. These are still present in cnidara such as hydra. Sponges do not have clustered homeobox genes. The development of these HOX genes created a new way of organized development which would explain the sudden change in diversity of life.

Along with the HOX genes there were environmental changes such as rising levels of atmospheric oxygen and an increase in oceanic calcium concentrations that contributed to the “The Cambrian Explosion”.

The Cambrian diversification is predicted by evolutionary theory with increased variation with the genetic development of the Hox genes along with the changes in environment. This increase in organization of the developing organism gave all kinds of new possibilities. The Hox genes have slowly developed further as seen in more complex organisms of the animal kingdom - just as predicted by evolution.

The alternative - A intelligent designer stopped by the earth sticking different segments of DNA into all of the new organisms but it would take the intelligent designer at least 50 million years to do this only to return to make the next correction in the new era. And return again and again and again to make all of the new updates. This is clearly humans imposing how humans do things rather than understanding how nature does things.

Actually, I would think the creationists would want to kind
of steer clear of the Cambrian.

50 millions years is an awkward length of time for
a 6 day poofter.

The absence of any life forms other than simple
invertebrates and algae could almost be taken
as a sign that life has-gasp-evolved since then.

 

[Audie]

Still you are saying that god likes suffering. Now that is a really compassionate god.

Oh now it does not mean he likes it. Just somehow puts up
with it

He is not the one with elephantiasis, getting burned alive, etc.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

An all powerful God could accomplish anything, but it has no explanatory power. There is no difference between "God did it" than "Magic did it". Also since there is clear evidence for evolution one must ask why God would lie if evolution was not the process for life's development. The reason that various Popes have accepted evolution is that a literal reading of Genesis involves a God that lies. A lying God is a bigger threat to Christianity than evolution is. One needs to pick one's battles.

But there is no clear evidence for evolution. And the only pope I know of who made any case for evolution is Pope Francis, and that was only an informal ill-planned answer to an on-the-spot question asked by some news reporter.

As for a literal reading of Genesis, maybe you are referring to the six days of creation. In case you're interested, the Catholic Church does not insist that anyone believe that these are six consecutive solar days. For one thing, the sun was not created until the fourth day, so that rules out the solar. More importantly. in the original Hebrew as Moses wrote it, the days are not expressed as consecutive days, but as subsequent, unspecified time periods beginning with day one and followed by "on a second day," "on a third day," etc. The more common belief in Catholicism is that the period of creation was a very long time.

And the term "lying God" is out of line.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Learn to read. I have very clearly stated that one cannot prove or disprove the idea of God (the "Intelligent Designer" ) through scientific, empiric means. One can examine the DESIGN that way, though, whether it was 'designed' deliberately or not.

You theist seem scared of providing objective evidence for a god. All you have seem to have is subjective evidence for a god.

 

[Audie]

But there is no clear evidence for evolution.
.

This could only be said-without simply lying or joking-
by someone who really, really does not know what he
is talking about.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Terrific! How do you plan to proceed?

Depends upon whether you want to have a friendly communication or an adversarial communication.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

But there is no clear evidence for evolution. And the only pope I know of who made any case for evolution is Pope Francis, and that was only an informal ill-planned answer to an on-the-spot question asked by some news reporter.

As for a literal reading of Genesis, maybe you are referring to the six days of creation. In case you're interested, the Catholic Church does not insist that anyone believe that these are six consecutive solar days. For one thing, the sun was not created until the fourth day, so that rules out the solar. More importantly. in the original Hebrew as Moses wrote it, the days are not expressed as consecutive days, but as subsequent, unspecified time periods beginning with day one and followed by "on a second day," "on a third day," etc. The more common belief in Catholicism is that the period of creation was a very long time.

And the term "lying God" is out of line.

There is no objective evidence for any of the gods humanity worship. Until you objectively prove there is a god, you can't say one created anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The entire process is ordered from the beginning by design.

Nice claim. Now support it.

You should be able to observe that.

I observe a plant growing (something that can't happen according to your second law nonsense). I'm not observing any designers.

He revealed Himself and proved that He is God. Told the entire world as much as it needs to know for now about reality.

"the entire world", being a couple self-proclaimed chosen people living somewhere in the middle east.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here's a question for ToE When a mother gives birth there are 20 pencil sized arteries going to the placenta and there is also an anti coagulent that makes the mother a bit like a hemopheliac and when the baby born and placenta disengages 20 arteries gush out with blood which would kill the mother EXCEPT there are muscles on the mother side that pinch the arteries closed

no real credible ToE explanation

Mothers that don't die while giving birth to their first born, tend to have more children.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the term "lying God" is out of line.

You may feel that is the case but.......

What else can you call a god who creates every species individually and then literally makes everything look as if species evolved through a natural process from simple beginnings?

 

[Audie]

Depends upon whether you want to have a friendly communication or an adversarial communication.

Hmm, we seem to be on different topics. I wondered
how you will proceed to become more informed on
the science relevant to t he thread.

 

[dianaiad]

You assume "design" when you can't even define it. One must be able to define one's terms to study them. You keep using a meaningless term. Without a proper definition it cannot those observations are meaningless.

I assume Design because I believe in a Creator God. I also do not think that has anything at all to do with the examination of the universe through science. They are two entirely different...as someone awhile back in a different forum said, "magesteria."

Whether it is deliberately designed or not, the universe is as it is. Science is how one examines it. One does NOT have to prove a Creator, or disprove one, in order to examine it.

In fact, I'll turn this around. YOU are assuming that there is no Creator. You can't prove that there is none. Should I insist that you do so before you are allowed to study the universe?

In the sciences terms must be well defined. For example "work" has a very specific meaning. Without a proper definition of such concepts ideas cannot advance.

Indeed. But one does NOT have to define the term "event horizon" to study plate tectonics. One does not have to define "Creator" in order to study stars. You are demanding that one come to an unprovable conclusion before one can examine the data.

 

[dianaiad]

You theist seem scared of providing objective evidence for a god. All you have seem to have is subjective evidence for a god.

You are absolutely correct. We cannot give you objective proof of deity. YOU can't give us objective proof that there is no possibility of a deity.

Did you have a point in that?

 

[Audie]

You are absolutely correct. We cannot give you objective proof of deity. YOU can't give us objective proof that there is no possibility of a deity.

Did you have a point in that?

Objective proof is asking a bit much.
How about one datum point re objective evidence?

Subjective works just as well for yes or no, this
god or that, which is to say, not very well at all.

 

[Bear Wild]

Actually, I would think the creationists would want to kind
of steer clear of the Cambrian.

50 millions years is an awkward length of time for
a 6 day poofter.

The absence of any life forms other than simple
invertebrates and algae could almost be taken
as a sign that life has-gasp-evolved since then.

That does not even include all of the other eras that required this "intelligent" designer to stick around and tinker with all of the species constantly making adjustments. Not to mention the sheer number of species the "intelligent" designer would have to work with. This designer must have gotten frustrated with all of the wrong designs that the designer buried in the sediment.

 

[Bear Wild]

Oh now it does not mean he likes it. Just somehow puts up
with it

He is not the one with elephantiasis, getting burned alive, etc.

It certainty goes against a loving caring god doesn't it. So we have an intelligent designer creating all kinds of new species to see them suffer. I think I will stick with the evolution theory at least natural forces are not their just to cause suffering.

 

[Audie]

That does not even include all of the other eras that required this "intelligent" designer to stick around and tinker with all of the species constantly making adjustments. Not to mention the sheer number of species the "intelligent" designer would have to work with. This designer must have gotten frustrated with all of the wrong designs that the designer buried in the sediment.

Ha. YOU try making a grasshopper.