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

[Desert Snake]

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.

I think that the difference here is, we have a 'creator'. Ie He literally changes the parameters of what we are dealing with, because He is able to create ''from nothing''. The nothing itself however, is not capable of this. So, two different ways of looking at how ''nothing'' became something.

 

[KBC1963]

'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.

Yea they have been trying to fight the entropy point for awhile now but the fact is that all matter is losing energy and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state and without energized matter there would be nothing for the supposed natural forces to act on.
Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer and essentially any other designers from traditional religions but..... it could only do so by positing another type of god, the god of naturalism. Even now the adherents of this god scramble to provide believable rationales for how their god can either make everything or keep it going.

I run a class for people looking to learn about the ID vs. evolution controversy and one of the points that I show them is how atheists / evolutionists act exactly like any historic religious adherents and it has been comical to them to review the online debate sites and see how the interactions unfold. As one student put it blind faith followers following a blind god. lol a play on the blind leading the blind comment.
I find that this is one of the best ways for them to see how skewed science can be when regulated by an unscientific presumption. It's amazing how these observations bring out the anti-bully side of them and allows them to be more open to the ID position.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Yea they have been trying to fight the entropy point for awhile now but the fact is that all matter is losing energy and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state and without energized matter there would be nothing for the supposed natural forces to act on.
Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer and essentially any other designers from traditional religions but..... it could only do so by positing another type of god, the god of naturalism. Even now the adherents of this god scramble to provide believable rationales for how their god can either make everything or keep it going.

I run a class for people looking to learn about the ID vs. evolution controversy and one of the points that I show them is how atheists / evolutionists act exactly like any historic religious adherents and it has been comical to them to review the online debate sites and see how the interactions unfold. As one student put it blind faith followers following a blind god. lol a play on the blind leading the blind comment.
I find that this is one of the best ways for them to see how skewed science can be when regulated by an unscientific presumption. It's amazing how these observations bring out the anti-bully side of them and allows them to be more open to the ID position.

You guys are both wrong.

The Law of Entropy is only one of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Second, as I recall.

And it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS!!

Which the Earth is decidedly NOT!

Hope this helps.........http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/thermo.htm

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I think that the difference here is, we have a 'creator'. Ie He literally changes the parameters of what we are dealing with, because He is able to create ''from nothing''. The nothing itself however, is not capable of this. So, two different ways of looking at how ''nothing'' became something.

That "something from nothing" you refer to, in regards to the process which fomented the Evolutionary Process, is known as "Abiogenesis."

And it IS capable of starting life. Hence it's name.

Perhaps you are unaware that we have done this in a laboratory setting? Let me know if you need a link.

Also, please know that we did it in a lab after only a few decades of trying. And that the Earth had a good 1 Billion Years (!) to do it.


Come to think of it, I already have a link for ya.......http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Hope this helps.

 

[Parsimony]

For some reason, I am not getting notifications when you reply to me. Any idea why that is? Beats me.

First, Describe how it would have a bearing using any of the mechanisms prescribed by the evolutionary hypothesis? (Random mutation and natural selection).

Because the kinds of genes that an organism has presently will greatly affect how it will evolve in the future. New genes are based on modifications of old genes. New genes don't just pop up out of nowhere.

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.

Change it up and you'll see why that doesn't follow: "If the first chemicals have an ongoing control/effect on how chemical reactions work then in fact the current paradigm promoted for chemistry would be insufficient to explain the origin of new chemicals without consideration of how the first chemicals were arranged to take part in the reactions of all subsequent chemicals after it." Sounds like we shouldn't buy into chemistry unless chemistry contains within itself a mechanism for the origin of the first chemicals (it doesn't and can't. You have to look to nuclear physics for that answer).

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.

We all know that evolutionary theory is incomplete. New discoveries are still being made. Much of it still strongly supported.

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?

Any limits in variability would have to match up with fossil and genetic evidence, in which case, no, it's not a problem for evolution.

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

You're forgetting genetic drift and epigenetics.

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;

Why wouldn't it? We know that organisms have DNA repair mechanisms and that their mutation rates are themselves subject to evolution.

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.

Evolution is not one big "take it or leave it" model. There are many parts of it. Some parts have turned out to be wrong. Many are continuing to be supported by the evidence. Evolution, in its most basic form, is simply change in a population over generations. Directed mutations wouldn't be at odds with that. They wouldn't be at odds with common descent either.

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.

How exactly do you propose to eliminate belief from scientific circles? That could only happen if it was possible to determine if something was absolutely true or not. It isn't possible. There is always a chance of being wrong. This is why science doesn't seek proof, it seeks evidence. This applies to all sciences, not just evolutionary biology.

The only thing that the evolutionary hypothesis has done a good job at is evolving itself to fit the evidence.

If it didn't (i.e., if it stayed exactly the same despite new evidence showing that something was off with it), then it wouldn't be scientific. Science changes. It is not static. I've already pointed out that evolutionary theory isn't just "one thing". Parts of it have already been rejected (especially where phylogenies are concerned).

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.

Until a model came around that was better able to describe the observations (heliocentrism). Unlike geocentrism, no scientifically-testable model has shown itself to fit the evidence better than evolution currently does.

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.

What unscientific assumption does it make?

Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer

That's not why the evolutionary model was developed nor does it have any impact on the existence or non-existence of God. I'd really like to see how you think evolutionary biology can replaced God as creator of the Universe (and please don't say anything about the Big Bang somehow being relevant to evolution, because it isn't).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yea they have been trying to fight the entropy point for awhile now but the fact is that all matter is losing energy and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state and without energized matter there would be nothing for the supposed natural forces to act on.
Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer and essentially any other designers from traditional religions but..... it could only do so by positing another type of god, the god of naturalism. Even now the adherents of this god scramble to provide believable rationales for how their god can either make everything or keep it going.

I run a class for people looking to learn about the ID vs. evolution controversy and one of the points that I show them is how atheists / evolutionists act exactly like any historic religious adherents and it has been comical to them to review the online debate sites and see how the interactions unfold. As one student put it blind faith followers following a blind god. lol a play on the blind leading the blind comment.
I find that this is one of the best ways for them to see how skewed science can be when regulated by an unscientific presumption. It's amazing how these observations bring out the anti-bully side of them and allows them to be more open to the ID position.

Yes, as we were discussing on another thread, people have to question their own beliefs to change their minds, only critiquing others' beliefs will never do this. And a-theism by definition is an inherently negative stance, which seeks to avoid acknowledging it's own assertions on their own merits, or lack thereof.

If I disagree with anything here; I don't think atheism qualifies as a religion- it would have to acknowledge it's own faith to rise to that level.

"blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself" as such it's more of a superstition

An interesting observation on entropy, from somebody who has actual hands-on life or death practical experience rather than merely Dawkins-like academic opinions on biology

"You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones and different sequences, it gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do."
"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. "Instead of just 2 digits, we’ve got 4 digits, repeating in different sequences but always resulting in the same thing unless there is a mutation. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

Dr Ben Carson, neurosurgeon

 

[KBC1963]

For some reason, I am not getting notifications when you reply to me. Any idea why that is? Beats me.).

nope

Because the kinds of genes that an organism has presently will greatly affect how it will evolve in the future. New genes are based on modifications of old genes. New genes don't just pop up out of nowhere.

the evolutionary concept does not assert that an organism has any input into how its changes are made infact, the concept has historically stated that whatever is contained within the dna is subject to change and any changes are either accepted or rejected by selection so how does evolutions defined process of change over time have any dependence on the contents of what is being changed? no matter what is informationally contained within the dna it is supposed by the hypothesis that it is changing by the action of copy errors or outside influences such as chemicals and radiation; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_20 So, essentially the current concept feels there is no influence for the changes initiated by the organisms own system. So for you to assert that there is an influence from the organisms coded information allowed by the concept at present is unfounded. Now you may consider that such a thing may be possible from your own personal perspective but that would not represent the accepted general belief of those who define the concept.

Change it up and you'll see why that doesn't follow: "If the first chemicals have an ongoing control/effect on how chemical reactions work then in fact the current paradigm promoted for chemistry would be insufficient to explain the origin of new chemicals without consideration of how the first chemicals were arranged to take part in the reactions of all subsequent chemicals after it." Sounds like we shouldn't buy into chemistry unless chemistry contains within itself a mechanism for the origin of the first chemicals (it doesn't and can't. You have to look to nuclear physics for that answer).

Unfortunately you are comparing apples and oranges in your analogy. In chemistry there is no evidence that individual chemicals carry information that can be later acted on from within themselves. Chemicals are not multi-component systems with abilities to change their own functionality in fact, the functionality of chemicals is determined directly by the atoms that they are made up of and we can test the different combinations of the atomic structures empirically and their arrangements define their functions which is why we can create chemicals at will. The only system that can even vaguely be an analogy to life is a robot and if we found a robot cruising around on mars we would not presume that it occurred by evolutionary mechanism.

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;

Why wouldn't it? We know that organisms have DNA repair mechanisms and that their mutation rates are themselves subject to evolution.

So you are of the opinion that the evolutionary position can allow for the genome of an organism to be capable of intentionally effecting its own changes without any outside influences then? and it would also be possible that the evolutionary position would allow that the first specie had this capability when it was formed by non-evolutionary causes? If you feel that the first specie had such an ability do you also feel it was possible to occur by chance?

Evolution is not one big "take it or leave it" model. There are many parts of it. Some parts have turned out to be wrong. Many are continuing to be supported by the evidence. Evolution, in its most basic form, is simply change in a population over generations. Directed mutations wouldn't be at odds with that. They wouldn't be at odds with common descent either.

So you would be fine with evolution being defined as intelligently designed changes in a population over generations?

How exactly do you propose to eliminate belief from scientific circles? That could only happen if it was possible to determine if something was absolutely true or not. It isn't possible. There is always a chance of being wrong. This is why science doesn't seek proof, it seeks evidence. This applies to all sciences, not just evolutionary biology.

One would start by identifying anything that controls how science operates that is not based on the scientific method and this would not require knowledge of absolute truth. Further science should not attempt to be applied to those things which cannot be tested by the scientific method.

What unscientific assumption does it make?

That everything can be explained by a materialistic perspective.

That's not why the evolutionary model was developed nor does it have any impact on the existence or non-existence of God. I'd really like to see how you think evolutionary biology can replaced God as creator of the Universe (and please don't say anything about the Big Bang somehow being relevant to evolution, because it isn't).

The model was developed to better explain the reason for the existence of species because the current belief system posited their existence as caused by a god so, yes the hypothesis was intended to displace a then current belief.
Evolutionary biology only attempts to explain the variety of life on earth and implies nothing about the rest of the universe.

 

[KBC1963]

You guys are both wrong.
... it applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS!! Which the Earth is decidedly NOT!

Looks like you should read the thread a bit before arbitrarily attacking the comments being made. Obviously your just trolling around looking to argue anything.

"...but the fact is that "all matter is losing energy" (not just the earth) and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state..."

Entropy
Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[Yorutenchi]

Yea they have been trying to fight the entropy point for awhile now but the fact is that all matter is losing energy and eventually would end in heat death and since all matter is losing energy that means that being energized is not its natural state and without energized matter there would be nothing for the supposed natural forces to act on.
Evolution was an answer to eliminating the need for the christian designer and essentially any other designers from traditional religions but..... it could only do so by positing another type of god, the god of naturalism. Even now the adherents of this god scramble to provide believable rationales for how their god can either make everything or keep it going.

You seem to be mistaken. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It has not been an answer against the Christian god. It is an explanation of nature based on observation and furthered support. Entropy argument I have heard a few times before. Each time people simply do not understand entropy enough to use it in an argument and even if they do usually the argument fails most lines of logic.

Entropy as we know it is not evidence against evolution in and of itself. Do you have an argument against evolution using entropy in some manner?

I run a class for people looking to learn about the ID vs. evolution controversy and one of the points that I show them is how atheists / evolutionists act exactly like any historic religious adherents and it has been comical to them to review the online debate sites and see how the interactions unfold. As one student put it blind faith followers following a blind god. lol a play on the blind leading the blind comment.
I find that this is one of the best ways for them to see how skewed science can be when regulated by an unscientific presumption. It's amazing how these observations bring out the anti-bully side of them and allows them to be more open to the ID position.

I would be interested in your class. I have had a professor since coming to the states who was a stark advocate of ID. His ideas were silly at best. Perhaps yours are somewhat better.

 

[1robin]

What do you believes happens to what you consider a non-Christian or the otherwise "unsaved"?

They get exactly what they wanted in the first place, no GOD. Nor anything he comes with like love, meaning, purpose, eternal life with him, no sickness, perfect peace and contentment, etc........ I believe they are eventually consigned to the one place God can't go, non-existence. The fire and brimstone Hell maybe in operation currently but as revelations says Hell, demons, Satan himself are thrown into the pit and consumed. Those who believe are left with a world restored to it's state of paradise.

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?

I am not an expert on what happens to those who never had an opportunity to hear the message. I would instead refer you to the dozens of books published by respected authors on "The problem of the evangelized".

{quote]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? [/quote] I know those in Christ are, I am not sure about those not in Christ. Take a look a this scripture:

New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Sounds like one side is eventually annihilated.

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?

All the dead are raised and then the first of two judgments occur. Christ separates those bound for Hell (and I believe eventual annihilation), and those bound for heaven. Then there is a second judgment that only believers are subject to. All our works are tested by God's refining fire. What was done in his name and consistent with his purpose will be left, what was not will be consumed. Whatever remains determines what reassures we receive in heaven. I do not know what those treasures are but the bible makes mention of them in a few places.

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

I do not think those who rejected Christ are raised to immortality. I believe they are raised to suffer in Hell until Hell and it's contents are consigned to oblivion.

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

That is true you cannot earn heaven by merit. However you can earn treasures within heaven. I will give you an example, the 144,000 martyrs, the placing of certain individuals to judge the tribes in Israel. We could not earn heaven but we can earn those treasures within. It is the exact same concept as our obedience earning earthly rewards, our faithful worship increasing our intimacy with God, but we did not earn our salvation which allows for these things.

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.

I concur with this but I do not see an argument here. This is in the context of believers.

 

[1robin]

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.

Neither are a hundred millions events taught as reliable in historical collages every day. I think the fact that a man that was as driven and single minded as Paul arriving at a city as one of the group he had been trying to eradicate is evidence in his favor. I believe his life long service to an ideal he gave up his premier status in Jerusalem for and was imprisoned for is evidence. His miracles are evidence. The fact every single apostle (all who initially distrusted him) came to acknowledge his apostleship. And the fact he prevailed in every disagreement. Is as open and shut case as to his anointing.

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.

I do, why do you reject whom the apostle's did not? Of course it took time to convince men whom Paul had been trying to kill was an apostle, can you imagine the tests he was subjected to and how well he must have passed them to change the minds of all the apostles and 2000 years of the vast majority Christian scholars. He is the perfect specimen in a legal since. A man devoted to the very cause he adopted. A man who served this new cause with even greater zeal that the former cause, a man who risked and lost everything for that new cause, a man who had one of the best educations in Jewish law in Israel, a man who had to convince the men who would have been by far the hardest to convince, a man who performed miracles. I do not what better apostle you could pick even if you simply invented one hypothetically.

 

[Etritonakin]

No. Those in Christ -the dead and the living at that time -are made immortal at his return -and reign a thousand years with him on earth.

The rest of the dead live after the the thousand years and are judged according to their works.

1Th 4:15 For 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.
1Th 4:16 For 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:
1Th 4:17 Then 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

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

 

[Parsimony]

nope

Wait, I figured out what the problem is. It's the way that you're quoting me. It looks like you're copy-pasting my quotes. In order for me to get notifications, you need to click the "reply" button at the bottom of my posts. That'll let me know when you've responded. Thanks in advance.

the evolutionary concept does not assert that an organism has any input into how its changes are made infact, the concept has historically stated that whatever is contained within the dna is subject to change and any changes are either accepted or rejected by selection so how does evolutions defined process of change over time have any dependence on the contents of what is being changed?

Because the fitness of an organism is dependent upon the contents of its genes.

no matter what is informationally contained within the dna it is supposed by the hypothesis that it is changing by the action of copy errors or outside influences such as chemicals and radiation; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_20 So, essentially the current concept feels there is no influence for the changes initiated by the organisms own system. So for you to assert that there is an influence from the organisms coded information allowed by the concept at present is unfounded. Now you may consider that such a thing may be possible from your own personal perspective but that would not represent the accepted general belief of those who define the concept.

This is starting to sound like you are talking about epigenetics. Evolution isn't at odds with that.

Unfortunately you are comparing apples and oranges in your analogy.

So the properties of the first chemicals had no impact on the chemical reactions they could participate in and therefore the kinds of chemicals that would result from those reactions? Haven't you been saying that the properties of the first living thing would impact the way it evolves and therefore the kinds of species that result from that evolution?

In chemistry there is no evidence that individual chemicals carry information that can be later acted on from within themselves.

Depends on how you define information. In information theory, molecules can be considered as containing information (such as charge, orbital energy levels, electron configuration, spin, overall molecular shape). No, they don't change from "within themselves" (unless they are unstable), but they can change when interacting with other molecules. If you posit that organisms can self-mutate in response to outside pressures, its fairly similar (change in an entity in response to an interaction with another entity or entities).

Chemicals are not multi-component systems with abilities to change their own functionality in fact,

A lot of chemicals are multi-component systems (multiple atoms), but if you want to talk about them changing their functionality that would depend on what chemical it is, what other chemicals they are reacting with and what the conditions are (temperature and pressure).

the functionality of chemicals is determined directly by the atoms that they are made up of

Just as the functionality of living things is determined by the genes they have.

and we can test the different combinations of the atomic structures empirically and their arrangements define their functions which is why we can create chemicals at will.

We can test different combinations of genes and see how they affect the functions of the living things they are a part of. The arrangements of DNA base pair define their functions. We can create genes at will now too.

The only system that can even vaguely be an analogy to life is a robot and if we found a robot cruising around on mars we would not presume that it occurred by evolutionary mechanism.

Because robots don't have the traits required to evolve the way that living things do.

So you are of the opinion that the evolutionary position can allow for the genome of an organism to be capable of intentionally effecting its own changes without any outside influences then?

Given sufficient evidence? Yes, it could accommodate that. It might even help evolution move more quickly than usual (not as many bad mutations to sift through).

and it would also be possible that the evolutionary position would allow that the first specie had this capability when it was formed by non-evolutionary causes?

Yep.

If you feel that the first specie had such an ability do you also feel it was possible to occur by chance?

Chance? Very, very unlikely. Not entirely anyway. Nor do modern abiogenesis models posit that it was pure chance.

So you would be fine with evolution being defined as intelligently designed changes in a population over generations?

Selective breeding by humans of dogs is technically just that. If intelligently-designed changes could be demonstrated, yes, evolution could be defined in that way. Evolution is just changes in populations over time in its most general sense. The "how" is of secondary importance.

One would start by identifying anything that controls how science operates that is not based on the scientific method and this would not require knowledge of absolute truth.

Good so far.

Further science should not attempt to be applied to those things which cannot be tested by the scientific method.

I agree, but evolution makes testable predictions, putting it in line with the scientific method.

That everything can be explained by a materialistic perspective.

Evolutionary theory makes not such claim. That is far beyond its scope. A spirit/immaterial world can exist happily alongside a world of biological evolution.

The model was developed to better explain the reason for the existence of species because the current belief system posited their existence as caused by a god so, yes the hypothesis was intended to displace a then current belief.

The evolutionary model was developed to explain evidence such as the fossil record and biogeography, not to get rid of God or promote materialism. Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote the Origin of Species, only losing his faith later on. Alfred Russell Wallace, who independently conceived of evolutionary theory, was a spiritualist. Darwin himself stated a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist".

Evolutionary biology only attempts to explain the variety of life on earth and implies nothing about the rest of the universe.

We can agree on this.

 

[Etritonakin]

Neither are a hundred millions events taught as reliable in historical collages every day. I think the fact that a man that was as driven and single minded as Paul arriving at a city as one of the group he had been trying to eradicate is evidence in his favor. I believe his life long service to an ideal he gave up his premier status in Jerusalem for and was imprisoned for is evidence. His miracles are evidence. The fact every single apostle (all who initially distrusted him) came to acknowledge his apostleship. And the fact he prevailed in every disagreement. Is as open and shut case as to his anointing.

I do, why do you reject whom the apostle's did not? Of course it took time to convince men whom Paul had been trying to kill was an apostle, can you imagine the tests he was subjected to and how well he must have passed them to change the minds of all the apostles and 2000 years of the vast majority Christian scholars. He is the perfect specimen in a legal since. A man devoted to the very cause he adopted. A man who served this new cause with even greater zeal that the former cause, a man who risked and lost everything for that new cause, a man who had one of the best educations in Jewish law in Israel, a man who had to convince the men who would have been by far the hardest to convince, a man who performed miracles. I do not what better apostle you could pick even if you simply invented one hypothetically.

Had trouble replying to your other post. I was pointing out that if -as very clearly stated -those both dead and alive who are "in Christ" at his return are made immortal then -and are then ever with the Lord -they are not raised to a judgment.

That is not to say they will never give account, but there are not two judgments -as in a time of dividing and a deciding -except that those in Christ are judged while they live -and the rest are judged after they die.

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

...they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

There is simply no time for another judgment in the timeline -and only those who were not "in Christ" from Adam until the return of Christ will still be dead to be raised to the judgment after the thousand years.

All men need the judgment of God -to be corrected by him -but those God calls in this time are also judged in this time -during this life.

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

One of the most awesome realizations I have had by reading scripture is that those who are called from Adam until the return of Christ are only the first to receive eternal life....

Jas_1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1Ti 5:24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
1Ti 5:25 Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid

Though we all must be judged by God -not all will be raised to the "great white throne" judgment after the thousand years.

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

If those who are in Christ -dead and alive -are given their reward at his return -then they will already have stood before the judgment seat -but that does not mean having to be raised to a judgment.

Those God calls in this time "receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done" during this life.

Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Here it is plainly stated....

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

There are two RESURRECTIONS -one to life, and one to damnation -but being resurrected to condemnation and damnation -the great white throne judgment -does not automatically mean that one will never receive eternal life.
Only the second resurrection is to a judgment, as such.

Those raised to that condemnation and damnation -the tribunal/judgment/punishment -are then judged according to their works -not their beliefs.
If they were simply raised to die -why bother?

Many who were not in Christ have done good works. Many who are in Christ have done evil works. Both are judged. That is to say, all will be chastened by God for their benefit.

Believers are not different -they are not better -they are simply the first to be drawn by God to believe and to be judged.
Just as all things are first to the Jew and then Gentile, so is judgment/chastening first to those called to believe and obey in this time -and then the rest of the dead.

We cannot say which persons God can bring to repentance -even though we can know from scripture that utter refusal to do good will eventually lead to non-existence.

1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world

That damnation and condemnation "of the world" is the judgment of the rest of the dead -but it is a mistake to believe that it is all doom and gloom.

Of that judgment it is written.... (and notice it says EVERY man)....

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

God is ABLE to destroy both body and spirit in Gehenna -but would certainly prefer that all come to repentance.

Another very important point is that those in Christ who are made immortal at his return DO NOT GO TO HEAVEN -they reign on Earth.
They are the meek that inherit the earth.

Consider the following....

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Eze 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Eze 37:13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
Eze 37:14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD..............
Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Furthermore.... if believers went to heaven and non-believers went to hell -why would God bother with renewing the earth and bringing down a new Jerusalem -OUT OF HEAVEN -to earth?

Rev_3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

 

[KBC1963]

You seem to be mistaken. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It has not been an answer against the Christian god. It is an explanation of nature based on observation and furthered support.

The gods of the various religions were the answer to explain the varieties of life at the time when the evolutionary hypothesis was formed. Read Darwin's & Haechel writings for the rationales against gods and for evolution. You can't propose a solution to a question if you believe it has already been solved therefore, evolution was a solution to answer how the varieties of life came about.

Entropy argument I have heard a few times before. Each time people simply do not understand entropy enough to use it in an argument and even if they do usually the argument fails most lines of logic.
Entropy as we know it is not evidence against evolution in and of itself. Do you have an argument against evolution using entropy in some manner?

I was not arguing against evolution via Entropy. See if you can figure out what I was arguing against by reading the posts.

I would be interested in your class. I have had a professor since coming to the states who was a stark advocate of ID. His ideas were silly at best. Perhaps yours are somewhat better.

I'm sure you would.
Anyone can see anyone else's arguments as silly regardless of any level of evidences. Flat earthers are an example.
Perhaps mine are neither better or worse. The students always have the choice to decide when they get to see both sides. I know they are definitely amazed at the hate and discontent exhibited by anti-ID and anti-creationists in online forums.
I would think that if there is no designer then no amount of belief in one will make a difference so why waste time arguing against it?
If there is no flat earth what is gained by arguing against it?

 

[KBC1963]

Wait, I figured out what the problem is. It's the way that you're quoting me. It looks like you're copy-pasting my quotes. In order for me to get notifications, you need to click the "reply" button at the bottom of my posts. That'll let me know when you've responded. Thanks in advance.

Using reply does not include everything contained within your post. All that shows up is just your replies with no reference to what you are specifically replying too.

the evolutionary concept does not assert that an organism has any input into how its changes are made infact, the concept has historically stated that whatever is contained within the dna is subject to change and any changes are either accepted or rejected by selection so how does evolutions defined process of change over time have any dependence on the contents of what is being changed?

Because the fitness of an organism is dependent upon the contents of its genes.

And fitness cannot affect how the process happens. Fitness can only possibly have an affect on which organisms survive. What does survive cannot change how changes occur (random mutation) in the first place nor can it affect the selection process. The only dependence between evolution and dna is that dna must exist in order for the hypothetical process of evolution to act on.
Keep in mind I am specifically discussing the 'defined' process of evolution not what you or anyone else feels it could be redefined as. When the process of evolution is redefined and taught in schools with that revision as I'm sure it will be at some future point in order to fit the evidence then I would be inclined to review its new rationalities.

no matter what is informationally contained within the dna it is supposed by the hypothesis that it is changing by the action of copy errors or outside influences such as chemicals and radiation; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_20 So, essentially the current concept feels there is no influence for the changes initiated by the organisms own system. So for you to assert that there is an influence from the organisms coded information allowed by the concept at present is unfounded. Now you may consider that such a thing may be possible from your own personal perspective but that would not represent the accepted general belief of those who define the concept.

This is starting to sound like you are talking about epigenetics. Evolution isn't at odds with that.

Current evolutionary thought may not be at odds with it now but, it has historically been against it. A good reference here would be Lamarck since it was his concept that such a thing was possible to begin with. Now many decades later science is finding that there may be some truth in his assertions even though it was initially rejected based on the evidence. Isn't it amazing how evidence seems to be not so evidential as time passes. Which of course raises the question of whether currently held evidence that seem to back evolutionary thought may later be found to not be evidence.

Unfortunately you are comparing apples and oranges in your analogy.

So the properties of the first chemicals had no impact on the chemical reactions they could participate in and therefore the kinds of chemicals that would result from those reactions?

Chemicals will always have their distinctive properties and the same impact on each reaction type. They have no choice. They cannot rearrange their atomic makeup and still be the same chemicals. [Apples]

Haven't you been saying that the properties of the first living thing would impact the way it evolves and therefore the kinds of species that result from that evolution?

Yes, dna can contain information to rearrange itself to produce different results and it still remains dna much like a computer or robot program can be designed to modify itself based on any number of parameters and still be a program. [Oranges.]

In chemistry there is no evidence that individual chemicals carry information that can be later acted on from within themselves.

...If you posit that organisms can self-mutate in response to outside pressures, its fairly similar (change in an entity in response to an interaction with another entity or entities).

I am positing self-mutation which is quite similar to how an intelligently designed program works. A programmed can be designed from its inception to sense specific things and then initiate changes in form or action to respond to those changes. Further, there is also the probability that the self-mutation program initiates changes without any outside influence simply to create variety. You should consider the level of complexity that such a program would need to contain in order for function to be realized and if it came into existence without the aid of the proposed evolutionary mechanisms then how much dependence would it have on survivability by those same mechanisms?
In the end random mutation would have no meaning for survivability and selection would be simply be an effect already accounted for in the design of the programming. If your unsure that such a thing is possible you should consider how our bodies fight diseases via the adaptive immune system.

Chemicals are not multi-component systems with abilities to change their own functionality in fact,

A lot of chemicals are multi-component systems (multiple atoms), but if you want to talk about them changing their functionality that would depend on what chemical it is, what other chemicals they are reacting with and what the conditions are (temperature and pressure).

I did not say that "chemicals are not multi-component systems" I did however say that "Chemicals are not multi-component systems with abilities to change their own functionality" and I was specific about a chemical being able to "change their own functionality". There is no implication anywhere in my wording about reacting with anything else. If you want to continue this discussion don't play with the clear intent of the words being used.

the functionality of chemicals is determined directly by the atoms that they are made up of

Just as the functionality of living things is determined by the genes they have.

No. Chemicals have static functionality that cannot be changed from within the chemical itself. Living things have genes which can initiate changes from within itself to provide all different types of functionality. Apples and oranges. Don't you comprehend the complexity difference between them? Apparently you don't see the problem making an analogy between a simple lever and the space shuttle, from your perspective these would essentially be the same type of things.

The only system that can even vaguely be an analogy to life is a robot and if we found a robot cruising around on mars we would not presume that it occurred by evolutionary mechanism.

Because robots don't have the traits required to evolve the way that living things do.

What you mean is that the robots you know about "don't have the traits required to evolve" and who says that they must be "the way living things do"?

Look what can be achieved by intelligent design ---- Engineers have developed a robotic system that can evolve and improve its performance. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33867941
Even now intelligent agents are creating multi-component systems with programming that can exhibit similar existence properties of life even to the point where they assert that they can "evolve". Imagine that an intelligently designed formation that can "appear" to evolve without any outside assistance during its operation.

 

[1robin]

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

1. The fact that all matters beyond the certainty that we think are based on less than certainty and therefor have an element of faith within them in without question or contention. It is not an opinion at all. It is simply a brute fact.
2. The agreement between the majority of NT historians is so uncontroversial I used an Atheist as my source when asked a few months ago. There is just no arguing against the bible's extraordinary historical accuracy concerning things that can be verified. It is a primary resource for even secular historians.
3. The only thing I said to which your reply would be relevant to is to our theological conclusions from the historical data. But as I said I am not trying to convince anyone that an empty grave makes a resurrection a certainty. My argument is that a resurrection is by far a better explanation for the historical events I supplied that NT historians consider reliable. You disagree? Give me a better conclusion for just those 5-6 historical admissions.

 

[leibowde84]

1. The fact that all matters beyond the certainty that we think are based on less than certainty and therefor have an element of faith within them in without question or contention. It is not an opinion at all. It is simply a brute fact.
2. The agreement between the majority of NT historians is so uncontroversial I used an Atheist as my source when asked a few months ago. There is just no arguing against the bible's extraordinary historical accuracy concerning things that can be verified. It is a primary resource for even secular historians.
3. The only thing I said to which your reply would be relevant to is to our theological conclusions from the historical data. But as I said I am not trying to convince anyone that an empty grave makes a resurrection a certainty. My argument is that a resurrection is by far a better explanation for the historical events I supplied that NT historians consider reliable. You disagree? Give me a better conclusion for just those 5-6 historical admissions.

By definition, miracles are less likely than any natural explanation.

 

[1robin]

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.

I don't know if these types of changes of heart exist in any meaningful proportion of people who claimed to have been born again. It is as if a person was deathly sick and all the traditional meds had failed, out of desperation she went to Tibet and came to believe that the disease (lets say cancer) that was eating her away could be cured by one of their elaborate rituals. Lets say she comes to believe it so much that she participates in them and literally comes home from Tibet without any noticeable sign of tumors or cancer. Then 20 years later decided it must have actually been the exercise, the clean water, or food that cured her. She then decides that the Buddhism is false and the nation of Tibet does not even exist. I would say the best explanation for that is that she is getting senile.


Now I don't know what question your asking exactly.

If your asking if a born again person can lose their faith and still make it to heaven. I would say yes.

New International Version
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

BTW I see you consider your self a Christian. Would you think God was just and righteous if you did exactly as Christ commanded when he said "you must be born again" and were born again. Then six months later had a car crash which gave you permanent amnesia?

If your method of salvation includes merit of any kind, type, and is not grace and grace alone. Please spell out the details of your own salvation model. Many times the inevitability or necessity of a thing is better seen when it is compared to a thing when which exposed reveals massive faults, self contradictions, and irrational features. I do not merely claim that salvation comes by grace alone I claim it is the only coherent and rational means by which it could.

BTW you said something was testable, what was it, and how is it tested?

 

[1robin]

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

Yeah into something what you wish to see but what is in fact not on that post in any form.

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.

No I did not, and never have. Find any statement where my claim to faith is ever stated to be "hedged" upon a book or set of books. However that was not the issue. It was the rejection of learning from books I dismissed.

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

Incorrect, the context is established by the opening statement within any given context. Your responses should reflect that context.

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

We are not talking about the same thing. One hand we have very emphatic criteria made by the founder of a faith which states what criteria a person must meet in order to be a true follower of that person. If I started a cult called the yellow car owners of America and established exactly what wavelengths of the light spectrum your car, and what percentage must be covered in that color paint to truly belong to my cult that would be a silly idea but not a fallacy. The true Scotsman fallacy is not of this type because the first Scot did not lay down any such emphatic claims which make them open for any subjective criteria, nor has there been and Scot capable of establishing any objective criteria as to what one is. It could even be argued that Jesus being God laid down the most objective criteria even uttered. However I even allowed for his being a nut case in which what a Christian is no longer has any relevance. They are not the same at all. I also think your hopelessly lost in all the verses about what "should" be true of a Christian from a man's imperfect point of view. It is true a Christian should be gentle, generous, sober, meek, etc...... but that is not what makes anyone a Christian nor is it said to be. You do not become a Christian by merit, you become one by first admitting your merit will not earn heaven, and that the only payment to make one a Christian has already been made. We become a true Christian by merely accepting it and are born again as the result. Look at the process.

The judgment:
God opens the book of life. Anyone's name not found within is cast into Hell.
The bible says as many as were born again (saved) names were written into the book of life.
Not those who did a good deed, lived a moral life, or wore a popes vestments.

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

I am too busy being buried under a pile of misused and irrelevant fallacies shoveled by your side as fast as you read inconvenient posts.

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

All those who's names are not found in the book of life, by being born again, are unbelievers as far as God is concerned. It is the difference between believing in the theory of drag, and aerodynamics, and taking that leap out of the door at 15,000. I will give you a more appropriate example or two. When Jesus spoke more on being born again he was talking to one of the most moral and educated of the Jewish Rabbi's. Now if superficial faith could make one approved of God, or if devotion, standing, moral excellence, etc...... could make one approved of by God then Nicodemus was the man. He had even risked death to talk to Christ while the rest of his ilk plotted to destroy him. Yes Jesus told him, "what your a Pharisee a teacher and you do not even understand spiritual rebirth. IOW ho can you claim to be a highly thought of priest of God and not know this most basic of teachingings

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

Adding a fallacy to another misused fallacy does not make the first any more applicable..

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

Kettle met pot.

I will take that as a big fat "NO" then. Since this will be an unending and infinitely boring misused fallacy after fallacy that I have to show are misused only to have you implore more misused fallacy's to attempt to rescue I don't think this warrants much more attention.