A simple case for intelligent design

[viole]

You are partially correct. There are many attacks on Genesis 1 for this reason. Did you know, some people interested in cosmology said if great waters surrounded the universe, it would create a time dilation/relative effect where we could have a young Earth in an old universe? Interesting, the more so since no telescopes or measurements of any kind have found a known "edge" to the universe.

What has the existence of an edge of the Universe anything to do with the absurdity of water before the first stars? The reason of the absurdity is much easier to see than that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

You are partially correct. There are many attacks on Genesis 1 for this reason. Did you know, some people interested in cosmology said if great waters surrounded the universe, it would create a time dilation/relative effect where we could have a young Earth in an old universe? Interesting, the more so since no telescopes or measurements of any kind have found a known "edge" to the universe.

Some people say a lot of ridiculous things. I don't find such to be interesting at all.

Given what we know of cosmology, we don't expect to find an 'edge' to the universe. In fact, that almost precisely what we *don't* expect to find.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are partially correct. There are many attacks on Genesis 1 for this reason. Did you know, some people interested in cosmology said if great waters surrounded the universe, it would create a time dilation/relative effect where we could have a young Earth in an old universe? Interesting, the more so since no telescopes or measurements of any kind have found a known "edge" to the universe.

Some people make all sorts of idiotic claims. No one who knows anything of the sciences take them seriously. Your example is no different from @viole 's example of Swiss Cheese proving Jesus. Using a bad example to try to refute an argument that shows how bad examples do not work is an amazingly poor technique.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How would you know such a thing? I specifically used a hypothesis method. For example, I challenge atheists to pray, and they say, "Since God does not exist, I refuse to pray regarding God or salvation," and I respond, "The hypothesis method would suggest a prayer like, 'God, if you exist, being invisible, please provide to me evidence you exist that is verifiable/testable/provable and I will respond, and if not, I'm talking to myself, YOU have the burden of proof here,'" and when the atheist still refuses to pray, I've demonstrated they are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest...

I call BS.

 

[ecco]

I realize that by posting multiple questions I may have caused confusion. So I'll simplify things and ask only one question:
How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?

Okay, if you don't like that one here is another.

Revelation 22:13
[13]I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

And another.

Revelation 1:8
[8]I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The list goes on.

Isaiah 44:6
[6]Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last;

We are definitely have a communication problem.


How does stating what he did describe his own beginnings?
How does stating what he is describe his own beginnings?

 

[ecco]

No one has ever seen evolution take place.

Here's a thought. Make arrangements for when you die to have your body encased in amber and stored in a safe place.

Maybe in 1,000,000 years an archaeologist will find your remains and, after careful examination, proudly state to his colleagues: "I found a really well preserved transitional fossil".

 

[ecco]

What's "theistic evolution?"

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

 

[ecco]

The only reason to believe in evolution is to explain our existence without God. I have never heard a convincing reason for this belief in terms of science.

Your forum name clearly shows why you feel this way. Since you only believe the Bible, no scientific arguments will ever be able to convince you of anything that contradicts your ingrained beliefs.

 

[ecco]

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude anything using science.

How would you know such a thing? I specifically used a hypothesis method.

For example, I challenge atheists to pray, and they say, "Since God does not exist, I refuse to pray regarding God or salvation," and I respond, "The hypothesis method would suggest a prayer like, 'God, if you exist, being invisible, please provide to me evidence you exist that is verifiable/testable/provable and I will respond, and if not, I'm talking to myself, YOU have the burden of proof here,'"
and when the atheist still refuses to pray, I've demonstrated they are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest...

I don't want to distract from the original question.

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude anything using science.
​

I suppose you are trying to say that you used the scientific method to demonstrate that atheists "are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest". However:

• You presented no evidence that you challenged any atheists to pray to your god.
• You presented no evidence to anyone refused to pray.

What you have succeeded in doing, is demonstrate, once again, that you have no understanding of how science works. So, obviously, you could not have subjected to Bible to any kind of scientific analysis.

 

[leroy]

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

Highly efficient self-replicating RNA enzymes. - PubMed - NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388759


Remember for the sake of the argument, I am granting that somehow we got to the point where nucleotides exist inside lipid membranes. …….why did these nucleotides organized themselves in the order required to produce self-replicating proteins?

Did it happen by chance? Or is there a natural mechanism that forces this order?


The sources that you provide do not even attempt to answer to this question

Please show your calculations.

There are 4 types of nucleotides, so even if we assume that all you need are 100 nucleotides in the correct order, to form a self-replicating molecule, the probabilities would be 1/4 ^100

4 = number of nucleotides

100 = the size of our hypothetical protein

1/4 ^100 is similar to 1 in 10^60 (which is the number that I provided)

This calculation only applies y you believe that it all happened by chance, so, do you believe it happened by chance?

The formation of nucleotide strings is catalyzed by clays that were likely abundant on the pre-biotic earth

.

Granted, the question Is “who puts the nucleotides in the correct order?” chance? Some natural mechanism? Please explain your point of view.

Are you saying the only thing that would falsify ID creationism is a complete natural scenario for the origin of life?

No, didn’t you read what I said?

If you believe that it happened by chance, all you have to do is prove that there are enough probabilistic resources,

If you believe that it happened by a natural mechanism that “forces” nucleotides to organize in the correct order, all you have to do is provide such mechanism.


ID is falsifiable, naturalism is not falsifiable

Given the OP, this isn't making sense. You stated that if the pattern is produced "independent from the forces of nature", it is "specified complexity". What exactly did you mean by that specific criterion?

That the pattern is not imposed by the forces of nature, this doesn’t mean that nature can’t produce such pattern; it simply means that there are many other patterns allowed by the laws of nature.


This criteria by itself is not enough to justify design, you need the 3 criteria

 

[leroy]

No, no, no. Evolution is a scientific theory with more supporting evidence than even the theory of gravity. Only those with no science education at all would make the errors that you just made.

so let's forget about the rest of your post and start with a remedial education on the sciences. Are you willing to try to learn?

1 define evolution

2 justify your assertion, under what basis is evolution better supported than gravity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 define evolution

"(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."

Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

2 justify your assertion, under what basis is evolution better supported than gravity?

Google Scholar

Google Scholar

 

[Valjean]

You are partially correct. There are many attacks on Genesis 1 for this reason. Did you know, some people interested in cosmology said if great waters surrounded the universe, it would create a time dilation/relative effect where we could have a young Earth in an old universe? Interesting, the more so since no telescopes or measurements of any kind have found a known "edge" to the universe.

And some people say that a DeLorean with a flux capacitor will do the same thing. "Some people" say all sorts of things, but if their 'hypotheses' aren't based on actual observations and known physics, they're all just speculation.
People have been generating explanatory folklore for thousands of years.

How would you know such a thing? I specifically used a hypothesis method. For example, I challenge atheists to pray, and they say, "Since God does not exist, I refuse to pray regarding God or salvation," and I respond, "The hypothesis method would suggest a prayer like, 'God, if you exist, being invisible, please provide to me evidence you exist that is verifiable/testable/provable and I will respond, and if not, I'm talking to myself, YOU have the burden of proof here,'" and when the atheist still refuses to pray, I've demonstrated they are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest...

But people have been earnestly praying for evidence for millennia, and thus far, no consistent, measurable, reproducible evidence has emerged.
A strong, individual, emotional response is 'evidence' only to the individual.

 

[Valjean]

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Many religious find no conflict, but why call evolution 'theistic'? We don't talk about theistic metallurgy or theistic bricklaying.
Where's the Theos come into the picture?

Remember for the sake of the argument, I am granting that somehow we got to the point where nucleotides exist inside lipid membranes. …….why did these nucleotides organized themselves in the order required to produce self-replicating proteins?

Did it happen by chance? Or is there a natural mechanism that forces this order? Given trillions of these genetic dice rolls over millions of years, I'd say the chance of a self-replicating organization, sooner or later, was a virtual certainty.
....Granted, the question Is “who puts the nucleotides in the correct order?” chance? Some natural mechanism? Please explain your point of view.

Given trillions of these genetic dice rolls over millions of years, I'd say the chance of a self-replicating organization, sooner or later, was a virtual certainty.

 

[Valjean]

1 define evolution

2 justify your assertion, under what basis is evolution better supported than gravity?

1. Change.
2. Because we have boatloads of consilient evidence from multiple disciplines.

 

[The Bible Alone]

Why in the world do you creationists post such nonsense? We see populations evolve all the time, every day. We see them evolve new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. We see it in lab experiments and in the wild. We both exploit it (domestication) and fight against it (antibiotic resistance).

So what you think you gain by denying something that's as common as rain is a mystery. Unless of course you're simply trolling to make Christianity look ridiculous, in which case.....um, well done I guess.

The variations we see today are always a result of a loss of genetic information, never the addition of new genetic information. Even beneficial mutations are always caused by the loss of information. This is a serious problem for evolution. Major changes such as single cell to multi cell organisms absolutely must have new information.

The Bible says animals reproduce "after their own kind." We can see variation within a kind (loss of information) but never changes from one kind of animal to another.

Genesis 1:21,24
[21]And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[24]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

As for the antibiotics, mutated bacteria is also a result of a loss of genetic information. It is able to survive when antibiotics are present but when the antibiotics are gone it dies out and the normal bacteria survive. The mutated bacteria has only developed the ability to survive in a particular environment but in a normal environment it is still inferior to the original.

 

[The Bible Alone]

And we see evidence of evolution every day. And you are quite wrong. Evolution has been directly observed on both the micro and macro levels. You simply do not know what to look for. Scientists do know what to look for so it is easy for them.

We see microevolution - the loss of genetic information.

We never see macroevolution - Macroevolution has to have the addition of new genetic information.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. They are going in opposite directions.

 

[The Bible Alone]

But we have.
We see evolution all the time. We've been selectively breeding new species of plants and animals for thousands of years, using the same methods Nature uses. We've seen wolves turn into dogs, moths turn black then turn white again.

We've seen drug resistance develop in bacteria, insects and plants. We've seen new species emerge, adapted to man-made environments that didn't exist before.
We've bred wild foxes into friendly tail waggers.
We've been genetically modifying organisms for years. Science uses its knowledge of evolution to create vaccines and drugs like insulin.

Tell me which is superior, a wolf or a chiwawa? This change was caused by a loss of genetic information. Evolution is dependent on the spontaneous addition of new information or it cannot work. Animals reproduce after their own kind. There can be variation within a kind but these are still dogs and moths are still moths.

Genesis 1:25
[25]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

[The Bible Alone]

No, I wasn't asking you why you think other people accept evolution.

I was asking you what is your doctrinal difficulty with evolution. I am really quite anxious to learn this because, speaking as someone with a Christian upbringing and who is a regular church attender, I have never understood why some Christians, mainly it seems in the USA, find evolution objectionable. Over here in the UK, this is simply not a live issue, you see, so I am at a loss to find the explanation.

On what religious grounds do you object to evolution and why is this so important to you?

Because God does not lie.

Numbers 23:19
[19]God is not a man, that he should lie...

It's really a question of whose word you are going to believe - the word of God or the word of man. If people can just choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe how much will they omit? If you don't believe God has the power to create life as He said how can you believe He has the power to raise the dead or give eternal life? In the New Testament, Jesus quoted the Old Testament, including Genesis, which proves He believed it. God was there when the world began. Man was not. God is all knowing. Man is not. I think God knows more about how He created the world.

Yes, there are doctrinal problems with evolution. The Bible says:

Romans 5:12
[12]Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

In Genesis God made the world and said it was "good." It was only after the first sin that death, disease and suffering entered the world. In an evolutionary world death came before man and suffering is just a natural part of life. The Bible also says the Lord will make the world new again when He returns and He will make it as it was in the beginning. If He made this world by evolution that means we will spend eternity in primordial ooze. It's really about accepting the authority of scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We see microevolution - the loss of genetic information.

We never see macroevolution - Macroevolution has to have the addition of new genetic information.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. They are going in opposite directions.

Please support this with valid sources. You and I both know that you cannot. Macroevolution has been observed, but then you probably do not even understand the definition of the term.

By the way, we see "new information" all of the time. Every mutation that occurs is by definition "new information" . Are you trying to claim that mutations do not occur?

You are only embarrassing yourself.