Are You Intelligently Designed?

Oct 23, 2012 Full story: The Capital-Journal 409

Sometimes, when I'm discussing or debating issues with online atheists, agnostics, and evolutionists, the huge topic of Intelligent Design comes up, and they ask me to explain the Intelligent Design hypothesis to them.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#62 Jan 23, 2013
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
you're misperception..
architects are well known from his design creation, like house, office, school, etc
The Creator are well known from His design creation, like universe, human, animal, etc
Then what are the scientific mechanisms behind the creation process?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63 Jan 23, 2013
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
how science will be able to explain the complexity of the DNA of more than 900 volumes encyclopedia?
its intelligent design
Erm, science in general understands DNA and has done since soon after its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.

Scientists wrote that encyclopaedia, not any god, not godbots using bronze age understanding but scientist dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge.

So how about you giving us a brief description (topix only gives 4000 characters per post but you could do multiple posts if it necessary) to explain how you think goddidit 6000 years ago (or more depending on the acceptance of scientific discovery you unwittingly apply to the tenakh).

You could start with where did he/she/it stand while he/she/it worked his magic from nothing. Yes, nothing, a point that godbots tend to overlook from ignorance and yet repeatedly throw the charge that you canít get something from nothing (unless you are a god of course)

Then you could follow with what sort of nothing he/she/it used.

Throw in the infinities required at the start of the event that created this universe, and the infinities that exist in black holes at the centre of galaxies.

Or can these little difficulties only be explained by claiming Ďgod works in mysterious waysí that that actually means you donít know and have no intention of finding out

In other words, deliberate ignorance

Do you not think it hypocritical to deny science based on your deliberate ignorance of that science and yet you are willing use the results of science to promote your denial?

OK, silly question, of course you donít because you can excuse anything you think of with the attitude that goddidit

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#64 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, evolutionists are blissfully unaware of their assumptions since they don't realize the unscientific basis of their beliefs. However, intelligent mathematicians believe in intelligently designed axioms.
Hubris, arrogance, misunderstanding of the difference between empirical inductive science and deductive mathematics, an empty attempt to put maths on a pedestal and science back in a servile position as per your never-ending prattling about how unfair it was that Hilbert was beaten to the punch by Einstein, all while you continue to wait for that event - inevitable given an infinity of time - that a banana will quantum materialise on your desk.

The only God you subscribe to is the god of lost causes.
Shubee

Carrollton, TX

#65 Jan 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hubris, arrogance, misunderstanding of the difference between empirical inductive science and deductive mathematics, an empty attempt to put maths on a pedestal and science back in a servile position
What's so servile about having the intelligence and honesty to recognize one's assumptions and to admit that there is no observation of a molecular machine getting more robust over time? Obviously, there are no empirical tests of just-so stories.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
as per your never-ending prattling about how unfair it was that Hilbert was beaten to the punch by Einstein,
You obviously don't know anything about the history of Einstein and Hilbert.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
all while you continue to wait for that event - inevitable given an infinity of time - that a banana will quantum materialise on your desk.
We're in the same boat here. The simplest forms of life are extraordinary complex machines and molecular machines don't get more robust by randomly changing the mechanical code of their design.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#66 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> We're in the same boat here. The simplest forms of life are extraordinary complex machines and molecular machines don't get more robust by randomly changing the mechanical code of their design.
There are problems with just this snippet of your last post.

First off you should have said the simplest forms of life today are extraordinarily complex machines. That does not mean that life in the past was extraordinarily complex.

It is thought that the first cells were much much simpler than today's cells.

Next, you forgot half of the force of evolution. It is always a combination of random variation and natural selection that drives evolution. You have been told this often enough so that you had to purposefully make that error. In other words, you were trying to tell a lie. Need I remind you, it is not okay to lie for Jebus.

Lastly, the DNA code is not a code of "design". It is more apt to call it a recipe. Design is a very biased word in this debate and one that you have never demonstrated.
Shubee

Carrollton, TX

#67 Jan 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There are problems with just this snippet of your last post.
First off you should have said the simplest forms of life today are extraordinarily complex machines. That does not mean that life in the past was extraordinarily complex.
It is thought that the first cells were much much simpler than today's cells.
What God has joined together let not man separate. I said that today's cells are extraordinarily complex and that robustness is decreasing.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Next, you forgot half of the force of evolution. It is always a combination of random variation and natural selection that drives evolution. You have been told this often enough
Yes, I've been told that big lie often enough. However, that big popular lie violates the first principle of science:

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." - Richard P. Feynman.

It only takes a little honesty to recognize that Sanford's thought experiment is a respectable rebuttal to Darwin's primary axiom.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Shubee

Carrollton, TX

#68 Jan 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Lastly, the DNA code is not a code of "design". It is more apt to call it a recipe. Design is a very biased word in this debate and one that you have never demonstrated.
I didn't say that mechanical code is DNA. And when I used the word design, I simply meant the blueprint of life.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#69 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
It only takes a little honesty to recognize that Sanford's thought experiment is a respectable rebuttal to Darwin's primary axiom.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
And a little more honesty to recognise that all of Sanford's conclusions have been rebutted by actual experiment.

Fitness recovers when natural selection is reintroced into an isolated population. Mueller's ratchet and Sanford's GE refuted, just like that.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#70 Jan 23, 2013
reintroduced

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#71 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." - Richard P. Feynman.
Glad he said "almost", because experiment is just controlled observation, and we also have direct observation of nature as a guide.
Shubee

Carrollton, TX

#72 Jan 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And a little more honesty to recognise that all of Sanford's conclusions have been rebutted by actual experiment.
What experiment thwarts total genomic decay?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#73 Jan 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad he said "almost", because experiment is just controlled observation, and we also have direct observation of nature as a guide.
I am developing an interest in this concept of genomic decay since seeing it bandied about by middle school math teachers and other nonscience types. It seems to be another one of those straws the drowning latch onto until the next comes along. Do you happen to know of any good references on the subject?
Shubee

Carrollton, TX

#74 Jan 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am developing an interest in this concept of genomic decay since seeing it bandied about by middle school math teachers and other nonscience types. It seems to be another one of those straws the drowning latch onto until the next comes along. Do you happen to know of any good references on the subject?
Dr. John C. Sanford of http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf fame has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. What have you invented, discovered and published?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#75 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. John C. Sanford of http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf fame has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. What have you invented, discovered and published?
Shoob, it does not matter what we have published. It matters what his peers have written and what they think of his work. His work on genetic entropy was a massive failure. He let his religious prejudice affect his opinion instead of looking at the facts. He even knew his work on genetic entropy was substandard. He has written peer reviewed articles and he avoided peer review this time. Didn't that make you the least bit suspicious?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#76 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, evolutionists are blissfully unaware of their assumptions since they don't realize the unscientific basis of their beliefs. However, intelligent mathematicians believe in intelligently designed axioms.
That did not address the point at all. Are you just trying to avoid using the term evolution to describe evolution?

Hint: evolution has no direction at all, it's just change.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#77 Jan 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoob, it does not matter what we have published.
Sure it does. It mean that you are a reject by your own standards.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#78 Jan 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Shoob, it does not matter what we have published. It matters what his peers have written and what they think of his work.
So you would have condemned Galileo because you can't think for yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it does. It mean that you are a reject by your own standards.
Wrong, try again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80 Jan 23, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>So you would have condemned Galileo because you can't think for yourself.
Wrong, try again.

Shoob the boob is two for two.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#81 Jan 24, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Dr. John C. Sanford of http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf fame has engaged in genetic research as a Cornell professor for almost three decades, holds over 30 patents, and has published over 80 scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals. What have you invented, discovered and published?
None of his publications relate to genetic entropy or YEC. In fact he has contributed nothing of value since becoming a madman.

You know that, therefore you are deliberately being misleading in this statement.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Dogen 134,571
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr Chimney1 513
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 3 hr spiderlover 77
How would creationists explain... 4 hr FREE SERVANT 444
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Chimney1 13,635
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,948
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... Sat Dogen 718
More from around the web