Is there a designer? [Archive]

Wowbagger

14th March 2008, 02:31 PM

The first paper you cite is wrong on several important aspects. But to begin with:

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the existence of a Superintelligence.

(1) DNA is a code, in a sense, but NOT a language. It is a pattern of molecular components not much different than the snowflake or tornado, or any of those other examples listed before. Analogies to language are false.

(2) Bee dances are codes, but probably not the product of conscious minds. The evolutionary pathways that lead to bee dancing have been worked out fairly well. I remember the book River Out of Eden had an excellent chapter on this. But, I will try to find a good web site, soon.

(3) This is a logical fallacy. Even if 1 and 2 were true (and we can demonstrate they are not, but for argument sake: ), it is fallacious to assume something must always be true, simply because we found some examples where it was true. Especially if a superintelligence, that can not be empirically tested for, is required for the assumption to work.

ETA: The second paper is even worse. I have no time to disect it now. But, ask yourself these questions: What does the presumption of "God" add to our understanding of life or the Universe? Does it lead to new, precise knowledge we would never have known otherwise? Could it aid us in medical research or enviornmental conservation, even in principal? Is the existence of God even testable, in an empirical sense? Does his presence lead to testable predictions we can make?

idunno

14th March 2008, 02:34 PM

anyway they have an idea why god didnt have to be created himself..cause he is beyond time according to the bible

Wowbagger

14th March 2008, 02:40 PM

anyway they have an idea why god didnt have to be created himself..cause he is beyond time according to the bible Oh, that's original. :rolleyes:

What empirical evidence do they have of this? Is the hypothesis even testable? Or, for that matter, falsifiable?

If not, do not waste the Science section of this Forum on this matter any further. Save it for the Religion and Philosophy section, where it will be immune from such criticisms from me.

alfaniner

14th March 2008, 02:41 PM

Is there a designer?

No.

idunno

14th March 2008, 02:49 PM

any comments on this?

«Quantum mechanics, rather than demoting God and elevating man, does exactly the reverse. If you have a specific question on quantum mechanics, I'd be happy to deal with it.
Let me just share this. There are a couple of chapters on this in my Creator and the Cosmos book. Quantum challenges to the Christian faith were first proposed in 1983 and culminating in some claims that were made a few months back, have moved in the direction of progressive absurdity.
In 1983 Paul Davies said, “The universe was created though a quantum fluctuation.” The problem with that is that the smaller the time interval in quantum mechanics, the smaller the probability the quantum fluctuation will occur.
If we're talking about the beginning of the universe, the time interval is zero, so the probability is zero. So we know for sure that quantum mechanics doesn't do it.
The latest challenge coming from quantum mechanics is that the universe is evolving together with the human race, and the fossil record gives the evidence for this. If you look at the fossil record, you see improvement with respect to time.
Since the author of this theory doesn't believe in God, and he believes that there's some kind of self-ordering factor in nature that explains that fossil record, he concludes that the universe is improving with time, and that we human beings are improving in time.
He believes that if we wait long enough, we'll meet at one another at the Omega point, where we'll become omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Then we become God and we'll be able to create in the past, which explains why we're here today. God doesn't exist yet, but he will. When he exists, he'll create the universe 17 billion years ago.
Skeptic Martin Gardener analyzed this theory a few months ago, and said, “This is not the FAP theory. This is the CRAP theory.” It was called the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). He called it the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP).
The thing I've noticed in quantum mechanics in an attempt to refute the Christian faith, is as time goes on their attempts to bypass the God of the Bible get progressively more absurd. The analogy of that would be the flat Earth society, which has been in existence for 100 years.
During those 100 years, the rationale for defending a flat Earth has become progressively absurd. They'll never run out of evidence for a flat Earth, but the fact that their evidence is being demonstrated as becoming progressively more absurd tells us that they don't have a strong case.
Likewise, I would say atheists pushing through quantum mechanics do not have a strong case. You can read the details in my book.

Ron_Tomkins

14th March 2008, 02:51 PM

anyway they have an idea why god didnt have to be created himself..cause he is beyond time according to the bible

I have an idea of why Invisible Bigfoot could exist: Because he is invisible and we can't see him. Also his feet are special and they don't make noise and they don't leave footprints so it's impossible to trace him.

Wowbagger

14th March 2008, 02:53 PM

any comments on this? Yes. See the comments I added to one of my posts, above (#4). Ask yourself those questions. For starters.

idunno

14th March 2008, 03:01 PM

in the end he is trying to tell us that christian god is the true god.
********

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 03:06 PM

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

read this. could there be a designer? See the part on codes and random mutation

The author of this website, Perry Marshall, gave this "Cosmic Fingerprints" talk a couple of years ago in my neck of the woods. I attended, and the group of people I was with systematically picked apart each and every one of his arguments. Scientifically, his arguments are... what's the technical term... crap.

His arguments don't even hold water simply on the basis of their logic. For example, he states:

1. DNA is a code.

2. All codes are a form of language originating with intelligence.

3. Therefore, DNA is a code made by God - thus, God exists and designed all life.

In Marshall's talk during the Q&A I challenged his basic premise by making a similar argument...

1. Last night I saw something in the sky; I don't know what it was.

2. All UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) are alien spacecraft.

3. Therefore, the unknown object I saw must have been an alien spacecraft - aliens exist and are visiting the Earth (specifically my house).

The result was much laughter aimed at Marshall. And as the Q&A progressed, it only got worse from there for him. I think the low point was when he was asked by a colleague of mine the following question:

Q (skeptic): Is what you're proposing science or philosophy?

A (Marshall): Yes.

The laughter following that response made the entire evening of woo worthwhile :D

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 03:14 PM

any comments on this?

Only that whoever wrote this knows just as little about QM as they do about DNA & biological evolution. This just goes to show that creationists butcher many branches of science, not just biology.

I especially like the following straw-man: only atheists accept QM.

That would make whoever wrote this a hypocrite (I assume he's not an atheist), because if he's using a computer, then he's using a device based directly upon the principles of QM.

Of course, Marshall presented numerous straw-men in his presentation that night, and the biggest is that only atheists accept evolution. It was interesting to see just how many Christians there were in the audience who were visibly pissed off at this comment.

It's not about "God vs. atheism" folks... it's about "science vs. non-science"...

Silentknight

14th March 2008, 03:17 PM

anyway they have an idea why god didnt have to be created himself..cause he is beyond time according to the bible
This is the same fallacy of special pleading they always use. It's no different from a circular argument, in that the conclusion (God) is being used to define the premises, and it says the same exact thing as if they were to just posit God to begin with. Therefore it's not an argument but an assertion.
in the end he is trying to tell us that christian god is the true god.
********
As it's been pointed out before, assuming that there is a designer is a very long way from proving that the Christian God is the true god. There are several steps missing from this proof. First one would have to prove that design occurs, but let's assume it to be true for the sake of argument. One would then need to prove that the designer is a god, then prove that this god is the specific deity Jehovah (out of the millions of gods humans have worshiped) then prove that Jehovah conforms to his biblical description, then prove that the Christian interpretation of the bible is even valid.

Christians who claim they are only trying to prove a designer, when they are actually trying to prove the existence of the Christian God, are being completely disingenuous. Those are two very different things.

AkuManiMani

14th March 2008, 03:18 PM

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

read this. could there be a designer? See the part on codes and random mutation

Of course there was a "designer". We know it as natural biological processes.

Edit: I also find it a bit ironic that the speaker in that lecture keeps citing examples of self-organizing systems in nature but somehow manages to consider like "designed".

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 03:22 PM

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

this one is even more interesting,about the entropy of the universe

Hugh Ross is what's called an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) - he accepts the age of the universe to be ~13.7 billion years, but he rejects biological evolution :confused:

I think that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are more consistent in their arguments. They may be dead wrong, but at least by asserting the age of the universe to be 6000-10,000 years, their rejection of biological evolution follows in a consistent manner.

sol invictus

14th March 2008, 03:47 PM

[LEFT]any comments on this?

The problem with that is that the smaller the time interval in quantum mechanics, the smaller the probability the quantum fluctuation will occur.
If we're talking about the beginning of the universe, the time interval is zero, so the probability is zero. So we know for sure that quantum mechanics doesn't do it.

I don't think quantum mechanics and religion have anything to say about each other, but let me just point out that the above quote is totally wrong. In fact it is precisely backwards. The shorter the time interval, the stronger and more dramatic quantum fluctuations are, with probability 1.

idunno

14th March 2008, 03:58 PM

see his response to your comments:

Where did the Universe come from?

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder

idunno

14th March 2008, 04:18 PM

see his response to your comments:

Where did the Universe come from?

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder

see this

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 04:19 PM

see his response to your comments:

Where did the Universe come from?

... Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?

Nice quote mines. Here's one from Einstein for ya...

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions [that Einstein worships the Judeo-Christian god], a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Reference: Albert Einstein, The Human Side (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691023689/thesecularweb/)

So does this now mean that because Marshall puts so much stock in Einstein's philosophical views that he's going to no longer worship the Judeo-Christian god?

As for Einstein, the man wasn't infallible as a scientist. Though he developed general relativity, which still stands as the dominant view of gravity today, he rejected a fully developed quantum theory and was quickly left behind by the newer generation of physicists working on it. When it comes to QM, the man was wrong in rejecting it. Period.

Reminds me of a disagreement between Einstein and Niels Bohr...

Einstein: "God does not play dice!"

Bohr: "Einstein, you should stop telling God what to do."

I think Marshall and his creationist ilk would do well to pay heed to Bohr's admonition :D

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 04:28 PM

I have an idea of why Invisible Bigfoot could exist: Because he is invisible and we can't see him. Also his feet are special and they don't make noise and they don't leave footprints so it's impossible to trace him.

There's a dragon in my garage!!! :jaw-dropp

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 04:29 PM

see this

:confused:

Complexity

14th March 2008, 05:12 PM

No, there is no designer.

shadron

14th March 2008, 05:26 PM

(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.

The first problem I noticed is in claiming all the codes that "we know the origin of" are intelligently made. But, since we don't know the origin of the DNA code in any real sense, it must lie outside your statement; that's a big, "So what?". Furthermore, I don't see that even if we did know what its origin is that we could reliably assert it is therefore intelligently created.

The encoding of DNA into amino acids is, perhaps, a code; it is not a language except as a metaphor (who, after all, speaks it?). It is a storage and memory facility, but then so are knotted strings, DRAM, scratches on a boulder and proteins themselves. Anything with organization (even very small organization) can be considered an information system; all can be spoken of as having information content.

As a computer scientist, the author ought to be ashamed of both the logic and the use of terms that he should know how to use better. Shannon would spin in his grave.

Wowbagger

14th March 2008, 05:38 PM

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder Ah, I see Einstein made a blunder. Well, at least science made discoveries to uncover this blunder, and Einstein ultimately owned up to it.

I wonder: How often do Intelligent Design advocates admit their own blunders? How often have Intelligent Design advocates developed evidence that actually helped Evolution realize one of its own blunders?

And, by "evidence", I mean the empirical kind: The kind that exposes knowledge in more precise detail, than the currently held theory. I am NOT talking about the subjective kind, where someone is merely spouting their opinions, and not really making any new discoveries.

Ron_Tomkins

14th March 2008, 09:42 PM

There's a dragon in my garage!!! :jaw-dropp

He's also invisible, right?

MattusMaximus

14th March 2008, 10:04 PM

He's also invisible, right?

And floating in midair, non-corporeal, and gives off no heat of any kind from his fiery breath... ;)

joobz

14th March 2008, 10:07 PM

godless dave

15th March 2008, 08:17 AM

Einstein didn't prove the existence of the atom, either.

jimbob

15th March 2008, 04:36 PM

My youngest daughter has several (51 at the last count) invisible purple dragons. (mainly for comic effect I suspect).

Hugh Ross is what's called an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) - he accepts the age of the universe to be ~13.7 billion years, but he rejects biological evolution :confused:

I think that Young Earth Creationists (YECs) are more consistent in their arguments. They may be dead wrong, but at least by asserting the age of the universe to be 6000-10,000 years, their rejection of biological evolution follows in a consistent manner.

Indeed; that is what gets me about ID proponents - they do accept "microevolution" watever that is, but pretend there is some magical barrier that stops this working over to create new species, which they call "macroevolution".

articulett

15th March 2008, 04:40 PM

No.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Ron_Tomkins

15th March 2008, 05:30 PM

No.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

Nominated.

articulett

15th March 2008, 06:06 PM

Nominated.

Please don't.

It's a great site, but it's nothing to nominate ME for.

If there's any evidence of god or any woo turns out to be true, I figured that site or JREF will be the first to know-- so I have my skeptic bases covered.

:)

idunno

16th March 2008, 11:13 AM

latest response by Perry:

Where did the Universe come from?
Part 2: "Bird Droppings on my Telescope"

sol invictus

16th March 2008, 11:27 AM

Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment: "Why the
Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in
all of history."

Oh dear. I'm afraid I know what's coming next....

idunno

16th March 2008, 11:31 AM

if god is beyond time and time only exists in the universe wouldnt it be possible that he neednt be created by yet another god, like skeptics claim?

articulett

16th March 2008, 12:56 PM

If the universe itself is beyond time, couldn't it be the creator of itself instead of this 3rd party always interjected by believers to make the KCA sound like a valid argument for some kind of god.

You are cutting and pasting and recycling old semantic games to justify your belief that an invisible magic man created the universe. We have no evidence that any kind of consciousness can exist absent a material brain. If they could, then, gods are just as likely as demons, souls, thetans, fairies, hobgoblins, imaginary friends, and schizophrenic delusions. Moreover, humans have no tools to distinguish one from the other since they are all invisible, immeasurable, and indistinguishable from the things humans are known to invent to explain that which they do not understand.

I know the argument you are making is deep, iron clad, and amazing to you--but that's because you believe and want to believe.... not because it's a valid argument for an invisible undetectable creator of the universe that you have somehow reasoned your way to understanding.

We have no more reason to believe in your god than we do to believe that people are being probed by aliens or that Tom Cruise's success is due to clearing away his body Thetans.

This forum is generally for those who are interested in finding out what is true and how humans fool themselves. It's not a really a forum for people who are convinced they already have the truth, though we get those types a lot... all certain their woo is true... those who feel even more convinced when no one can sway them from their position.

But the truth doesn't care whether you believe it or not.

Gate2501

16th March 2008, 01:06 PM

if god is beyond time and time only exists in the universe wouldnt it be possible that he neednt be created by yet another god, like skeptics claim?

I would think that using your own logic, you would realize that anything that existed "outside of time" or "without time" couldn't create anything at all. Without time there could be no action, and thusly, no creation, thought, intent, or any other aspect that would be required for your magic sky fairy to will the universe to come about.

If you want to argue that your magic invisible superfriend exists without time, that knife cuts both ways.

I think all of the cut/paste that you do has left you severely brain damaged.

idunno

16th March 2008, 02:00 PM

I would think that using your own logic, you would realize that anything that existed "outside of time" or "without time" couldn't create anything at all. Without time there could be no action, and thusly, no creation, thought, intent, or any other aspect that would be required for your magic sky fairy to will the universe to come about.

If you want to argue that your magic invisible superfriend exists without time, that knife cuts both ways.

I think all of the cut/paste that you do has left you severely brain damaged.

I think thats what Perry was trying to show: God is beyond time so he neednt be created. Another idiot

thaiboxerken

16th March 2008, 02:07 PM

I think thats what Perry was trying to show: God is beyond time so he neednt be created. Another idiot

With this, I can agree. Perry is another idiot.

Gate2501

16th March 2008, 02:22 PM

I think thats what Perry was trying to show: God is beyond time so he neednt be created. Another idiot

I am not sure of who you are referring to as an idiot. Me? Perry? God?

I think that you would do much better if you stayed in copy/paste form and went and found another persons argument for why some random person/entity is an idiot, then inserted the person's/being's name that you wish to malign.

idunno

16th March 2008, 02:33 PM

I am not sure of who you are referring to as an idiot. Me? Perry? God?

I think that you would do much better if you stayed in copy/paste form and went and found another persons argument for why some random person/entity is an idiot, then inserted the person's/being's name that you wish to malign.
Perrry.He is obviously trying to convert folks to Jesus as he claims Christianism is the only religion claiming there was abeginning

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th March 2008, 06:36 PM

I'd like to point out that if there is a designer, he is not the creator. That is because he is the designer by analogy from human beings, and human beings do not create the materials with which they work.

The creator is someone else.

~~ Paul

thaiboxerken

16th March 2008, 06:39 PM

The designer's name is Gucci.

idunno

16th March 2008, 07:10 PM

latest from perry

Where did the Universe come from?
Part 3: Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned
event in all of history

Reality Check

16th March 2008, 08:01 PM

This reasoning is actually an argument against the existence of God.
Start with what can we tell about God by looking at the world as it exists.
We see that God is lazy since there just about every animal is constructed of tubes and are mostly bi-lateral. Where are the three legged animals? Where are the animal with triangular or square limbs?
We see that God is imprecise otherwise why do mutations happen?
We see that God is not as good an engineer as humans. The spine is obviously incorrect for an animal standing on two legs. It is almost as if God designed a four-legged human and then changed s/he's mind.
We see that God was not that good at designing biology. The first thing a human designer says when looking at DNA is "where is the error correcting code?"
We see that God changes s/he mind a lot (see the mass extinctions in the fossil record).

So how could a God with the above attributes create something to an accuracy of 10120

alfaniner

16th March 2008, 08:07 PM

No.

idunno

16th March 2008, 08:12 PM

No.

no what???:mad:

idunno

16th March 2008, 08:17 PM

Reality Check

16th March 2008, 08:26 PM

i dont think the post is about that
The same reasoning means that there is no designer - just replace "God" with designer (or Thor or Shiva or your favorite mythological character).

articulett

16th March 2008, 09:01 PM

no what???:mad:
No to the question in the OP, I presume.

Is there a designer-- no.

It takes a lot of specious reasoning and convoluted semantics along with starting with the assumption that there was to come to the conclusion that there is one. The stuff you are posting basically says that since the author can't imagine how these seemingly designed things could happen (and clearly he doesn't have a very good understanding of natural selection and the eons involved), then they must have been designed. It's basically an argument from incredulity. It works if you are looking for a reason to believe in a designer... it's not an actual reason for any skeptic or scientist to conclude the universe was designed by some unknowable being with some sort of intent. It's a confabulated explanation of the type that humans are know to confabulate when they don't understand stuff and want believe that they do.

You seem to think that the arguments you are cutting and pasting are good arguments. They are old, specious arguments. Most of us have been subjected to various forms of them again and again because they seem to be the ones that work best on those who believe or want to believe, I guess.

But the answer to, "is there a designer?" is "no". At least there is no evidence of such. Not understanding something is not evidence that a magic man did it.

MattusMaximus

16th March 2008, 09:05 PM

The same reasoning means that there is no designer - just replace "God" with designer (or Thor or Shiva or your favorite mythological character).

I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster... (http://venganza.org)

sol invictus

16th March 2008, 09:10 PM

In their paper "Disturbing Implications of
a Cosmological Constant" two atheist scientists
from Stanford University stated that the existence of
this dark energy term would have required a miracle...
"An unknown agent" intervened in cosmic history
"for reasons of its own."

I'm familiar with that paper, and I knew it was next on the distortothon.... It's rather interesting that Perry knows the religious beliefs of the authors, and his statement about them is quite specific considering there were three of them, not two. But then, facts don't seem to be his strong point.

What he says about that paper is a total distortion. Their conclusion was actually just the opposite of what he claims. The model they studied gives predictions which are completely at odds with observation, and only by an incredible fine-tuning (hence the mention of an "agent") can it be forced to give something reasonable. Therefore, the authors quite reasonably concluded that the model is wrong, not that such a fine-tuning took place.

articulett

16th March 2008, 09:32 PM

Thanks Sol.

idunno, there are many people who become atheists after studying science and even the bible and going on searches for what is true-- I don't really think there are many atheists who are changing their mind at all-- certainly not on the basis of any sort of evidence or cosmological arguments or anything of that sort. Very few members of the National Academy of the Sciences--believe in any sort of purposeful designer. I think that as you understand more about how our world unfolded, there seems to be less of a need to appeal to some mystical intelligence as an explanation. We can never disprove god, but in the eons of assorted belief, there really is no convincing evidence to conclude that our universe is "designed" for us or anything else.

Skeptic Ginger

17th March 2008, 01:01 AM

This is just not a new argument. There must be a designer because: A) Distorted scientific argument: (Pick your version) A million monkeys with typewriters will never type out Hamlet even given infinite time B) Incorrect scientific argument: the calculations made by some idiot 'prove' there wasn't time for evolution to produce the life forms we see today C) Disproved hypothesis argument: Michael Behe can make a case for irreducible complexity aka we can't imagine how the eye evolved D) see the wedge strategy (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) E) things look designed

Been there, refuted that.

Here's a 47 page discussion on Marshall's flawed claims on the Infidels forum.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497

AkuManiMani

17th March 2008, 01:17 AM

Why isn't this thread moved to the Religion and Philosophy forum?

Gregoire

17th March 2008, 03:31 AM

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

read this. could there be a designer? See the part on codes and random mutation

No.

To paraphrase LaPlace, we have no need for that hypothesis.

The funny thing about those "codes" is that DNA is filled with evidence of evolution. Now that the human genome has been sequenced, it is clear that all organisms on this planet, as near as we can tell, share a common ancestor.

Most people nowadays accept DNA evidence from a crime scene or to see if they are closely related to another individual. But we can now do this with other organisms living on planet earth to see if we in fact are related at all. And whenever this is tested (and yes evolution has been repeatedly tested over and over again), the results are always what evolution has predicted.

idunno

17th March 2008, 10:19 AM

articulett

17th March 2008, 10:24 AM

moreover, it shows just how cobbled together the whole thing is... how undesigned or kluged together it is. There's junk DNA and fossil DNA and ERVs and twists and turns and beneficial accidents all over our genomes that tells the story of trial and error over eons--not "intelligence". We are accidental "masterpieces" more akin to the Grand Canyon... clearly not part of some "purposeful" design.

The Grand Canyon is not beautiful or awesome to please humans... Humans evolved to appreciate seeming design and try to figure out what it "means"--what learning can they glean from their observations of nature. Our brain confabulates explanations when we don't understand, but science helps us hone the information and get it right, so we aren't honing a delusion.

articulett

17th March 2008, 10:36 AM

i also have a problem with the idea of a designer,but is amazing how people i call inteligent love to believe the universe is too perfect to have not being created

Humans are very good at finding "signs" for what they want to believe or have come to believe. It's called "confirmation bias".

If you throw a virgin in a volcano and you get an outstanding yield on your crops... you assume it was the virgin tossed in the volcano and start tossing in more. If you win the lottery, you assume it was something you said or did or caused. If something bad happens, you assume it was something those "others" caused or did or should be punished for. It's a rough learning mechanism that works pretty good... but it is prone to error. Science and skepticism help correct those errors. But you have to be willing to understand that you can believe wrong things. Lots of people don't or won't believe that about themselves. That's why I like Randi--he tricks people to show them that --yes--even they--even SMART people can be tricked. We all can. Until someone understands this, they don't consider the fact that they may be tricking themselves.

Moreover, most children are taught that "faith" is necessary for morality, happiness, and salvation. I think that's a strong message that makes people very resistant to "not believing" in some sort of designer. They believe that it's "humble" to believe in a designer. I think it's sort of a pseudo humility... this idea that there is some big invisible loving creator that cares about earth hominids in specific... and designed the universe for them. The more you know, the sillier and more arrogant it seems.

It seems childish... very self centered. It's normal for every living thing to imagine the universe revolving around it... because from it's perspective it does... but there really isn't a good excuse for adult humans to continue with such a delusion. I think such beliefs are very "self absorbed" and egotistical in a way--although, I can see why they can be comforting and why most people have some sort of belief that fits in this category.

JonnyFive

17th March 2008, 12:12 PM

read this. could there be a designer?

I dunno.

MattusMaximus

17th March 2008, 09:47 PM

i also have a problem with the idea of a designer,but is amazing how people i call inteligent love to believe the universe is too perfect to have not being created

By what criteria do you define "perfect"? If you define perfect to mean ideally suited for human habitation, then the universe was designed quite badly seeing as how we can safely occupy such a infinitesimally tiny part of it.

And that part we can occupy, the Earth, is mostly covered with water, which kind of cuts down the living space a bit. A benevolent designer intending to make Earth nice for us would've done better to give us fins and gills, methinks.

Skeptic Ginger

17th March 2008, 10:03 PM

I forgot to throw in one of my favorite lectures on this topic. You can watch it online though it is an hour long and I had to see it more than once before I understood it. It is technical but still interesting for the non-biologist.

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513)Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

articulett

17th March 2008, 10:29 PM

or wings... yeah--wings.

idunno

23rd March 2008, 12:20 PM

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:00 AM, > wrote:
> I get a message from my calculator every time I punch the buttons to
> add two numbers - the answer. So my calculator has a mind?

-Your calculator and the symbol system it uses was created by a mind.

I also get a
> message/information/answer when I slide the beads around on my abacus to
> perform some mathematical operation. I get a message about the taste of an
> apple whenever I take a bite - the apple provided the information database
> for me to access. Every time I pick up a rock (especially a fossil, which I
> am quite fond of) I get a message about it's history, origins, composition,
> etc. from it by reading it and observing it and investigating it more
> closely. Of course a message is only a message if a Human considers it to be
> a message.
>

This is all very thoroughly covered in the Q&A section on my website
at www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof (http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/proof)

Sincerely,

Perry

idunno

23rd March 2008, 12:51 PM

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 01:20 PM

"Could be"? Yes. Anything not logically impossible is possible. Likely? No. Of course not.

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 01:43 PM

Here are some additional websites which delve into the matter from the ID perspective.

Information Theory and DNA
... Theory and the Origin of DNA - New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God ...
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheory.htm
================================================== ===================================

Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature
... of the DNA in living things, and analyze it using Intelligent Design theory.
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK7OsOZHkGsAkCtrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12jua8e7s/EXP=1206387278/**http%3a//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html
================================================== ============================

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers. Quotes ... (4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality ... Hasn't intelligent design theory been proven wrong? ...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

================================================== ==============================

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 01:56 PM

:rolleyes:

All thoroughly debunked. I say this as a former proponent of ID. It's BS.

Intelligent design (http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html)

Olowkow

23rd March 2008, 02:11 PM

Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature
... of the DNA in living things, and analyze it using Intelligent Design theory.
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK7OsOZHkGsAkCtrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12jua8e7s/EXP=1206387278/**http%3a//www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html
================================================== ============================

"Mathematical proof" indeed. It's just laughable. Four numbers [in sequence] would be random and unimpressive [to him], and not evidence of SETI, but 200 digits of Pi would be proof. Well, duh...

This is Intelligent Design Science in action.

Wow! Heady stuff.:rolleyes: I'd be embarassed to write this garbage.

I'll tell you what, if there were any repeated numerical sequence at all in a UHF radio signal, CW, FM, or AM, coming from another galaxy, Seth Shostak (of SETI) would be breaking out the champagne, dancing in the streets, and calculating the odds. It would be world shattering news.

Sounds to me like the ID'ers are trying to head another discovery off at the pass.

Complexity

23rd March 2008, 02:17 PM

i also have a problem with the idea of a designer,but is amazing how people i call inteligent love to believe the universe is too perfect to have not being created

Perhaps you should stop calling them intelligent.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 03:19 PM

What complexity said.

Reality Check

23rd March 2008, 03:41 PM

...FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
Intelligent Design FAQs & Primers. Quotes ... (4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality ... Hasn't intelligent design theory been proven wrong? ...
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

I was wondering if the IDiots had come up with some new testable predictions but this is the same old non-predictions that they have been touting for years.
They have only 4 predictions two of which have been disproved:

They are still under the delusion that "bacterial flagellum" (in quotes since they have not decided yet which of the many mechanisms of bacterial flagellum that they are talking about) are "irreducibly complex structures". This means that they are ignoring the studies that how the simpler structures that they come from.
They still state "Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example" - the Cambrian explosion example is a lie. The fossil record is not complete so there is always the possibility of sudden appearances of individual species but not of entire genera.Guess what - a disproved testable prediction disproves the scientific theory. Thus ID has been disproved (or is just another religious belief hidden in bad mathematics).
Their remaining hope (prayer?) is that someone, somewhere, sometime finds an example of an "irreducibly complex structure" even though the concept of "irreducibly complex" has been proved to be fatally flawed.
in that is assumes only addition to structures but nature also removes from, changes and replaces in structures.

MG1962

23rd March 2008, 04:20 PM

Very few members of the National Academy of the Sciences--believe in any sort of purposeful designer. I think that as you understand more about how our world unfolded, there seems to be less of a need to appeal to some mystical intelligence as an explanation. We can never disprove god, but in the eons of assorted belief, there really is no convincing evidence to conclude that our universe is "designed" for us or anything else.

On the other hand there is no evidence that athiesm is more highly represented in the National Academy than the wider population. The fact that those scientist dont accept ID or creationism, does not invalidate their belief in God.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 04:34 PM

On the other hand there is no evidence that athiesm is more highly represented in the National Academy than the wider population. The fact that those scientist dont accept ID or creationism, does not invalidate their belief in God.

Yes there is. But that is beside the point. Most minimal definitions of god use him to explain the "design" and complexity of the universe. An impersonal god is "deism" at it's most theistic. The majority do not believe that prayers cause some invisible entity to alter the course of events or interfere with the physics of our material universe. It doesn't mean there is no designer... just that people who would know what to look for if there "was"--haven't found evidence to support the hypothesis. Believers in "designers" tend to have picked up the belief through cultural indoctrination... not evidence. The evidence seem to cause believers to define their gods more and more nebulously or stop believing all together.

MG1962

23rd March 2008, 04:52 PM

Yes there is. But that is beside the point. Most minimal definitions of god use him to explain the "design" and complexity of the universe.

I'd be interested in any information you would care to share on this point. My understanding is the scientific community reflects the general population in reporting between about 14 - 30% athiesm, depending on the poll.

On a personal note. I have always been a little astonished at the numbers of astronomer and paleontologists I have met who believe in God. On my last dig in Kansas, of a team of 10, we had one confirmed athiest, an agnostic, 4 who believed in God, and 4 who were active in their faith. Obviously a very small sample, and probably reflects the bordom factor at night on an active dig site lol

Ichneumonwasp

23rd March 2008, 04:53 PM

I forgot to throw in one of my favorite lectures on this topic. You can watch it online though it is an hour long and I had to see it more than once before I understood it. It is technical but still interesting for the non-biologist.

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices (http://www.uwtv.org/programs/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Terrific talk. I've wanted to find something like this (haven't bothered to search much for it, though) for a long time. Thank you again.

Everyone should look at this and understand it.

ETA:

Let me reiterate, please watch it. It strongly suggests -- I think rightly -- that the whole design argument is fatally flawed, since the robustness of the 'non-designed systems' (non top-down designed, as in human-design) are huge orders of magnitude beyond anything similar to what we design. We design objects in which a single or very small number of networks will work. That is not the case with biological systems.

Just friggin' fabulous.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 05:10 PM

I'd be interested in any information you would care to share on this point. My understanding is the scientific community reflects the general population in reporting between about 14 - 30% athiesm, depending on the poll.

On a personal note. I have always been a little astonished at the numbers of astronomer and paleontologists I have met who believe in God. On my last dig in Kansas, of a team of 10, we had one confirmed athiest, an agnostic, 4 who believed in God, and 4 who were active in their faith. Obviously a very small sample, and probably reflects the bordom factor at night on an active dig site lol

Scientists, however, are a far less religious lot than the American population, and, the higher you go on the cerebro-magisterium, the greater the proportion of atheists, agnostics, and assorted other paganites. According to a 1998 survey published in Nature, only 7 percent of members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences professed a belief in a "personal God." (Interestingly, a slightly higher number, 7.9 percent, claimed to believe in "personal immortality," which may say as much about the robustness of the scientific ego as about anything else.) In other words, more than 90 percent of our elite scientists are unlikely to pray for divine favoritism, no matter how badly they want to beat a competitor to publication. Yet only a flaskful of the faithless have put their nonbelief on record or publicly criticized religion, the notable and voluble exceptions being Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. Nor have Dawkins and Dennett earned much good will among their colleagues for their anticlerical views; one astronomer I spoke with said of Dawkins, "He's a really fine parish preacher of the fire-and-brimstone school, isn't he?"

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/angier_24_5.htm

The study is well publicized and it was 10 years ago... I think the percentage of non-believers is likely to be higher now--non belief and non religious are the fasting growing category when people are polled about their beliefs. Christians use these statistics to scare people into believing that evolution leads to atheism (it often does, but that is because it's a better explanation that "poof" god did it... and leads people to question "original sin" and the foundation on which religions are built)

I think Scientists are "afraid" to say they don't believe and so the ones who do believe become the ones we hear. I doubt that 14% of the public would out themselves as atheist... much less 30% as you suggest. Most people are as afraid of the label as they are of "losing faith". There is strong social pressure to give lip service to faith or to shut up. I think less than 3% of people consider themselves atheists although atheism would include all those people who lack a god belief for whatever reasons.

As for scientists in general (as opposed to the NAS members) I'm sure they are much less religious than the general population, but I don't know what the statistics are.

MG1962

23rd March 2008, 05:36 PM

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/angier_24_5.htm

The study is well publicized and it was 10 years ago... I think the percentage of non-believers is likely to be higher now--non belief and non religious are the fasting growing category when people are polled about their beliefs. Christians use these statistics to scare people into believing that evolution leads to atheism (it often does, but that is because it's a better explanation that "poof" god did it... and leads people to question "original sin" and the foundation on which religions are built)

I think Scientists are "afraid" to say they don't believe and so the ones who do believe become the ones we hear. I doubt that 14% of the public would out themselves as atheist... much less 30% as you suggest. Most people are as afraid of the label as they are of "losing faith". There is strong social pressure to give lip service to faith or to shut up. I think less than 3% of people consider themselves atheists although atheism would include all those people who lack a god belief for whatever reasons.

As for scientists in general (as opposed to the NAS members) I'm sure they are much less religious than the general population, but I don't know what the statistics are.

Out of curiosity I went on a bit of a search and came up with this slightly later study. Broken down by discipline, it says something about mathematicians lol http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Without booging down in a semantic debate, I suspect the nature of the question is the cause of the high values recorded. That being do you believe in a personal God, it would be interesting to see if a broader, do you believe in God question would have yeilded different results

I agree with you that it is wrong that scientist feel the need to hide their personal philosophys. We all walk our paths for our own reasons, and we should respect those choices regardless of our personal feelings on the topic

Iamme

23rd March 2008, 05:59 PM

By what criteria do you define "perfect"? If you define perfect to mean ideally suited for human habitation, then the universe was designed quite badly seeing as how we can safely occupy such a infinitesimally tiny part of it.

And that part we can occupy, the Earth, is mostly covered with water, which kind of cuts down the living space a bit. A benevolent designer intending to make Earth nice for us would've done better to give us fins and gills, methinks.

You are implying that some being greater than us must have to have made the universe a certain way to fit your criteria of some perfect design. That would be like saying the genius who designed a sophisticated factory should have thought of things better, and designed it better. Yet we know the factory WAS designed.

You are trying to conclude a non-existance of God without having the ability to be able to understand one thing about the power of this God.

Who are you to say how much water this planet should have without knowing all the facts. How do you not know the Earth requires that volume to keep it cleansed for the billions of people who have ever walked and will walk the earth and for all the sea creatures that form a huge chain of bio-diversity that may even effect al the atmosphere above and organisms on dry land? Think all those sea creatures, coral, algae, etc. are useless? Everything living takes in one substance and gives off another. With that in mind, it stands to reason that our present would not be possible without such affects stemming from the past and present. Think about that once.

This Earth of ours is working, and is working like an incredible factory, and has been doing it for billions of years without having the planet run out of good air and good water and plentiful food sources for all.

Sure, there has been disease, famine, etc. But there again we are going to blame a designer for not building the perfect factory?, and use this as proof no designer built the factory?, without understanding what this God is and what it is capable of?, even if it far exceeds our own capabilities? To wit: *WE*, as smart as we think we are, couldn't have created this all, now could we?

And Happy Easter. Give thanks. Consider that you may very well rethink your convoluted thoughts if you are lucky enough to be on a deathbed someday.

Tricky

23rd March 2008, 06:09 PM

Information Theory and DNA
... Theory and the Origin of DNA - New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God ...
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheory.htm

Yeah, that one's a classic. Let's look at one of the things they say:

First, FUNCTION: We must establish that the ordered parts in a system (grouping) of things work together in coordination to perform a useful function (for example a group of letters that communicate, or a group of amino acids which comprise a properly-folding protein).
Second, INFORMATION: We must establish that those ordered parts are complex, specified information (see above).
Third, NO MECHANISM: We must establish that there is no law of physics, or chemistry in the mechanisms of nature which could explain the ordering of the parts found in the functioning system.
Fourth, NO RANDOM ORDERING: We must establish that there are no random processes of chance which could explain the ordering of parts in the functioning system. Not surprisingly, they cite Michael Behe and his "irreducibly complex" flagellum as some of their evidence. Of course, this was simply destroyed in the Dover trial. Behe was forced to admit that what he was doing wasn't really science. It was also shown that what was "irreducibly complex" to him had already been shown not to be.

As for the "No Mechanism" highlighted above, that is another fatal flaw in the reasoning. It has the audacity to presume that the investigators understand every possible mechanism. Wow! I guess we can stop studying microbiology and biophysics because we know every mechanism now. I'm sure all those research guys will find other jobs, maybe in the food-service industry.

Ichneumonwasp

23rd March 2008, 06:12 PM

Out of curiosity I went on a bit of a search and came up with this slightly later study. Broken down by discipline, it says something about mathematicians lol http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Without booging down in a semantic debate, I suspect the nature of the question is the cause of the high values recorded. That being do you believe in a personal God, it would be interesting to see if a broader, do you believe in God question would have yeilded different results

I agree with you that it is wrong that scientist feel the need to hide their personal philosophys. We all walk our paths for our own reasons, and we should respect those choices regardless of our personal feelings on the topic

Mathematicians often tend to be Platonists, so it follows to some degree.:)

articulett

23rd March 2008, 06:17 PM

You are implying that some being greater than us must have to have made the universe a certain way to fit your criteria of some perfect design. That would be like saying the genius who designed a sophisticated factory should have thought of things better, and designed it better. Yet we know the factory WAS designed.

You are trying to conclude a non-existance of God without having the ability to be able to understand one thing about the power of this God.

Who are you to say how much water this planet should have without knowing all the facts. How do you not know the Earth requires that volume to keep it cleansed for the billions of people who have ever walked and will walk the earth and for all the sea creatures that form a huge chain of bio-diversity that may even effect al the atmosphere above and organisms on dry land? Think all those sea creatures, coral, algae, etc. are useless? Everything living takes in one substance and gives off another. With that in mind, it stands to reason that our present would not be possible without such affects stemming from the past and present. Think about that once.

This Earth of ours is working, and is working like an incredible factory, and has been doing it for billions of years without having the planet run out of good air and good water and plentiful food sources for all.

Sure, there has been disease, famine, etc. But there again we are going to blame a designer for not building the perfect factory?, and use this as proof no designer built the factory?, without understanding what this God is and what it is capable of?, even if it far exceeds our own capabilities? To wit: *WE*, as smart as we think we are, couldn't have created this all, now could we?

And Happy Easter. Give thanks. Consider that you may very well rethink your convoluted thoughts if you are lucky enough to be on a deathbed someday.

Iamme... you are the one claiming to know things that can't be known not maximus. You are claiming to know, not only that there was a god, but what he wants and what he did and what humans can and can't understand. There's nothing to indicate that a man died on a cross for any divine reason ever. It's your belief system... it's your "happy Easter"... You credit non existent deities for the good things that come from humans and nature and ignore all the ignorance proffered by this faith thing you feel so fortunate to have.

You may find signs of the invisible triune deity you believe in... but that doesn't mean there is actual evidence for your god or anyone else's. Buck up, buddy. Science can't disprove Scientology either. But it doesn't mean the facts purported are "real" or "true". The same with your inanities.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 06:22 PM

Thanks for the article MG. I had heard that mathematicians were among the most religious... but abstractions like numbers CAN be "perfect" and "irrational"-- so I understand the extrapolation, I think. Paulos is a mathematician who is decidedly an atheist and has given metamathematical reasons against "intelligent design" in his new book, Irreligion.

Beliefs are hard to measure, and I suspect people aren't necessarily sure of what they believe on the topic of god or why. I think evidence should always count more than belief in the realm of science, and I hope that what people want to be true doesn't get in the way of discovering what is.

fuelair

23rd March 2008, 06:27 PM

Is there a designer?

Yes - Coco Chanel!!

articulett

23rd March 2008, 06:30 PM

but is Coco an "intelligent" designer?
Enquiring minds want to know.

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 06:33 PM

I was wondering if the IDiots had come up with some new testable predictions but this is the same old non-predictions that they have been touting for years.
They have only 4 predictions two of which have been disproved:

They are still under the delusion that "bacterial flagellum" (in quotes since they have not decided yet which of the many mechanisms of bacterial flagellum that they are talking about) are "irreducibly complex structures". This means that they are ignoring the studies that how the simpler structures that they come from.
They still state "Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example" - the Cambrian explosion example is a lie. The fossil record is not complete so there is always the possibility of sudden appearances of individual species but not of entire genera.Guess what - a disproved testable prediction disproves the scientific theory. Thus ID has been disproved (or is just another religious belief hidden in bad mathematics).
Their remaining hope (prayer?) is that someone, somewhere, sometime finds an example of an "irreducibly complex structure" even though the concept of "irreducibly complex" has been proved to be fatally flawed.
in that is assumes only addition to structures but nature also removes from, changes and replaces in structures.

Glad you enjoyed the read: Here are some more you can call idiots:

SETI and Intelligent Design Compared
Let's consider the idea of sifting DNA or RNA for "intelligent patterns" ... of the signal alone is likely to be sufficient enough to prove intelligence. ...
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/idseti.htm

DNA and Other Designs
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJww8eZHYl4BrBhrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=128k1src1/EXP=1206403760/**http%3a//www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution >
... have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one ... and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than ...
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

BTW

The following people consider your views idiotic:

Roger W. Sanders Ph.D. received a BA in Biology from the College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, a M.S. in Botany from the University of Michigan,

William Sandine Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Oregon State University. In 1994 he was appointed distinguished professor. In 1981 he was awarded an American Society of Microbiology Achievement Award.

John Sanford Ph.D. a Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University. His Ph.D. is in Plant Breeding/Plant

Genetics from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Dr. Sanford has over seventy publications and holds 27 patents.

Julie Sanford M.En.S. is instructor of Science at Cornerstone University. She has a BA from Grand Rapids Baptist College and a M.En. S, from Miami University in Ohio.

Charles G. Sanny is Professor of Biochemistry at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 06:36 PM

...I suspect people aren't necessarily sure of what they believe on the topic of god or why. I like Dennet's explanation of belief in belief. It makes a lot of sense to me. I think there was a big part of my life where I believed more in the concept of belief in god than I believed in god.

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 06:39 PM

The following people consider your views idiotic:
Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18) trumps your puny appeal to authority.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 06:41 PM

I adore Dennett. It's a difficult task to make him seem "militant", but the believers manage-- it's all part of "keeping the faith" by vilifying the faithless.

People never say what they believe because they don't want it laughed at or disproven... that way they can just assume that other "believers" believe as they day. I think it's a Pascal's wager thing in many cases--they "say" they believe, "just in case"-- and they don't want to think about what they believe or if it makes sense because they fear what could happen. I think that's the way I was for some time before acknowledging to myself that I couldn't make any sense out of any it... and no-one else was making any sense either.

To me, Radrook, Tom Cruise, Conspiracy Theorists, etc. They all sound the same... they believe some nebulous incoherent something or other, but I feel they are all similarly deluded. I see nothing worth learning there--except why and how people become "brainwashed".... and how to avoid that in myself and loved one. I don't think it's very "curable" after a certain point. They are talking to continue to spin their delusion in their head-- not to learn or share. They don't care what others say or if anyone is following them. --Dennett's "fluke" analogy comes to mind.

MG1962

23rd March 2008, 06:56 PM

Beliefs are hard to measure, and I suspect people aren't necessarily sure of what they believe on the topic of god or why. I think evidence should always count more than belief in the realm of science, and I hope that what people want to be true doesn't get in the way of discovering what is.

Yeah I agree actually - If we as thesists accept we are made in God's image, then we are curious for a very good reason. To simply defer to a book and supress our natural curiosity is really an act of defiance against God, which (in my mind anyway) goes against the point of being a thesist in the first place

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 07:07 PM

They are talking to continue to spin their delusion in their head-- not to learn or share. They don't care what others say or if anyone is following them. --Dennett's "fluke" analogy comes to mind. I can remember so vividly sitting at TAM and hearing Dennett tell the story of the Lancett Fluke and then likening it to religion. Damn, I was blown away. Few things have made more sense to me. I remember when I first thought that perhaps Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of god. I felt horrible. Part of me fought against that idea. I felt like I was a bad person for even thinking such an idea. I had wondered for some time why it was like that. Why it was so difficult to give up Mormonism even though it was clearly wrong. It was a meme, given to me by my parents, religious teachers and peers. I then realized that much of my life had been controled, to some extent, by dead people.

Dan Dennett on dangerous memes, on TED.com (http://blog.ted.com/2007/07/dan_dennett_on_2.php)

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 07:11 PM

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 07:26 PM

articulett

23rd March 2008, 07:30 PM

The problem is that when it comes to belief vs evidence-evolutionist atheists are very prone to give precedence to the former while despising the latter when they deem it convenient. It's a tacitly-accepted strategy and is only condemned when theists are suspected erroneously of employing it.

Science Gone Hwong
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v10i5n.htm

or so your preacher men would have you believe.

There is no evidence for anyone's magical scriptural version of the truth. Not your creation story or Tom Cruise's or The Book of Mormon. Science can't manufacture evidence to fit the story they want. They have to follow the evidence where it leads. You've assumed a truth, and now you use propaganda and spin to support the truth in your head.

It doesn't change the facts. The facts just keep amassing for evolution while creationists have NOTHING-- just ad homs and blather and points of contention where they don't understand or try to poke holes in evolution.

Evolution is as substianted as gravity as far as theories go. But theists find no threat in gravity, and so they don't aim to poke holes or misunderstand what a solid theory and how very explanatory it is.

Tricky

23rd March 2008, 09:10 PM

I was moved by this thread to re-watch Judgment Day (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/), the story of the Dover Intelligent Design trial. It gives me great comfort to know that we have not gone so far down the path to return to the dark ages. There's hope.

The judge, a conservative and Bush appointee, said that Intelligent Design was not science. Behe was skewered and roasted on a spit of his own making. He admitted that by his definition, astrology was a science. Oh, it was good.

Achán hiNidráne

23rd March 2008, 09:15 PM

anyway they have an idea why god didnt have to be created himself..cause he is beyond time according to the bible

Three questions:
Where in "the bible [sic]" does it say your god is "is beyond time?"
Why should what is written in "the bible [sic]" be accepted as fact?
How does being "beyond time" exclude the need to be created?

Achán hiNidráne

23rd March 2008, 09:28 PM

What is with the drive-by posting? Could you involve yourself in the discussion?

This is Radrook, RF, a practitioner of the Gish Gallop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates). He'll make one bald face lie about evolution, then in his next thread, he'll make another. When he can no longer confound you with said lies, he'll insult your reading comprehension skills or your intelligence then put you on ignore (e.g. "GOOD BYE!").

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 09:34 PM

Tricky

23rd March 2008, 09:42 PM

Of course there are many arguments put forth which must be considered before one reaches a conclusion one way or the other. An objective evaluation of both pros and cons is the correct way to proceed.

DNA Evidence for Evolution
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/dna-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm
True.

The vast majority of people who are educated in science agree that evolution has passed all objective evaluations. The pros outweigh the cons by an incredibly large margin. Creationist websites, like the one you link, are reduced to sniping at it with bad science and biblical verses.

It is a theory that is just as established as the theory of gravity. Or as crypto-creationists like to call it, "Intelligent Falling".

edge

23rd March 2008, 09:45 PM

Yep it seems that mutations would degenerate a living organism and not the other way around.
Information would need to be added not mutated.
Not giving credit where credit is due.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 09:47 PM

articulett

23rd March 2008, 09:51 PM

Yep it seems that mutations would degenerate a living organism and not the other way around.
Information would need to be added not mutated.
Not giving credit where credit is due.

There are 200 million sperm per ejaculation... lots have mutations... most are no big deal... others are harmful... but a few are likely to be advantageous... that's true of all gametes... all potential life... all dividing again and again and again... and the "next step" only has to happen once to move evolution forwards one mutation at a time.

Get a clue, Edge. Watch the video. Quit repeating creationist stupidity... it makes you sound as stupid as they sound. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 10:30 PM

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 10:33 PM

This is Radrook, RF, a practitioner of the Gish Gallop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish#Debates). He'll make one bald face lie about evolution, then in his next thread, he'll make another. When he can no longer confound you with said lies, he'll insult your reading comprehension skills or your intelligence then put you on ignore (e.g. "GOOD BYE!").:D

So that is what he meant when he told me "bye". Damn, I had only provided 2 or 3 responses to him at most by that time. I think I struck a nerve when I pointed out that god was one of the most notorious mass murderers of all time.

Oh well.

Reality Check

23rd March 2008, 10:34 PM

Glad you enjoyed the read: Here are some more you can call idiots:

SETI and Intelligent Design Compared
Let's consider the idea of sifting DNA or RNA for "intelligent patterns" ... of the signal alone is likely to be sufficient enough to prove intelligence. ...
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/idseti.htm

DNA and Other Designs
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyJww8eZHYl4BrBhrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=128k1src1/EXP=1206403760/**http%3a//www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution >
... have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one ... and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than ...
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode.htm

BTW

The following people consider your views idiotic:

Roger W. Sanders Ph.D. received a BA in Biology from the College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, a M.S. in Botany from the University of Michigan,

William Sandine Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Microbiology, Oregon State University. In 1994 he was appointed distinguished professor. In 1981 he was awarded an American Society of Microbiology Achievement Award.

John Sanford Ph.D. a Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University. His Ph.D. is in Plant Breeding/Plant

Genetics from the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Dr. Sanford has over seventy publications and holds 27 patents.

Julie Sanford M.En.S. is instructor of Science at Cornerstone University. She has a BA from Grand Rapids Baptist College and a M.En. S, from Miami University in Ohio.

Charles G. Sanny is Professor of Biochemistry at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences.

The accepted term for people who believe in idotic things is idiots. It is an amusing coincidence that Intelligent Design is shortened to ID.

Do you know the"arguement from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)" fallacy?

If you believe that authority determines scientific correctness then you must agree with this:

The Discovery Institute has a petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". They reported over 700 signatures in 2007 (an increase of 100 from 2006). Let us take that as 800 by now.
Counter-petitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Counter-petitions) have about 18,000 signatures in total. The most serious and directly related petition ("A Scientific Support for Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_For_Darwinism)") - 7733 verified signatures from scientists in 4 days.
The % of authorities supporting Intelligent Design is 10% at most.
The % of authorities supporting modern evolution theory is at least 90%
Therefore the authorities tell us that evolution is scientifically correct. :rolleyes:I know this is a fallacy. What tells us whether a science is correct is the evidence.

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 10:40 PM

Yep it seems that mutations would degenerate a living organism and not the other way around.
Information would need to be added not mutated.
Not giving credit where credit is due. Yet it is mutations that allow some bacteria the ability to survive antibiotics and develop resistant strains. There are of course now hundreds if not thousands of such examples. This is in no way controversial. In fact, it is this ability for mutations to increase the fitness of organisms that is allowing science to make many new break throughs. Evolution isn't just proven by prediction and experimentation it is very, very practical and is the basis for much R&D in many areas but none more important, IMO, than medicine and food production.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

You don't have to believe in evolution but please enjoy the medicine and food that it makes possible.

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 10:43 PM

or so your preacher men would have you believe.

Gee! I didn't know all those scientists are preachers! Is that a fact?

There is no evidence for anyone's magical scriptural version of the truth. Not your creation story or Tom Cruise's or The Book of Mormon.

I'm not depending on any book to reach my ID conclusion. So much for your misrepresentation.

Science can't manufacture evidence to fit the story they want.

That's highly debatable.

They have to follow the evidence where it leads.

Where THEY say it leads.

You've assumed a truth, and now you use propaganda and spin to support the truth in your head. doesn't change the facts.

The truth has to be in my head since I can't very well think with my arm or my foot-can you?
Although I do grant you one thing-facts as you see them aren't changed by my views or anyone else's for that matter. You create your own universe and decorate it as you wish.

The facts just keep amassing for evolution while creationists have NOTHING--

The whole of existence gives us ample evidence of a creative guiding mind. Actually, what you are really describing is your foundationless impoverished idea of things popping up out of inanimate matter. Now THAT'S a big nothing.

just ad homs and blather and points of contention where they don't understand or try to poke holes in evolution.

No need to poke holes-all we have to do is point them out since your pet theory has the predisposition of spontaneously generating them. In fact as soon as you plug one another one readily takes its place. Sort of like spontaneous generation. Ironically. Comical in a way.

As for ad homs, I personally have attacked no one. You on the other hand:

Get a clue, Edge. Watch the video. Quit repeating creationist stupidity... it makes you sound as stupid as they sound

That sure looks like ad hom to me.

Evolution is as substianted as gravity as far as theories go.

You wish! But wishful thinking isn't an abracadabra solution. Neither does your misrepresentation engender trust in whatever else you might now chance to produce from your bag of dubious tricks.

But theists find no threat in gravity, and so they don't aim to poke holes or misunderstand what a solid theory and how very explanatory it is.

Anything is explanatory so that proves NOTHING. As for solid, I think you have your own definition of that word-a definition allowing you to apply it to a theory having more holes than a sponge. I'd hate to see you in charge of bullet-proof-vest manufacturing.

BTW

Magical? Strange that you should use that word and then unashamedly put your faith in a process which has no basis in reality since it has never been observed to happen in nature nor can it be reproduced under controlled lab conditions-abiogenesis.

Actually, you'd be more convincing if you would admit that your abiogenesis idea hasn't a leg to stand on scientifically. No, I'm not equating abiogenesis with evolution so please don't go off on another irrelevant that tangent.

However, if indeed no designer or guiding mind is involved, as you vehemently claim, then what else have you but fairy-tale-like abiogenesis? A process as yet unproven and unobserved but nevertheless, mind you, feverishly defended as if it were undeniable truth simply because you find it preferable to ID. If that's science, my friend, then I'm Pope Benedict the 13th and my X wife was Joan of Arc.

In short, we theists have far more justifiable reasons for our conclusions than you do for yours since it's not irrational to infer a designer when confronted by things strongly indicative of it. Actually, what is irrational, if not outright insane, is to deny that such things need any designer at all and to state tongue-in-cheek that they are merely the product of mindless processes.

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 10:51 PM

However, if indeed no designer or guiding mind is involved, as you vehemently claim, then what else have you but fairy-tale-like abiogenesis? Abiogenesis is simply how life got started. Evolution explains how things appear designed (yes I saw his poisoning the well earlier regarding evolution).

Actually, what is irrational, if not outright insane, is to deny that such things need any designer at all and to state tongue-in-cheek that they are merely the product of mindless processes. Given that evolution has been thoroughly established over and over again and it is the basis of modern biology and is used by science the world over from the theoretical to the practical then no, it is neither irrational nor insane.

It is just what is. Reality. Get used to it.

articulett

23rd March 2008, 10:58 PM

Everything is evidence of creative designer if that's what you need to believe. And no amount of evidence can shake the faith once you believe that faith is a means to knowledge or salvation.

BTW, radrook, all of your posts comes across as ad homs. You haven't provided any actual evidence for evolution have you? And no intelligent person thinks that you even understand it do they? You repeat information identical to discredited creationist lies. If you don't mind sounding like those buffoons, then be my guest.

The only evidence of "intelligent design" is in the mind of believers. And they look for a designer created in their own image. The facts just keep being the facts and the evidence for evolution just keeps accumulating even as you cry and stamp your feet. DNA tests, forensic testing, agriculture, archaeologists... we all use it. None of it supports anybody's "creation story"... no god mentioned DNA or seemed to have a clue as to how animals change over time.

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 11:04 PM

There are 200 million sperm per ejaculation... lots have mutations... most are no big deal... others are harmful... but a few are likely to be advantageous... that's true of all gametes... all potential life... all dividing again and again and again... and the "next step" only has to happen once to move evolution forwards one mutation at a time....

Here is an commentary I suggest you consider for your own edification:

Evolution and beneficial mutations
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/fern/0031.html

Gate2501

23rd March 2008, 11:08 PM

Here is an commentary I suggest you consider for your own edification:

Evolution and beneficial mutations
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/fern/0031.html

LOL@lucifer(dot)com

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 11:12 PM

Here is an commentary I suggest you consider for your own edification:

Evolution and beneficial mutations
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/fern/0031.html Willfuly ignorant or a bald face lie.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

rocketdodger

23rd March 2008, 11:13 PM

Is there a designer of the designer who designed us?

rocketdodger

23rd March 2008, 11:16 PM

Here is an commentary I suggest you consider for your own edification:

Evolution and beneficial mutations
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/fern/0031.html

Radrook, do you remember when I predicted you would end up doing nothing but posting links to idiotic drivel written by creationists?

Gate2501

23rd March 2008, 11:18 PM

Radrook, do you remember when I predicted you would end up doing nothing but posting links to idiotic drivel written by creationists?

Sounds like its time for you to take the million dollar challenge!

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 11:24 PM

Everything is evidence of creative designer if that's what you need to believe. And no amount of evidence can shake the faith once you believe that faith is a means to knowledge or salvation.

I don't depend on faith for my belief in ID.

BTW, radrook, all of your posts comes across as ad homs.

I see no justifiable basis for that conclusion.

You haven't provided any actual evidence for evolution have you?

I'm not an evolutionist.

And no intelligent person thinks that you even understand it do they?

Say what?

You repeat information identical to discredited creationist lies.

According to you

[If you don't mind sounding like those buffoons, then be my guest.

You take care of how you sound-I'll take care of how I sound. I think that's fair enough.

[qiuorte]The only evidence of "intelligent design" is in the mind of believers. And they look for a designer created in their own image. [/quote]

I don't need a verification of any particular creation story to believe in ID.

The facts just keep being the facts and the evidence for evolution just keeps accumulating even as you cry and stamp your feet.

That's what you do? Not me! I just simply and calmly acknowledge that you have your opinion and I have mine and go about my business.

DNA tests, forensic testing, agriculture, archaeologists... we all use it.

Atheist don't have a monopoly on science since there are scientists who are creationists. Another one of your misrepresentations based on a need to imagine anyone disagreeing with you as ignorant.

None of it supports anybody's "creation story"... no god mentioned DNA or seemed to have a clue as to how animals change over time.

I beg to differ. There are legitimate scientists who disagree with yo ion that. So I think I'll side with them if it's OK by you.

BTW

All arguments you put so much faith in are moot since your foundation is missing. And since your foundation is missing your building can't exist as described. You can pout, putter, stutter and even dance a lively fandango-but it will make no difference.

Gate2501

23rd March 2008, 11:27 PM

BTW

All arguments you put so much faith in are moot since your foundation is missing. And since your foundation is missing your building can't exist as described. You can pout, putter, and even dance a lively fandango-but it will make no difference.

Cause it isn't like the foundation that you use is a magic sky fairy or anything...

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 11:30 PM

Sounds like its time for you to take the million dollar challenge!

The reason I have that person on my ignore list is because I doin't want to read his insults and other idiocies. Posting them so I can still read them despite my decision not to isn't a good thing.

Radrook

23rd March 2008, 11:32 PM

Cause it isn't like the foundation that you use is a magic sky fairy or anything...

Aha! OK! I get it. No problemo my friend. Thanx!

I'd like to take this opportunity to say just one thing before I retire from this thread:

Atheists are entitled to their opinion, I am entitled to mine.
They are entitled to post. I am entitled to read or not read their links to articles. Actually, I usually never do since I know it will be some pro-atheist info which I will find unacceptable so I save myself the time.

However, and this is a very important "however", what I don't do because I don't feel I have a right to do is to insult the atheist who posts the material via snide remarks designed to annoy or get a rise. To me that's time-wasting and ridiculous since it conveys a dislike of atheist beliefs and the atheist knows that already- so why remind him? Or else it might indicate I want the atheist to stop posting links which is also irrational since all I have to do is not read them. So on both counts it's illogical.

Worse yet, if such mocking disruptive attitude becomes a pattern, then it shuts down any possibility of further productive dialogue. True, a lot of emotional heat is generated during conversations of this kind since each person wants his views accepted. It's a human thing. : )

However, if its not just to blow off steam or try to force our ideas down someone's throat that we are here for, then restraint or simply dropping the discussion whenever the urge to call others names surfaces is better.

It isn't easy--true. But since it's necessary for the purpose of this forum, which is discussion, and not mindless interchanges of diatribes-then IMHO an effort is worth making.

Gate2501

23rd March 2008, 11:34 PM

The reason I have that person on my ignore list is because I doin't want to read his insults and other idiocies. Posting them so I can still read them despite my decision not to isn't a good thing.

I'm terrified.

Do you think that I know or care who you have on ignore?

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 11:39 PM

Posting them so I can still read them despite my decision not to isn't a good thing.Jesus Christ, talk about an ego. It looks like you are next to be put on ignore Gate. You better watch your step. :D

Reality Check

23rd March 2008, 11:43 PM

Here is an commentary I suggest you consider for your own edification:

Evolution and beneficial mutations
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/fern/0031.html

This is refuted in TalksOrigins creationist claim number CB101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html). This incudes links to lists of beneficial mutations.

RandFan

23rd March 2008, 11:49 PM

This is refuted in TalksOrigins creationist claim number CB101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html). This incudes links to lists of beneficial mutations. There is also additional infor at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

I posted the link but I'm on ignore.

bokonon

24th March 2008, 12:00 AM

I'm terrified.

Do you think that I know or care who you have on ignore?
Please don't quote Radrook in posts I might read. My doctor has advised me that his vapidity might have negative health consequences, so I've had him on ignore for the past two weeks. I've lost 5 pounds, my blood pressure is now 120/70, and my eyesight has gone from 20/25 to 20/15. Your cooperation in this matter isn't just common courtesy, it's Doctor's Orders.

articulett

24th March 2008, 12:37 AM

So he's taken his ball and gone home for now.

"You mean old atheists have your opinion and I have mine".

Yes, radrook, we know... but our evidence grows by ever accumulating knowledge and you have no evidence for intelligent design except incredulity. Moreover, we could change our mind with actual evidence of "intent" or consciousness without a material brain-- but you can never change a mind seeped so deeply in faith. No amount of evidence can unbrainwash someone so deeply brainwashed.

Bokonon--you once accused atheists of being strident... but I think that the world of radrooks helps you understand why we sometimes take delight in mocking them and their self important inanity. No matter what you say, they must hear it as evil because all things associated with lack of faith just "are"-- while everything they say is good and true as all things associated with their god is. They cannot compute it any other way. Facts become opinions and opinions become facts--anything and everything to keep the faith and earn eternal glory.

Tricky

24th March 2008, 06:21 AM

Here's a simple test as to whether Intelligent Design is science or not. Science makes predictions.

Consider this situation. There are two morphologically similiar groups of animals living today. Evolution says that they are likely to be related. ID says nothing. Evolution says that if you look near the earliest appearance of the later species, you might find so called "transitional species" which bear resemblances to both groups. ID says nothing. Evolution suggests you dig in rocks of that age (and the proper environment) to look for transitional species. ID suggests nothing. When the transitional species are found (as they often are (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html)), evolution examines the ways that they might be related. ID examines nothing.

What does ID do? It examines organisms and states "I cannot believe this happened without a designer." That's it. It makes no testable statements. It suggests no further study. It has the purpose of suppressing investigation, as clearly shown when the author of "Of Pandas and People" was shown, in earlier drafts, to have mass-edited out the word "creationists" (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html)to replace it with "Intelligent design proponants" (or a laughable misprint thereof). Phillip Johnson, the so called "Father of Intelligent Design" admits that the whole purpose of ID was to get Biblical creationism into class (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html). He admits that he started with the conclusion and then looked for scientists to collect evidence to support that conclusion, the so-called "wedge strategy".

Evolution tells us the wonderful, cryptic, incredibly complex and compelling story of how life changed and spread on Earth.

Intelligent design tells us nothing.

fuelair

24th March 2008, 06:25 AM

but is Coco an "intelligent" designer?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Well, from what I have read, watched and heard of her, definitely - and certainly moreso than most, if not all, IDers!:)

RandFan

24th March 2008, 09:09 AM

Here's a simple test as to whether Intelligent Design is science or not. Science makes predictions. Humans have one less chromosone than other great apes.

Science hypothesizes that two chromosones fused into a single one. Science then predicts that it can find and identify the fused chrmosones, then sets out to find the fused chromosones and finds them (http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Chimp-Chromosome-13-Proves-Evolution).

ID tells us nothing.

rocketdodger

24th March 2008, 09:23 AM

The reason I have that person on my ignore list is because I doin't want to read his insults and other idiocies. Posting them so I can still read them despite my decision not to isn't a good thing.

The reason you don't want to read my "insults or other idiocies" is because they are embedded within solid refutations of whatever you use for arguments.

rocketdodger

24th March 2008, 09:25 AM

Jesus Christ, talk about an ego. It looks like you are next to be put on ignore Gate. You better watch your step. :D

You were still MIA, RandFan, when Radrook had a meltdown and put literally 90% of everyone who responded to his posts on ignore. I believe the thread was titled something like "A list of scientists who are not evolutionists."

Radrook

24th March 2008, 12:53 PM

So he's taken his ball and gone home for now.

You just can't desist can you?

"You mean old atheists have your opinion and I have mine".

What is that supposed to mean? Of course it can't be anything good considering the general negative tone of what follows. If it's in reference to aging-yes I age and expect to die. How about you? Ah! I see! Then you should put a sock in that cesspool-don't you think?

The rest, IMHO, is drivel interlaced with the usual snide remarks. My mistake. Lesson learned-once on ignore should stay always on ignore. Thanx for making that clear!

BTW
The following is not intended for atheists. They are posted only as possible reference sites for those [not me] wishing material to debate the ID viewpoint. Linkage might need tweaking. so some might not work until tweaked.

======================================

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman demonstrates that empirical science fails to lend credibility to the popular evolutionary assumption that life could have arisen as a product of purely ...
www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

=========================================

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?
A scientist examines Evolution's claim that life originated spontaneously. ... www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
==========================================

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
www.herbert-w-armstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Why%20Abiogenesis%20is%20Impossible.pdf
=========================================

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
A creation science resource megasite where you can find an assortment of free curriculum, participate in ... It is now well known that spontaneously ...
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html
===========================================

Disagreements with specifics on those articles should be addressed to the writers of the article since they are the best qualified to explain any perceived error.

RandFan

24th March 2008, 01:45 PM

Disagreements with specifics on those articles should be addressed to the writers of the article since they are the best qualified to explain any perceived error.No, it's all nonsense and has been thoroughly debunked.

www.talkorigins.com

Reality Check

24th March 2008, 02:01 PM

You just can't desist can you?

What is that supposed to mean? Of course it can't be anything good considering the general negative tone of what follows. If it's in reference to aging-yes I age and expect to die. How about you? Ah! I see! Then you should put a sock in that cesspool-don't you think?

The rest, IMHO, is drivel interlaced with the usual snide remarks. My mistake. Lesson learned-once on ignore should stay always on ignore. Thanx for making that clear!

BTW
The following is not intended for atheists. They are posted only as possible reference sites for those [not me] wishing material to debate the ID viewpoint. Linkage might need tweaking. so some might not work until tweaked...Abiogenesis links sniped
...

TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) again. Basically these creationists are so dumb that they cannot tell the difference between one area of science (abiogenesis) and an unrelated area of science (evolution).

Radrook

24th March 2008, 02:19 PM

Here are just a few ways in which discussion rules are manipulated so that the playing table becomes tilted.

1. Your belief in ID is based on faith because it lacks supporting evidence.

2. My belief in Abiogenesis although not observed nor proven is not based on faith.
==============================================

3. Inductive reasoning is not relevant in reference to reaching conclusions about ID.

4. Inductive reasoning is relevant in reference to reaching conclusions in support of Godless evolution.

=============================================

5. The link and scientist quoted are unacceptable due to suspected creationist bias.

6. Atheistic links and citations are trustworthy because atheist scientists are not biased.

===============================================

Then when one refuses to play along one is running away. True, one is definitely running away-but not from what they purport.

Tricky

24th March 2008, 02:24 PM

TalkOrigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html) again. Basically these creationists are so dumb that they cannot tell the difference between one area of science (abiogenesis) and an unrelated area of science (evolution).
In the larger sense, evolution just means "change over time". Since Darwin, it has more commonly been used to mean "biologic evolution", but the word was in existence before that. You can even speak of "the evolution of the universe".

And in some ways, this is appropriate. Creationists use exactly the same argument for disputing the origin of the universe as they do for disputing the origin of life. That argument is, "You can't say exactly how it started, so God wins by default." The argument for Intelligent Design is quite similar to that argument because they're saying "You can't say exactly how species arose, therefore The Designer wins by default." Of course, as science pushes back the curtains that hide the details of species origin, that argument becomes ever weaker and whinier. Some day I suspect it will drop below the level of audibility.

Tricky

24th March 2008, 02:42 PM

Gate2501

24th March 2008, 02:59 PM

Radrook,

Why is it that you must supplement your theism with a dismissal of evolution/abiogenesis? I am an atheist as I am sure you know after my referring to your god as a "magical sky fairy". I probably should not be so crass but you seem to be very stubborn and hard headed about this, it is very frustrating constantly seeing these same discredited arguments against very solid theories. Coming from the position of an atheist, I do not think that theists are "dumb", I just think that they compartmentalize their faith away from logical inquiry.

Why do you so hate the science of our origins? Do you take the book of genesis literally? I know many theists that still find evolution and abiogenesis agreeable. Many theists believe that a god that truly cared about man, would not damn him to a heretics hell for following the trail of science in this regard. I guess my question to you is, why can god and the science of our origins not coexist? Do you really think that Darwin is burning in hell with his nuts in a vice right now? Because if what you believe is true, then the understanding or pursuit of knowledge in the field of evolutionary theory/abiogenesis is most certainly heresy.

skeptical

24th March 2008, 03:12 PM

Radrook has me on ignore as well, but couldn't resist posting anyway.

Radrook's assertion that abiogenesis is atheistic is identical to claiming that Newton's laws of motion are atheistic or any other scientific theory for that matter. None of them explicitly requires an untestable entity actively engaged in manipulating the properties involved, nor does it rule it out, it simply states how the mechanics of nature operate.

Newton was intensely theistic, but he did not try to integrate God into his equations, nor would he have been engaging in science had he done so.

Foster Zygote

24th March 2008, 03:18 PM

Here are just a few ways in which discussion rules are manipulated so that the playing table becomes tilted.

1. Your belief in ID is based on faith because it lacks supporting evidence.
Correct.

2. My belief in Abiogenesis although not observed nor proven is not based on faith.
My "belief" in abiogenesis is merely acknowledgment that the available evidence is pointing in that direction. This conclusion is provisional and open to new evidence.

3. Inductive reasoning is not relevant in reference to reaching conclusions about ID.
Correct.

4. Inductive reasoning is relevant in reference to reaching conclusions in support of Godless evolution.
Incorrect. First of all, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with gods. It does not require gods in its explanation but it does not claim to disprove the existence of gods either. Secondly, evolutionary theory is based on deduction.

5. The link and scientist quoted are unacceptable due to suspected creationist bias.
You have supported this suspicion to a great extent yourself, posting a list of scientists claimed to have rejected evolutionary theory. While this list contained the names of several famous "heavy-hitters", the fact that many of them died prior to the publication of Darwin's work betrays a high level of dishonesty. Aside from this however, the creationist websites that you have linked to have been pulled apart claim by claim by many on this forum, and not simply dismissed because they are creationist sources.

6. Atheistic links and citations are trustworthy because atheist scientists are not biased.
You still persist in referring to evolutionary biology as "atheistic" despite being told by many people that it is not. It is plainly obvious to all that you are willfully ignorant in this regard, deriving some satisfaction from pretending that evolution by natural selection and those who study and accept it are atheists. I'm sure Bob Bakker would be startled to learn that he is an atheist.

Then when one refuses to play along one is running away. True, one is definitely running away-but not from what they purport.
I've watched you run away from one of your own lie. Would you care to stop running and admit that the content of that list was deliberately deceptive on the part of one of your creationist sources and that it was not a result of an error by your computer? Even at this stage you would gain more respect from me, and probably others, if you would simply own up to this lie. If you were to admit it honestly I would not bring it up again, provided you are not deliberately deceitful again.

Radrook

24th March 2008, 04:22 PM

Gate2501

24th March 2008, 04:33 PM

I have nothing against a discussion of points. What I do have an aversion to is associating with those having the propensity for gratuitously dispensing insults. Insults via remarks involving stupidity, buffoonery, and repeated attempts to engage others in a chortling sessions presided over by a self-appointed chief heckler who admits that my responses-regardless of content or approach- are always perceived by him as personal attacks or ad homs, as he expresses it. Once that statement is made, which it was, there is nothing to be gained by continuing either with the person making that statement or with those supporting that attitude. In short, all other interpretations as to why I don't wish to continue with these exchanges are unadulterated hog-wash.

.

The reason that people are frustrated with you, is due to the fact that you completely ignore any evidence that would weaken your position. The reasons that ID is not a science have been presented to you in various threads ad nauseam.

You keep on attacking evolution and abiogenesis with creationist arguments that have been defeated, not by atheists, but by scientists with absolutely no agenda outside of seeking natural explanations for what they observe.

If you can present any theory that better explains how life came about on earth, or how it became what it is today, then the old theories will be invalidated by the new, Nobel Prizes will be handed out, and it will be a great day for science.

Many of us here are atheists, but our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis have NOTHING to do with our religious beliefs or lack thereof. As has been said over and over, the theories of evolution and abiogenesis do not require a god, nor do they remove the possibility of ones existence.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are totally neutral sciences as far as religion is concerned, unless you are taking the bible literally, and if you really are taking it literally, then the Ad Hominem attacks are probably completely justified, because you sir, are an idiot.

joobz

24th March 2008, 05:17 PM

If you can present any theory that better explains how life came about on earth, or how it became what it is today, then the old theories will be invalidated by the new, Nobel Prizes will be handed out, and it will be a great day for science.
The mistake that keeps being made is thatthat isn't evolution vs. ID.

It's evolution vs. 'ANY OTHER HYPOTHESIS THAT EXPLAINS THE DATA'

I welcome anyone to present a theory that can equally describe all of the observations in biology that evolution has helped unify. I'd be happy for a unifing theory that doesn't outperform evolution but performs equally as well. I make the challenge becuase I would love to see a better theory come along that would raise new ideas about life. These new ideas can be used to conduct research not yet conceived.

Please realize that I don't make this challenge as a snarky way of poo-pooing creationism. In truth, I do not think creationsim is even in the running as an alternative hypothesis. Afterall, it has yet to make any testable hypothesis. As such, I feel that many people who disagree with evolution are just wasting thier time with creationism. I'd rather see thier efforts expanded towards searching ANY other hypothesis that can explain all observed and measured data regarding life.

Tricky

24th March 2008, 05:38 PM

In truth, I do not think creationsim is even in the running as an alternative hypothesis.
True. Lamarkism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism)is a much better candidate. It was quite popular in the 19th century. I don't think any reputable scientist has believed in strict biblical creationism since the dark ages.

Skeptic Ginger

26th March 2008, 09:21 PM

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Terrific talk. I've wanted to find something like this (haven't bothered to search much for it, though) for a long time. Thank you again.

Everyone should look at this and understand it.

ETA:

Let me reiterate, please watch it. It strongly suggests -- I think rightly -- that the whole design argument is fatally flawed, since the robustness of the 'non-designed systems' (non top-down designed, as in human-design) are huge orders of magnitude beyond anything similar to what we design. We design objects in which a single or very small number of networks will work. That is not the case with biological systems.

Just friggin' fabulous.You're welcome. I went to the lecture in person and got there late and that's what made me watch it again. Then it made a lot more sense.

A new set of lectures comes up every April. I have my calendar marked for the next set, "2008 Faith and Finance: The Twin Pillars of American Politics".