A simple case for intelligent design

[exchemist]

Clearly, scientists are wholly unable to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose.

Why would anyone expect that they should be able to?

 

[Polymath257]

I said the response was baloney. However, any assertion that dark matter/dark energy has been inductively observed IS baloney.

Dark matter has been observed. We know it is out there. We just don't know what it is composed of. We have several hypotheses concerning that. But knowing the composition isn't required for knowing something exists.

Dark energy is a bit more open: there is a LOT we don't know concerning the accelerating expansion rate.

 

[exchemist]

No, it's simple.

An hypothesis needs to be just what you said, but first must be conceived, mentally, first, the scientist(s) hypothesizes, then they ask themselves what is testable in that frame of reference.

Hypothesis - The Bible, since it is an ancient set of documents, yet ones covering many peoples, leaders, tribes and places, if it is valid, should concur with archaeology.

Proven.

How can we be sure the relevant scripture was not written after the events that gave rise to the archaeological finds?

 

[Polymath257]

And gravity, of course, is composed of gravitons. Where can I see a photo of gravitons?

PS. Don't answer, I'm being rhetorical.

Good to know it is rhetorical. I hope you realize that we don't ever expect to get a 'photo' of a graviton simply because of the properties of gravitons (they don't interact strongly with light). On the other hand, we don't need to detect gravitons to know that gravity is active and what its properties are. And that means we can use gravity to detect other things, like dark matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How complex is one DNA strand?

How complex is a "simple cell"?

How complex is a unicellular animal?

How complex is a human?

Which is more complex in its operations, a Cray supercomputer or a human mind?

Rather pointless questions. But it appears by this question that you accept the fact that "junk DNA" exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said the response was baloney. However, any assertion that dark matter/dark energy has been inductively observed IS baloney.

Oops, and now you do not even understand what the word "inductively" means.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How complex is one DNA strand?

How complex is a "simple cell"?

How complex is a unicellular animal?

How complex is a human?

Which is more complex in its operations, a Cray supercomputer or a human mind?

You've avoided the point again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Mmm. I don't think I'd agree with your comments as regards to pencils. People were making marks on parchment and paper with graphite long before some came up with the idea of a pencil. Then they had to figure out how to make one. Kudos too to the person who quickly recognized the need to attach an eraser.

Okay. Change it to shoelace then instead.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would think the predictive prophecy exceeds all statistical likelihood:

1) People have persecuted Jews for millennia
2) Even the "churches" who killed Jews worship one Jew

...
Nations to spend their wealth on raising churches and memorials to Messiah: "The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising." ... The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you. -Isaiah 60:3

...
Incense burned in Messiah's name worldwide: "For from the rising of the sun,

even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every

place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name

shall be great among the nations," says the Lord of hosts."-Malachi 1:11


...

Jews scattered for rejection of Messiah: "The Gentiles shall know that the

house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity; because they were

unfaithful to Me, therefore I hid My face from them. I gave them into the

hand of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword."-Ezekiel 39:23


...
Messiah from a woman and hidden, also despised by Israel. "...The Lord has

called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of

My name. And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His

hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has

hidden Me." ... "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant, To

raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I

will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My

salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of

Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation

abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also

shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel;

And He has chosen You."-Isaiah 49:1-7




Which Jewish person, from the House of David, made secretly inside a woman's

womb, who lived in Galilee and was despised by [most of] Israel, has

worldwide worshippers (from among all the Gentiles who spend their wealth in

His name and service) and came to earth to be rejected just before Israel

was scattered in 70 AD?

What has this got to do with what I posted?

Does your God interact with the physical world, or not? If he does, there should be evidence of such. Where is it? (No, vague prophecies from old books aren't evidence of God interacting with the physical world.) Even if you could demonstrate that a prophecy actually came true, how could you connect it directly to the God you worship?

 

[Valjean]

As far as I understand, ID doesn't say, "Here's the designer" but instead, "Complexity argues against a lack of a designer."

If you see an electronic watch, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:

"No one made this watch, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this watch, a hypothesis we may be able to test for, which hypothesis comes to mind since the watch has numerals, letters, minute functions, day/night functions, etc. -- all anthropomorphic functions for people to use."

The complexity of a watch and the complexity of a human aren't the same. They have different origins. A watch is clearly designed and manufactured. A person evolved. Reproduction with variation in offspring provided material for natural selection to work with over time, gradually increasing complexity.
Watches don't reproduce.

Clearly, scientists are wholly unable to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose.

No they're not.
You don't follow the research, do you?

Hypothesis - The Bible, since it is an ancient set of documents, yet ones covering many peoples, leaders, tribes and places, if it is valid, should concur with archaeology.

Proven.

And it doesn't -- and its not.

Historical or archaeological accuracy is poor evidence of literal or mythological accuracy. Contemporary writings and reports would be expected to reflect facts, places and events that were common knowledge.

 

[leroy]

They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.

That is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

That is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy.

I have been engaged in these "debates" for nearly 30 years, and to me, it looks far more like a conclusion.

 

[tas8831]

How complex is one DNA strand?

How complex is a "simple cell"?

How complex is a unicellular animal?

How complex is a human?

Which is more complex in its operations, a Cray supercomputer or a human mind?

Define a relevant application for "complexity" in each of those cases.

The OP of this thread established only that using IDcreationism techniques and definitions, one must conclude that everything is the result of human design.

I've yet to see anything that would indicate otherwise.

 

[tas8831]

As far as I understand, ID doesn't say, "Here's the designer" but instead, "Complexity argues against a lack of a designer."

If you see an electronic watch, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:

"No one made this watch, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this watch, a hypothesis we may be able to test for, which hypothesis comes to mind since the watch has numerals, letters, minute functions, day/night functions, etc. -- all anthropomorphic functions for people to use."

Still only logically positing a human designer.

This is why ID creationism's sole argument (analogies to human activity) fail.

 

[tas8831]

Clearly, scientists are wholly unable to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose.

They are also wholly unable to replicate the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, but darned it we don't know an awful lot about it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would anyone expect that they should be able to?

Another goalpost shift:

* I believe in natural selection

* Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can we be sure the relevant scripture was not written after the events that gave rise to the archaeological finds?

For one example, my atheist friends insist the Penteteuch is dated to circa the 2nd century BCE, yet it describes, people, places and architecture from 1,200 years prior.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Dark matter has been observed. We know it is out there. We just don't know what it is composed of. We have several hypotheses concerning that. But knowing the composition isn't required for knowing something exists.

Dark energy is a bit more open: there is a LOT we don't know concerning the accelerating expansion rate.

"...knowing the composition isn't required for knowing something exists" has to do with observed effects. Yet, you don't hold God to the same standard!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good to know it is rhetorical. I hope you realize that we don't ever expect to get a 'photo' of a graviton simply because of the properties of gravitons (they don't interact strongly with light). On the other hand, we don't need to detect gravitons to know that gravity is active and what its properties are. And that means we can use gravity to detect other things, like dark matter.

"We don't need to detect gravitons," as you wrote, because we accept as fact something invisible/undetected, based on the law of cause and effect:

1) God does the same thing
2) Your point a priori shows you think EVERYTHING has a cause
3) You are begging the question of our existence/an eternal universe subject to entropy/an eternal, uncaused universe

 

[BilliardsBall]

Rather pointless questions. But it appears by this question that you accept the fact that "junk DNA" exists.

Baloney again from you, since recent explorations has repurposed much junk to purpose!

I believe in natural selection... Darwinians try to hide the real issue, all things reproduce according to their “kind” or in taxonomy, near the family level (creation could be a few cats that become lions to domesticated cats and etc.)