Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[KBC1963]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

No matter what the proposed cause for the origin of an effect is, the intent to question what caused the cause comes with an assumption made by the questioner. By posing such a question the only logical reasoning that can be determined for the questioner is that the questioner has assumed that every cause must itself be an effect which in and of itself is an error in the logic of the intellect positing the question. The reason why its an error is that it can easily be determined that limiting causality to only possibly being an effect leads to the paradox of infinite regression.
The only proper response to such a question as you have posed is to ask you for the evidence which shows that you can logically limit "ALL causes as effects without there being an assumption by you for its validity.
Since most human beings will likely admit that no one we know was around to see the origin of life on this planet or for that matter the planets themselves then it is irrational to make an assumption that causality must itself always be an effect. The only other logical possibility for the origin of an effect must be an uncaused cause. So, to properly ask a rational question about any cause one must not make any assumptions and the question must include all the possibilities that cannot logically be excluded, therefore your question should be written like this;

"If an effect such as described in a 'creation' story is true then is that creator itself caused or is it an uncaused cause."

Many ID enthusiast claim that evolution is incomplete becuase it does not explain the origin of the first life (which is not evolution's purpose) and thus insist that it should have no scientific standing

I was of the understanding that Evolution is intended to define how species originate. I'll throw out the Merriam Webster description as an example of how it has historically been defined;

"a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"

With that definition in mind then it is quite logical to ask whether;
A) species have always existed in an infinitely regressive manner and have been evolving infinitely back in time or
B) if there was a first specie that didn't owe its origin to the evolutionary mechanism.

If you say A then you would be making an exclusionary assumption without proper backing and if you say B then you would need to admit that evolution cannot be the answer for how all species originated and it leaves open the question of what did cause the first specie minus the possibility of the evolutionary mechanism. From my own observations I have seen scientists try to provide the answer for B as Chemical Evolution which essentially still falls within the same definition from Webster as shown above but even this only regresses back to the first replicator which could still be defined as the first specie since it is assumed that the first replicator was capable of replication and modification. So we still come back to the same point even with the minor regression of Chemical Evolution for what caused the first specie if it was not Evolution.
So in answer to your assertion, yes, Evolution is incomplete because it is attempting to explain the origin of species and it logically fails to explain the first one and if it cannot answer this then how can you know that it is all that is required to explain the formation of every other specie since the first one? How can anyone assert for sure that the genetic code wasn't designed to have variability from its origination?

I remember in school that part of the teaching about how the Evolutionary mechanism worked was dependent on random mutation, well that 'was' the 'Belief' at that time.....

Evolution Is Not Random
Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests.
http://www.livescience.com/48103-evolution-not-random.html

One of the defining points of intelligent design is the designed control of variability. Mutational hotspots don't lend themselves to being defined as totally random. Of course, the attempted explanation for such a thing is that it evolved from random mutational events in the past and this simply puts it that much further away from the empirical testing of its validity for being possible by chance.

(using the same 'logic' one could say that Gravity is not true becuase we can not solidly identifiy it's source [though Gravitons are very likely, similar to how Abiogenesis is very likely]).

We can empirically test how gravity functions even if we can't yet define how it currently is being active But the question of how it originated is still wide open because at some point in order to eliminate paradox there must be an uncaused cause responsible. On the other hand Abiogenesis is not currently testable. All inferences to the hypothesis are assumptions and I have seen no empirical evidence for the chance formation of a self-replicator even under the hypothetical scenarios that could evolve into a higher complexity formation.

Many Creactionist and ID proponents say that as a complex universe we need a complex being to design it. However if this is the case then why wouldn't an even more complex being be needed to make such a complex being?

Because in order to avoid the paradox of infinite regression you have to admit the possibility of an uncaused cause and such a cause cannot be infinitely complex to avoid the same infinite regression.

 

[1robin]

Paul never met Jesus, so he doesn't really qualify either.

Oh yes he did. He met a translated Jesus (meaning in his full glory instead of his merely human for) on the road to Damascus. In fact the bible emphatically states

New International Version
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Paul was merrily on his way to imprison and kill Christians but arrived at Damascus a converted Christian who lived a life of immense suffering for what he would have known the truth of. If you looked around and did some research you can find tens of thousands of well known people who's terrible Characters were instantly transformed into people after God's own heart. You could start with George Foreman and Johnny Cash.

 

[1robin]

I don't think they are. I think they are merely asking for evidence not based on circular reasoning (using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true) and is verifiable (aren't just taking some historical figures word for something).

That depends on what the argument is about. In this case my point was merely that in almost every field of study certainty is not demanded or attainable. And therefore the one who defends the faith position should not be held to the criteria of certainty. In reality our only burden is be aware of ne defeater of the core doctrines of our faith. However I raise that bar to the level of best explanation, You take the 5 of 6 (out of hundreds) historical events conceded by the majority of NT scholars and my answer is that the bible's explanation of the historical events is better that any other explanation,.

 

[1robin]

Then you can never know who is a true Christian and who is not while they are still alive, not even yourself. Since it is always possible for a living Christian to defect in the future, they cannot know that they are saved until they finally die. Even people who were emphatic that they would never leave the faith have done it. There are examples of such people on this very website. So no matter how convinced you are that you are saved and will always serve God, you cannot know that if you think that a person who leaves God was never a true Christian.

That is correct, only God can see into a man's heart with perfect clarity, he knows who repented and was born again, he knows who's names are written in the book of life. I was not pointing that some specific person was or was not a Christians. I was merely pointing that a vast number of people claim to be Christians who did not obey Jesus and were never born again.

Now your second point I strongly disagree with. I studied salvation for 3 years straight and had 3 people ask me to write out in my own words (and using verses to back them up). My friends and family over the course of a few years came to know that I had a deep knowledge base in that area and would bring their questions about it to me. While writing this I got it in my head to find out if my salvation was typical. It took me forever but I found a few blogs where Christians explained what the event felt like. They varied in details but 90% had the same core events happen. It is an experience that completely changes your life. I would give you a description but our language cannot do it full justice. I will tell you this little part of it because you can easily understand it. I had for been trying to stop drinking and chewing tobacco for years and years. I failed every time. The moment I was born again I no longer had any desire for either and being in a room with people cussing constantly was excruciating. These are only secondary events compared to the main events but I picked those because they are well known by Christian and non Christian and can serve as common ground. Most of what happened you would have no reference by which to evaluate it. The bible says when we are born again the Holy spirit comes to live in our heart and we instant go from being an enemy of God to considered a son, it also says the spirit is given so that you may know God. Unlike every religion I have ever heard of Christianity demands and offers proof as the first step into your new Christian life.

For the third point You can know a thing and then come to believe that thing is not true, when it actually is. A pious person can become an immoral person but if he was ever born again he will wind up in heaven. A good illustration is:

New International Version
If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved--even though only as one escaping through the flames.

What they are talking about is something most superficial Christians do not know. There are two judgments. One separates the saved from the unsaved. The unsaved go to Hell and the saved go to another judgment where their life's work are tested by God refining fire. Anything done for him and our neighbor because of him will survive and everything else will be consumed. Then depending on how much survived the fire determines his rewards in heaven. That verse speaks of a Christian who did nothing what so ever for God and was still allowed into heaven despite his waiting his entire life serving himself instead of God. He and the rest get into heaven because of Jesus merits not own but the rewards we receive there do depend on our obedience. I have no idea what those rewards are but the bible does mention that we should work for him down here so we keep piling treasures up in heaven.

 

[Etritonakin]

That is correct, only God can see into a man's heart with perfect clarity, he knows who repented and was born again, he knows who's names are written in the book of life. I was not pointing that some specific person was or was not a Christians. I was merely pointing that a vast number of people claim to be Christians who did not obey Jesus and were never born again.

Now your second point I strongly disagree with. I studied salvation for 3 years straight and had 3 people ask me to write out in my own words (and using verses to back them up). My friends and family over the course of a few years came to know that I had a deep knowledge base in that area and would bring their questions about it to me. While writing this I got it in my head to find out if my salvation was typical. It took me forever but I found a few blogs where Christians explained what the event felt like. They varied in details but 90% had the same core events happen. It is an experience that completely changes your life. I would give you a description but our language cannot do it full justice. I will tell you this little part of it because you can easily understand it. I had for been trying to stop drinking and chewing tobacco for years and years. I failed every time. The moment I was born again I no longer had any desire for either and being in a room with people cussing constantly was excruciating. These are only secondary events compared to the main events but I picked those because they are well known by Christian and non Christian and can serve as common ground. Most of what happened you would have no reference by which to evaluate it. The bible says when we are born again the Holy spirit comes to live in our heart and we instant go from being an enemy of God to considered a son, it also says the spirit is given so that you may know God. Unlike every religion I have ever heard of Christianity demands and offers proof as the first step into your new Christian life.

For the third point You can know a thing and then come to believe that thing is not true, when it actually is. A pious person can become an immoral person but if he was ever born again he will wind up in heaven. A good illustration is:

New International Version
If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved--even though only as one escaping through the flames.

What they are talking about is something most superficial Christians do not know. There are two judgments. One separates the saved from the unsaved. The unsaved go to Hell and the saved go to another judgment where their life's work are tested by God refining fire. Anything done for him and our neighbor because of him will survive and everything else will be consumed. Then depending on how much survived the fire determines his rewards in heaven. That verse speaks of a Christian who did nothing what so ever for God and was still allowed into heaven despite his waiting his entire life serving himself instead of God. He and the rest get into heaven because of Jesus merits not own but the rewards we receive there do depend on our obedience. I have no idea what those rewards are but the bible does mention that we should work for him down here so we keep piling treasures up in heaven.

What do you believes happens to what you consider a non-Christian or the otherwise "unsaved"?
Do you believe all non-Christians go to hell regardless of whether or not they did good works during this life -even if they had no opportunity to learn of Christ?

Is it not true that the dead in Christ are raised immortal at his return -and the living in Christ are also made immortal then?

Are not the rest of the dead raised after a thousand years -all both small and great -raised to the judgment which is a thousand years after those in Christ were made immortal?

Why would those who sleep or are alive until the return of Christ, and then are immediately made immortal need any more judgment?

Also, we can lay up treasures in heaven, but our reward is not heaven -the meek shall inherit the earth.

Those made immortal at the return of Christ immediately begin to reign with him as kings and priests -on earth.
Rev 5
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

 

[Etritonakin]

Scriptures relating to above post....
Rev 20.....
Theya had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

I Thes 4
13But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Heb 9
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

If the dead in Christ sleep until made immortal, the living in Christ are made immortal with them, and all others not in Christ live not again until the judgment after the thousand years...

When do you suppose this other judgment takes place?

 

[leibowde84]

Oh yes he did. He met a translated Jesus (meaning in his full glory instead of his merely human for) on the road to Damascus. In fact the bible emphatically states

New International Version
"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied.

Paul was merrily on his way to imprison and kill Christians but arrived at Damascus a converted Christian who lived a life of immense suffering for what he would have known the truth of. If you looked around and did some research you can find tens of thousands of well known people who's terrible Characters were instantly transformed into people after God's own heart. You could start with George Foreman and Johnny Cash.

Paul was the only one who saw the "vision" of Jesus, right? So, it is in no way verifiable? There are many people who mistake hallucinations for religious visions and wholeheartedly buy into them. Without verification of Paul's account, there is no way to know whether he was actually given authority from Christ.

So, while I dont think it is unreasonable to choose to have faith in Paul's claim, I certainly don't think that my choice to not buy into it is either.

 

[leibowde84]

That depends on what the argument is about. In this case my point was merely that in almost every field of study certainty is not demanded or attainable. And therefore the one who defends the faith position should not be held to the criteria of certainty. In reality our only burden is be aware of ne defeater of the core doctrines of our faith. However I raise that bar to the level of best explanation, You take the 5 of 6 (out of hundreds) historical events conceded by the majority of NT scholars and my answer is that the bible's explanation of the historical events is better that any other explanation,.

And you are free to have that opinion. I don't see it that way though.

 

[Parsimony]

Now your second point I strongly disagree with. I studied salvation for 3 years straight and had 3 people ask me to write out in my own words (and using verses to back them up). My friends and family over the course of a few years came to know that I had a deep knowledge base in that area and would bring their questions about it to me. While writing this I got it in my head to find out if my salvation was typical. It took me forever but I found a few blogs where Christians explained what the event felt like. They varied in details but 90% had the same core events happen. It is an experience that completely changes your life. I would give you a description but our language cannot do it full justice. I will tell you this little part of it because you can easily understand it. I had for been trying to stop drinking and chewing tobacco for years and years. I failed every time. The moment I was born again I no longer had any desire for either and being in a room with people cussing constantly was excruciating. These are only secondary events compared to the main events but I picked those because they are well known by Christian and non Christian and can serve as common ground. Most of what happened you would have no reference by which to evaluate it. The bible says when we are born again the Holy spirit comes to live in our heart and we instant go from being an enemy of God to considered a son, it also says the spirit is given so that you may know God. Unlike every religion I have ever heard of Christianity demands and offers proof as the first step into your new Christian life.

Ah, so then this is testable. If a person experienced these life-changing events, and then years later decided that it was all psychological and stopped believing in God, that would serve as evidence against the once-saved, always-saved doctrine, yes? Now we just need to wait and see if anyone shows up with such a story to tell. I know I've had some pretty profound experiences with God myself.

 

[Shad]

Good Lord man, to save you drowning argument you have to assume you now better than I as to my own motivation, content, and intent, Now that is truly desperate

Nope, it's called "reading between the lines"

An epistemological claim was made that we cannot use books to discover truth, I was showing that dismissal for that reason was unjustifiable.. With that attitude we should burn down all libraries and confiscate all text books.

You hedged your bet on a single set of texts not all books. It is the specific book you and I were both talking about. You are backpedalling again.

Yeah I used it a different context than your evaluating it in,so your the one that needs to recalibrate.

I am not obligated to shift to your fallacious thinking, it is you that is required to change.

I will just give one example of how wrong what you said is. I do not think a true Christians can "leave Christianity" Jesus said he saved us from all our sins when we are born again. All means all and would include someone dropping out Church.

Which was an atypical Scotsman's fallacy which you just restated above. look at the terms you use, a "true" Christian, You are also defining a true Christ by the born again doctrine which has major disagreement between denominations. Hence you are using a specific view which is within your branch of Christianity not all of Christianity

I have no idea what your talking about and I don't think you do either.

Learn what fallacies are and how to spot these within arguments.

I did not say the true Scotsmen fallacy was incoherent, I said if you deny Christ existed and died to save us from our sins then discussing who is a real Christian is incorrect.

We are discussing "true" Christians not people that are unbelievers

Yes I think every contention you had was the misplaced use of a fallacy. I don't think you rely understand how to use fallacy claims, even after you twist my words around, place them in a different context, you fallacies still do not work.

My points work perfectly fine especially as you continue to use the same fallacies or use ad hoc rescues

Now do you actually have an argument or are you going to keep yelling fallacy and dismissing anything that does not agree with your world view, this is getting boring.

I need not produce an argument to counter your own in order to undermine your argument.

Kettle met pot.

 

[Parsimony]

So in answer to your assertion, yes, Evolution is incomplete because it is attempting to explain the origin of species and it logically fails to explain the first one and if it cannot answer this then how can you know that it is all that is required to explain the formation of every other specie since the first one?

You could use that same argument to "prove" that modern computers are not designed and produced with the help of other, previously-existing computers. If you go back far enough, you're going to have a first computer which was not designed with the help of another computer. Surely if the first computer wasn't designed with the help of another computer, then modern computers aren't either. Yeah, right...

Likewise, all modern species came from previously-existing species via evolution. Obviously, the very first species would have to be an exception to that rule just as much as the first computer was an exception to the "computers designed in computers" rule of modern technology.

 

[KBC1963]

You could use that same argument to "prove" that modern computers are not designed and produced with the help of other, previously-existing computers. If you go back far enough, you're going to have a first computer which was not designed with the help of another computer. Surely if the first computer wasn't designed with the help of another computer, then modern computers aren't either. Yeah, right....

If intelligent design created the first computer and then designed programs to run on it to help build better computers then it is correct to say they were ALL designed by intelligent design from the beginning on and at no point did they evolve on their own. At some point when we make something that can self-replicate then it and all of its replicates will also be the result of intelligent design.

Obviously, the very first species would have to be an exception to that rule just as much as the first computer was an exception to the "computers designed in computers" rule of modern technology.

Not obviously because the theory isn't worded that way and it doesn't empirically explain how the programming of the information that allows life to continue to exist by replication began. Without self-replication or reproduction none of the hypothetical other mechanisms of the evolutionary concept could function and now that random mutation is showing up to be another error by empirical evidence all that's mechanistically left to the evolutionary concept is selection.
If the first self-replicator or more likely the first types of life (based on archaeological evidence) came preprogrammed (intelligently designed) to be variable within a range as they reproduce then the evolutionary concept would not be an explanation for any of the species in existence currently.

 

[Parsimony]

If intelligent design created the first computer and then designed programs to run on it to help build better computers then it is correct to say they were ALL designed by intelligent design from the beginning on and at no point did they evolve on their own. At some point when we make something that can self-replicate then it and all of its replicates will also be the result of intelligent design.

You seem to have missed my point. You said that a process which causes speciation has to account for the very first species. This is a parallel to saying that a process X which explains how some phenomenon Y occurs also has to explain how phenomenon Y began. The computer analogy demonstrates the fault in this by showing that part of the modern process of creating computers was absent in the creation of the first computer.

Not obviously because the theory isn't worded that way and it doesn't empirically explain how the programming of the information that allows life to continue to exist by replication began.

Because it doesn't have to anymore than chemists have to explain where the first subatomic particles that created the first chemicals in the Universe came from. That is a question for cosmology, not chemistry. You don't have chemistry until you have chemicals, just as you don't have biological evolution until you have life.

Without self-replication or reproduction none of the hypothetical other mechanisms of the evolutionary concept could function

Correct. Given that living things do self-replicate, this is not a problem.

and now that random mutation is showing up to be another error by empirical evidence all that's mechanistically left to the evolutionary concept is selection.

I think you are misreading the article. It's not that spontaneous mutations aren't random, it's that the kind of mutations you will find in an organism aren't random. This is because of selection pressures. The article itself said that:

But even as a section of DNA is mutating, the sequence on either side of it, which contains the repeated section, cannot change too much or the protein won't work properly. The sequence would normally mutate until the repeat disappeared, but the need to preserve the sequence so the protein still works prevents the repeats from being eliminated.

The thing that "preserves the sequence" are selection pressures. Proteins that change so much that they lose their function will put an organism at a disadvantage or even kill it outright. This is why you'd find these repeats to be common in species. It's not that mutations aren't random, it's the mutation-selection combination that isn't random. Though it is true that some mutations occur more often than others, so mutations aren't completely random.

If the first self-replicator or more likely the first types of life (based on archaeological evidence) came preprogrammed (intelligently designed) to be variable within a range as they reproduce then the evolutionary concept would not be an explanation for any of the species in existence currently.

That is in disagreement with even creationist thought, as at least they accept that new species can form. Cats show a good example of this: house cats can form hybrids with ocelots, ocelots can form hybrids with pumas, pumas can form hybrids with leopards, and leopards can form hybrids with lions. Given that they could not have developed the ability to interbreed by chance, all these species must have shared a common ancestor (unless, for some reason, God designed them from the outset to be capable of mating and producing offspring that are often sterile. Now what would be the point of that?).

 

[KBC1963]

You seem to have missed my point. You said that a process which causes speciation has to account for the very first species. This is a parallel to saying that a process X which explains how some phenomenon Y occurs also has to explain how phenomenon Y began. The computer analogy demonstrates the fault in this by showing that part of the modern process of creating computers was absent in the creation of the first computer.

You would have to explain X if X has a continuing effect on how Y occurs right? by your argument you are revealing just what I knew you would. You are ASSUMMING that all that is necessary to explain how species continue is completely explained by the evolutionary hypothesis and that nothing that occurred prior to the first species existence has any bearing on the process of how they continue. By arbitrarily eliminating the possibility that the programming within the genome has an effect on how change occurs out of hand science makes an unscientific assumption about the range of control for how species continue.
Belief is a signature trademark of religion. Science was intended to eliminate this from our perception of how reality functions. You cannot have both concepts operating at the same time and expect a proper view of reality. Either you commit to allowing belief to guide your world view or you commit to defining a world view based on science. If you choose science then you must eliminate all assumptions and beliefs which includes any assumptions that underlie the evolutionary hypothesis.

.... just as you don't have biological evolution until you have life.

Your assumption / belief being that the evolutionary hypothesis completely explains how life changes over time right?

I think you are misreading the article. It's not that spontaneous mutations aren't random, it's that the kind of mutations you will find in an organism aren't random. This is because of selection pressures. The article itself said that: But even as a section of DNA is mutating, the sequence on either side of it, which contains the repeated section, cannot change too much or the protein won't work properly. The sequence would normally mutate until the repeat disappeared, but the need to preserve the sequence so the protein still works prevents the repeats from being eliminated.
"The thing that "preserves the sequence" are selection pressures. Proteins that change so much that they lose their function will put an organism at a disadvantage or even kill it outright. This is why you'd find these repeats to be common in species. It's not that mutations aren't random, it's the mutation-selection combination that isn't random. Though it is true that some mutations occur more often than others, so mutations aren't completely random."

I definitely understand what both they and you are saying but, they are making 2 major assumptions;
1) That selection pressure alone is the cause for what shows up as retained changes in limited locations in the genome and
2) That only limited locations in the genome can be changed for positive selection effect.

There are also several other assumptions being made by the researchers in their article but, the 2 shown above are the main ones for our discussion. The point I am making from the ID side of the fence is that the initial assumptions of the evolutionary hypothesis is continually changing to attempt to explain the evidence and at each change in the hypothesis the only possible conclusions are that the genome is entirely acted on by forces outside of itself. No consideration is given for the possibility that the genome may have controls encoded within it to begin with.

If the first self-replicator or more likely the first types of life (based on archaeological evidence) came preprogrammed (intelligently designed) to be variable within a range as they reproduce then the evolutionary concept would not be an explanation for any of the species in existence currently.

That is in disagreement with even creationist thought, as at least they accept that new species can form. Cats show a good example of this: house cats can form hybrids with ocelots, ocelots can form hybrids with pumas, pumas can form hybrids with leopards, and leopards can form hybrids with lions. Given that they could not have developed the ability to interbreed by chance, all these species must have shared a common ancestor (unless, for some reason, God designed them from the outset to be capable of mating and producing offspring that are often sterile. Now what would be the point of that?).

I don't think that creationists believe a new species can form from another. Creationists believe in there being kinds and that there can be limited variance within a kind. Now since we are touching on species tell me; if a cat can breed with an ocelot then how are they considered different species?

species
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the initial assumptions of the evolutionary hypothesis is continually changing to attempt to explain the evidence and at each change in the hypothesis the only possible conclusions are that the genome is entirely acted on by forces outside of itself. No consideration is given for the possibility that the genome may have controls encoded within it to begin with.

'classical evolution' stands exactly where classical physics used to. And I think fails for the same reason: Entropy

left to those simple laws, all matter would collapse into a similarly simple homogenous state. Deeper 'encoded' instructions, blueprints were required to combat this, to described exactly how matter would form the fabric of space time, great fusion reactors in stars, and in turn the more complex elements specific to life..

Many were very resistant to this idea at the time, simple, elegant, 'immutable' laws were much more attractive, and classical physics was far better established, and more directly testable and observable than evolution ever was.

And similarly, many saw classical physics as making God redundant in it's comprehensive explanation of all physical reality, this implication and hence resistance to challenge, is multiplied many times for evolution.

 

[McBell]

And similarly, many saw classical physics as making God redundant in it's comprehensive explanation of all physical reality, this implication and hence resistance to challenge, is multiplied many times for evolution.

Except it isn't science that makes god redundant...
It is theists

 

[Parsimony]

You would have to explain X if X has a continuing effect on how Y occurs right? by your argument you are revealing just what I knew you would. You are ASSUMMING that all that is necessary to explain how species continue is completely explained by the evolutionary hypothesis and that nothing that occurred prior to the first species existence has any bearing on the process of how they continue.

Ultimately, it would have a bearing. The genes present in the first organism would have an effect on the way it evolved. It's just that biological evolution cannot, by definition of what it is, explain how the first life came into existence any more than chemical reaction theories can explain where the first chemicals came from. A different explanation has to be used. If you want to posit that the first living thing was a supernaturally-created cell with all of the hallmarks of a prokaryote, then that poses no problem for evolution.

By arbitrarily eliminating the possibility that the programming within the genome has an effect on how change occurs out of hand science makes an unscientific assumption about the range of control for how species continue.

Science makes no such claim. It says just the opposite: the programming within the genome has a huge effect on how organisms evolve.

Belief is a signature trademark of religion. Science was intended to eliminate this from our perception of how reality functions. You cannot have both concepts operating at the same time and expect a proper view of reality. Either you commit to allowing belief to guide your world view or you commit to defining a world view based on science. If you choose science then you must eliminate all assumptions and beliefs which includes any assumptions that underlie the evolutionary hypothesis.

Belief is a trademark sign of living in a world where nothing is absolutely knowable. Everybody lives, ultimately, by belief and assumptions, but not all beliefs and assumptions are created equal. Some are backed by enormous evidence whereas others have none. Science is not immune to this.

Your assumption / belief being that the evolutionary hypothesis completely explains how life changes over time right?

No. There are many things left that we probably have to learn before we can call any explanation "complete". So far, evolutionary theory has done a pretty good job, though.

I definitely understand what both they and you are saying but, they are making 2 major assumptions;
1) That selection pressure alone is the cause for what shows up as retained changes in limited locations in the genome and

Nope. There are other things too, such as genetic drift. Probably some things we don't even know about yet as well.

2) That only limited locations in the genome can be changed for positive selection effect.

Never said that.

There are also several other assumptions being made by the researchers in their article but, the 2 shown above are the main ones for our discussion. The point I am making from the ID side of the fence is that the initial assumptions of the evolutionary hypothesis is continually changing to attempt to explain the evidence and at each change in the hypothesis the only possible conclusions are that the genome is entirely acted on by forces outside of itself. No consideration is given for the possibility that the genome may have controls encoded within it to begin with.

Both what the genome contains and outside forces shape how evolution unfolds.

I don't think that creationists believe a new species can form from another.

I've seen some say that they can. They'd be hard-pressed to explain ring species otherwise.

Creationists believe in there being kinds and that there can be limited variance within a kind.

With a single kind containing many species, i.e. cat kind containing most or all members of Felidae.

Now since we are touching on species tell me; if a cat can breed with an ocelot then how are they considered different species?

Limited fertility of offspring. Likely sterile.

species

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

That is one definition, yes. Ring species make this definition shaky in the real world. Same thing for asexual creatures.

 

[KBC1963]

You would have to explain X if X has a continuing effect on how Y occurs right? by your argument you are revealing just what I knew you would. You are ASSUMMING that all that is necessary to explain how species continue is completely explained by the evolutionary hypothesis and that nothing that occurred prior to the first species existence has any bearing on the process of how they continue.

Ultimately, it would have a bearing. The genes present in the first organism would have an effect on the way it evolved.

First, Describe how it would have a bearing using any of the mechanisms prescribed by the evolutionary hypothesis? (Random mutation and natural selection).
Second, If you feel that the genome of the first specie in some way has an ongoing control / effect in how the evolutionary process works then in fact the current paradigm promoted for the evolutionary concept would be insufficient to explain the origin of species without the consideration of how the first specie was arranged to take part in the evolution of all subsequent species after it.
So, in the end the evolutionary hypothesis is incomplete until there is a defining of all the mechanisms in play and asserting on the sidelines that something contained within the first specie is effecting all evolution thereafter would need to be defined within the evolutionary hypothesis.

It's just that biological evolution cannot, by definition of what it is, explain how the first life came into existence any more than chemical reaction theories can explain where the first chemicals came from. A different explanation has to be used. If you want to posit that the first living thing was a supernaturally-created cell with all of the hallmarks of a prokaryote, then that poses no problem for evolution.

What if I were to posit that the first living thing was not a supernaturally created organism but rather an intelligently designed organism created by intelligent agents who existed prior to life on this planet and they used it to help terraform the planet to allow for other created organisms to exist here? What if these intelligent agents designed each of the first types of life to have internal coding that both initiates and controlls the limits of their variability? would that pose a problem for evolution?

By arbitrarily eliminating the possibility that the programming within the genome has an effect on how change occurs out of hand science makes an unscientific assumption about the range of control for how species continue.

Science makes no such claim. It says just the opposite: the programming within the genome has a huge effect on how organisms evolve.

Actually it does since the only mechanisms asserted for the evolutionary hypothesis is random mutation and natural selection both of which are forces that act on an organism from outside itself and
apparently I am not the only one who sees the current evolutionary paradigm not including the consideration for internal genetic controls for changes in the coding of the DNA;

An obsolete theory challenged by directed mutations
Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the ‘central dogma’ assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited...

...Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts, leading to repeatable mutations in specific genes. These results are contrary to the fundamental neo-Darwinian tenet that evolution depends on the natural selection of random genetic mutations.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

The directed mutation controversy in an evolutionary context.
Abstract
Neo-Darwinists have long held that random mutations produce genetic differences among individuals, and selection increases the frequency of advantageous alleles. In 1988, Cairns et al. claimed that an environmental pressure can cause advantageous mutations to occur in specific genes to alleviate that particular pressure. Directed mutation, as proposed by Cairns, has been all but eradicated from evolutionary thinking. However, more than a decade of research spurred by the Cairns et al. paper has cast doubt on three neo-Darwinian principles: (1) mutations occur independently of the environment, (2) mutations are due to replication errors, and (3) mutation rates are constant.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12638717

Note here that my references are not being shown to back the directed mutation hypothesis... what is being shown is the limits of the evolutionary mechanisms as described by the authors and is directly inline with what I am asserting, so, you can continue to assert that the evolutionary concept allows for such things but the evidence of what was been intended as an evolutionary explanation has been clearly defined for quite some time. Of course it is expected that the evolutionary concept will keep being revised over time in an attempt to keep the paradigm alive.

Belief is a trademark sign of living in a world where nothing is absolutely knowable. Everybody lives, ultimately, by belief and assumptions, but not all beliefs and assumptions are created equal. Some are backed by enormous evidence whereas others have none. Science is not immune to this.

Indeed science is not immune to it and the adherents to the evolutionary concept should realize this truth and change their ground rules to become less belief based.

No. There are many things left that we probably have to learn before we can call any explanation "complete". So far, evolutionary theory has done a pretty good job, though..

The only thing that the evolutionary hypothesis has done a good job at is evolving itself to fit the evidence. In truth other hypothesis have done a better job of explaining reality for far longer than it has.
The geocentric model was used for over 1500 years and it was based on observable evidences along with a base assumption. Which is no different than how the evolutionary concept functions. It is based on an unscientific assumption and then the explanation is continually revised to fit the observable evidence. Nothing has changed for man except time.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not sure what your trying to prove. Your ideas about ''nothing'' and such are biased because of your beliefs. I already stated, created from nothing, /as a descriptor./

Maybe I can help here.
I think what the poster is trying to say is that Creationists say you can't crate something out of nothing. They then seem to imply that their god actually did create something out of nothing. So she is saying if you can't create something from nothing, then how did god create the universe from nothing. If he created the materials, then did he create those materials from nothing? so you are back at the same problem. On the other hand, if he did create the universe from nothing, then something can come from nothing and the creationist argument is refuted. The god is no longer needed.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

If creaction is nessesary, who created the creator?

Many ID enthusiast claim that evolution is incomplete becuase it does not explain the origin of the first life (which is not evolution's purpose) and thus insist that it should have no scientific standing (using the same 'logic' one could say that Gravity is not true becuase we can not solidly identifiy it's source [though Gravitons are very likely, similar to how Abiogenesis is very likely]). I therfore ask these ID proponents as to where the "Designer" originates. Many Creactionist and ID proponents say that as a complex universe we need a complex being to design it. However if this is the case then why wouldn't an even more complex being be needed to make such a complex being?

Hi Free, good to see ya.

I agree with most of what you say about IDers. To me, ID is simply region gussied-up in some psuedo-science garb. LOL.

Most IDers are fairly woeful as well, insofar as their true knowledge of the mechanization and components of Biological Evolution. Since they cannot fathom Abiogenesis, they insert a creator god. This is basically a "God of the Gaps" ideology. Never mind that is atheistic Evolutionists can explain and account for 98% of all the nuances of Evolution, the IDers tend to jump on that remaining, uncertain 2%, like pit bulls on poodles, and say, "A HA! (bible in hand)--"You can't explain THIS? It's because God did it!"

LOL.

And no, they usually have no clue on the facets of their Intelligent Designer. Nor do they realize that to posit one in the first place actually creates far more questions than it answers.