A simple case for intelligent design

[gnostic]

You are saying these super-intelligent aliens, who could break physical laws, like FTL travel, obey only physical laws, based on your axiomatic, anti-supernatural illogical reasoning?

So far this is aliens you are talking about, only exist in science fiction writing and in Hollywood movies and in TV shows.

What you are talking about is not reality.

I am not saying that intelligent life don’t exist in other planets, but to date there have been no such evidences of such intelligent aliens.

And talking of FTL travel just showed how truly deluded you really by reading or watching too much sci-fi fictions.

 

[Polymath257]

You are saying these super-intelligent aliens, who could break physical laws, like FTL travel, obey only physical laws, based on your axiomatic, anti-supernatural illogical reasoning?

No scientist is looking for aliens that can break physical laws. There is confidence that any beings from another star system still work under the same physical laws we do.

What makes you think otherwise?

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm. "All is explained by natural processes" doesn't explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Although the Bible says we must EVOLVE to become NEW CREATIONS or perish...

But it does nicely explain the *story* of the resurrection. The story is likely to be false, however.

 

[Polymath257]

What did Behe actually discover regarding complexity, do you think? He talks about it in Black Box.

What did Behe actually discover? Nothing. He even knew his proposed examples of IC were not, in fact, examples. He didn't even bother to do a basic literature search before publishing the *non-scientific* book you mentioned.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not "waving my hand", but asking for evidence that demonstrates how speciation gave rise to changes at the taxonomic level of "family", for example, dozens of organic systems must change to move animals from land to air or sea to land or land to sea...

I'm not waving my hand to say that frogs speciating to frogs show evolution without showing rise to changes at the taxonomic level of "family" (the Bible says "each after their kind").

What are you doing then? I do not understand your question. What is it you want here? To me, the question shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution and taxonomy.

 

[gnostic]

What did Behe actually discover regarding complexity, do you think? He talks about it in Black Box.

Any idiot can write a book, and make things up.

It is called fiction. His book haven’t been peer-reviewed.

In the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, he was caught in too many lies, and one of these lies was that it was critically reviewed by Doctor Michael Atchison, a biochemist like Behe.

According to both his publisher (Free Press) and Behe, Behe claimed Atchison reviewed his book, and it is one of the names listed in Behe’s Black Box. But it has been revealed that Atchison has never reviewed Behe’s manuscript, because he has never read the Black Box.

So how can Michael Atchison be listed as a “reviewer”, when the lawyer who was cross-examined Behe, showed the document by Atchison himself, has not read Behe’s manuscript?

There are no possible way for a reviewer to “review” any scientific book, articl, report or essay, without reading it. That Atchison’s name is listed as reviewer in Behe’s published book, just showed the lack of honesty of Behe and of his publisher.

The transcript of Kitzmiller vs Dover case can be read here

Read the transcript yourself.

None of the other reviewers agreed with his example on “bacterial flagellum”, one of Behe’s main point for design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you give a specific example of two species, showing speciation between families?

No. I cannot. Again, what does this question mean? It appears to show a distinct misunderstanding of evolution, speciation and taxonomy. If I read all this correctly, you are asking for the impossible and declaring failure to deliver as evidence against evolution by natural means.

If a species from a known family suddenly morphed into a species in another taxonomic family, that would be evidence against the theory of evolution. Much as the crocoduck chimera would be.

 

[gnostic]

So, SETI is sending signals to those unable to respond or able to respond? For what purpose, do you think?

And why is it necessary for you to constantly insult my honesty? What is your purpose?

Not sending signals, attempting to receive signal from ET sources.

To date, there have been no such signals that identified alien sources.

And why is it necessary for you to constantly insult my honesty? What is your purpose?

If you don’t want people to question your integrity and honesty, then you should stop using strawman in your replies.

I have never said a lot of things you wrote about.

You were also the one who first brought up, SETI, not me. I have never written about SETI, until you brought them up.

Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say or write about.

 

[gnostic]

No. I cannot. Again, what does this question mean? It appears to show a distinct misunderstanding of evolution, speciation and taxonomy. If I read all this correctly, you are asking for the impossible and declaring failure to deliver as evidence against evolution by natural means.

If a species from a known family suddenly morphed into a species in another taxonomic family, that would be evidence against the theory of evolution. Much as the crocoduck chimera would be.

No, Dan, you are not wrong.

BilliardsBall don’t understand evolution and speciation. The questions he demanded answers for, are absurd and not possible, because that’s not how speciation works. He is asking for the impossible, because he doesn’t understand speciation and he doesn’t understand how it work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Than makes no sense. All the evidence of the real world shows that there was an immense time for life to begin and evolve. There is no evidence of an intelligent design. All is explained by natural processes so creating something an intelligent design is unnecessary and completely unsupported.

It also provides no explanatory power, unless it can be explained how the designer designed everything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are saying these super-intelligent aliens, who could break physical laws, like FTL travel, obey only physical laws, based on your axiomatic, anti-supernatural illogical reasoning?

When did I say anything even remotely like that? When did any SETI scientist say anything like that?

What I will say is that the existence of any life anywhere else in the universe is more probable than the existence of god(s) because we know that physical beings actually exist. We do not know that supernatural beings exist. We do not know that supernatural anything exists. Of course, that does not mean I am claiming that super-intelligent aliens exist.

I have never posited that super-intelligent aliens who are capable of breaking physical laws created humans. And I've never seen a serious person make such a claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm. "All is explained by natural processes" doesn't explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The resurrection of Christ is a claim that needs to be demonstrated.

Although the Bible says we must EVOLVE to become NEW CREATIONS or perish...

How does accrediting God for evolution add any explanatory power to the theory of evolution?

 

[Polymath257]

No, Dan, you are not wrong.

BilliardsBall don’t understand evolution and speciation. The questions he demanded answers for, are absurd and not possible, because that’s not how speciation works. He is asking for the impossible, because he doesn’t understand speciation and he doesn’t understand how it work.

I do find his brand of ignorance about evolution to be quite common, however. The crocoduck, while an extreme version, underlies a lot of the creationist misconception of evolution. They seem to think that individual morph into beings with completely different properties. They never consider variation in populations or how that can change whole populations over the course of generations.

Often, it is possible to use the changes in language as a good analogy to why many of their objections are wrong. For example, they can point to species barriers. Well, there are also language barriers. but those barriers didn't prevent French from evolving out of Latin.

 

[Bear Wild]

Hmm. "All is explained by natural processes" doesn't explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Although the Bible says we must EVOLVE to become NEW CREATIONS or perish...

Well then maybe it did not happen. Maybe it is symbolic and not an actual account. Would not be the first thing to be symbolic and not an actual event.

 

[gnostic]

When did I say anything even remotely like that? When did any SETI scientist say anything like that?

What I will say is that the existence of any life anywhere else in the universe is more probable than the existence of god(s) because we know that physical beings actually exist. We do not know that supernatural beings exist. We do not know that supernatural anything exists. Of course, that does not mean I am claiming that super-intelligent aliens exist.

I have never posited that super-intelligent aliens who are capable of breaking physical laws created humans. And I've never seen a serious person make such a claim.

That’s another with BilliardsBall’s claims, regarding to his so-called “super-intelligent” aliens, is that his scenario required the aliens to break law of nature or physical law.

Seriously, how could BB possibly know what the aliens are capable of, when no one has ever seen these real aliens.

Everything he has said in regarding to aliens are based on his personal speculations and yet he treat his speculations as if they are true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, Dan, you are not wrong.

BilliardsBall don’t understand evolution and speciation. The questions he demanded answers for, are absurd and not possible, because that’s not how speciation works. He is asking for the impossible, because he doesn’t understand speciation and he doesn’t understand how it work.

That is the impression I got from reading his questions. His questions seem much like the crocoduck claim or question that arises from discussions of transitional forms. A new species or any number of species can arise within a family and one of those new species may evolve further into a new family. Or there may be more taxonomically primitive species in a family that may be a transitional species at the root of another existing family, but there are no species evolving between families as if one family is on a rung of a ladder. I know this is a rather simplistic description, but based on what I know, his question seems to be demanding answers that, not only do not exist, but cannot exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any idiot can write a book, and make things up.

It is called fiction. His book haven’t been peer-reviewed.

In the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, he was caught in too many lies, and one of these lies was that it was critically reviewed by Doctor Michael Atchison, a biochemist like Behe.

According to both his publisher (Free Press) and Behe, Behe claimed Atchison reviewed his book, and it is one of the names listed in Behe’s Black Box. But it has been revealed that Atchison has never reviewed Behe’s manuscript, because he has never read the Black Box.

So how can Michael Atchison be listed as a “reviewer”, when the lawyer who was cross-examined Behe, showed the document by Atchison himself, has not read Behe’s manuscript?

There are no possible way for a reviewer to “review” any scientific book, articl, report or essay, without reading it. That Atchison’s name is listed as reviewer in Behe’s published book, just showed the lack of honesty of Behe and of his publisher.

The transcript of Kitzmiller vs Dover case can be read here

Read the transcript yourself.

None of the other reviewers agreed with his example on “bacterial flagellum”, one of Behe’s main point for design.

The entire idea of irreducible complexity is dead from any real point of reasonable application. Unfortunately, not dead as a means by the ignorant to continue assailing science, but as a means to imply a designer, it has no legs. One would have to be able to evaluate every possible iteration of an example to show that the one that exists is irreducible. To falsify it, all one has to do is provide a single example. That has been done to my satisfaction and I would say to the satisfaction of the scientific community, though I cannot speak for that group.

It is akin to declaring something immortal. How could you know? How can you tell the difference between an immortal being and a being a billion years old. The billion year old being could die tomorrow. There goes its immortality. It took IR with it.

 

[gnostic]

What did Behe actually discover regarding complexity, do you think? He talks about it in Black Box.

You really don't know what you are talking about, BB.

This is what he said during the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, when being questioned regarding to Darwin's Black Box:

Q. (Rothschild) Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

A. (Behe) No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

The last question and answer (which I highlighted) indicated that Behe didn't make any discovery whatsoever. No "new data" and no "original research" in his Darwin's Black Box.

All he ever did in his book, was "but I did generate an attempt at an explanation".

That's not discovery, BilliardsBall, that "attempt" at explanation is merely just talk.

Discovery required evidences or test results in experiments, actual data. Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design, is all talk, with no work, and therefore no substance.

And if you look earlier questions and answers, you would see that no articles on Intelligent Design were ever peer-reviewed. Behe admitted in the 2nd last question and answer that there were never any experiment performed for Intelligent Design.

So I think you should take back your words in regarding to Behe's "discovery", which doesn't exist at all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So far this is aliens you are talking about, only exist in science fiction writing and in Hollywood movies and in TV shows.

What you are talking about is not reality.

I am not saying that intelligent life don’t exist in other planets, but to date there have been no such evidences of such intelligent aliens.

And talking of FTL travel just showed how truly deluded you really by reading or watching too much sci-fi fictions.

I personally don't believe FTL travel is likely, given the science involved.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You really don't know what you are talking about, BB.

This is what he said during the Kitzmiller vs Dover case, when being questioned regarding to Darwin's Black Box:



The last question and answer (which I highlighted) indicated that Behe didn't make any discovery whatsoever. No "new data" and no "original research" in his Darwin's Black Box.

All he ever did in his book, was "but I did generate an attempt at an explanation".

That's not discovery, BilliardsBall, that "attempt" at explanation is merely just talk.

Discovery required evidences or test results in experiments, actual data. Behe's Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design, is all talk, with no work, and therefore no substance.

And if you look earlier questions and answers, you would see that no articles on Intelligent Design were ever peer-reviewed. Behe admitted in the 2nd last question and answer that there were never any experiment performed for Intelligent Design.

So I think you should take back your words in regarding to Behe's "discovery", which doesn't exist at all.

I understand. Behe, of course, never discovered, e.g. that a unicellular animal is more complex than Chicago, Illinois, he just commented on the same. Meanwhile, after decades of research, scientists cannot reproduce anything remotely approaching abiogenesis.