Creation vs. Evolution

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Unless you are saying that God used ID to develop all antibiotics you are being deliberately obtuse and misleading and it will stop right now.

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

So you don't believe prescriptions antibiotics are intelligent designed? Now evolution "trial and error" was probably a factor in researching a new drugs. Since bacteria reproduces at a very fast rate it can use "trial and error" to discovery a way to keep antibodies from locking onto them.
My point is you're just playing with words. I simple replace evolution with ID to prove that statement made sense as well.

Brain injury may or may not be a result of intelligent design. If a brain injury is intelligent design the law step in.
When someone stuffing from brain injury and acts different people will say "they are not acting like themselves."
A DVD is nothing of plastic disc yet it's not the disc I'm paying $20 for. It's the data (movie) which has no mass I'm buying. The data is different for the plastic disc yet if the disc gets damage so will the data. The same with the brain. This doesn't prove brain = person no more than Disc = movie even though they are one.

Not quite sure if there is a language barrier here or what but you are very difficult to understand.

- I am not talking about the research and discovery of antibiotics; I am talking about how they are administered only by a licensed practitioner through a prescription. I want you to Google what happens if you take antibiotics too often. Tell me what happens to what organisms and how you believe this relates in any way to intelligent design. You're kind of close with what you have above... but not totally there... Heres a hint: bacteria doesn't "learn" the population e_olv_s.

- Antibiotics were an accidental discovery... Might want to brush up on their history. Bacteria doesn't learn... no reason to be concerned with antibodies...

- I am certainly not playing with words... You my friend are; which is quite obvious in your posts.

- Brain injury is the result of intelligent design? What? The law? The f?

- A DVD and the data on it is a poor analogy for consciousness and the brain. I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here... But yes, brain trauma and loss of brain tissue resulting in the loss of personality and brain function does prove "you" are your brain. That's one of the tenants that one field... you know... neuroscience is built on? That's one of the reasons we have anti-depressants and other drugs that specifically target certain areas of the brain...

 

[homeforsummer]

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it.

As someone who did admin for NHS prescriptions for a year, I can confirm there's nothing intelligent about them...

Unless you mean the drugs, in which case I have no idea what you're on about, since drugs are either based on natural ingredients (in which case your theory is entirely based on a belief system, and therefore has no evidence) or they're concocted in a lab out of chemicals, in which case the only intelligent design they've been subject to is at the hands of humans, rather than god magically creating pills from the ether.

But I literally don't know what you mean about not taking a drug that wasn't "intelligent designed". Are you saying you'd avoid natural remedies? Or are you saying you'd avoid drugs designed by scientists to cure ailments?

 

[Scaff]

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it.

So you are being obtuse and deliberately misleading then.

Now if we add the above to you continued avoidance of the following:

Now I do have to pop my moderation hat on for a moment here as this has become a very disturbing trend of yours. You make a factual claim (i.e. "Even some scientist disagree with Dawkins poor design arguments since it an unproven assumption instead of looking for the reasons for RLN.") and when asked to provide further details you ignore, distract and outright avoid the subject.

The AUP is quite clear about this kind of behavior:

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Now can you provide details of these scientist(s) and the information supporting your claim or not?

If its the former then post the links so we can discuss them, and if its the latter then acknowledge so and withdraw the statement. However be warned that if you continue to avoid the subject the staff will have little option but to consider the posted information to be deliberately misleading. A route I would rather not take, but one that you are leaving very little option on.

We have a pattern of posting that will not continue.

Please be aware that members who constantly break the AUP do not get to continue doing so without any penalty.

So you will in your very next post either supply the details to back your claim or acknowledge that you are unable to do so, any other action will see you take a two day holiday from GT Planet.

The AUP is not optional, regardless of your view on any topic, do not treat it as such.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Not quite sure if there is a language barrier here or what but you are very difficult to understand.

- I am not talking about the research and discovery of antibiotics; I am talking about how they are administered only by a licensed practitioner through a prescription. I want you to Google what happens if you take antibiotics too often. Tell me what happens to what organisms and how you believe this relates in any way to intelligent design. You're kind of close with what you have above... but not totally there... Heres a hint: bacteria doesn't "learn" the population e_olv_s.

- Antibiotics were an accidental discovery... Might want to brush up on their history. Bacteria doesn't learn... no reason to be concerned with antibodies...

Bacteria passes on genetic code to other bacteria. Bacteria also mutates at hot spots to find ways to counter antibiotics and to find a new food source. While man may have stumbled something by accident doesn't mean the final product it's not intelligent designed. Engineers have used trial and error for centuries.

- A DVD and the data on it is a poor analogy for consciousness and the brain. I don't even understand what point you are trying to make here... But yes, brain trauma and loss of brain tissue resulting in the loss of personality and brain function does prove "you" are your brain.

The main point of DVD vs movie is to point out in fact it doesn't prove you are your brain. DVD and the movie are two separated things yet at the same time are one. If you are the brain then why are there a butch of brains trying to figure out how the brain works? Who is doing watching when researching the brain?

If its the former then post the links so we can discuss them, and if its the latter then acknowledge so and withdraw the statement. However be warned that if you continue to avoid the subject the staff will have little option but to consider the posted information to be deliberately misleading. A route I would rather not take, but one that you are leaving very little option on.

If I remember where to find the source I will post it. It's hard to remember every paper and thread I read thoughout the years. There seems to be a lot less people using the bad design argument today.

 

[Scaff]

If I remember where to find the source I will post it. It's hard to remember every paper and thread I read thoughout the years.

I take it then you will be withdrawing the comment until you are able to provide the source and I strongly advise in future that should you state something as fact that you will provide a source.

There seems to be a lot less people using the bad design argument today.

Based on what exactly?

He's a question for you, can you provide a single piece of evidence (that can be subjected to falsifiability) that supports ID?

 

[Touring Mars]

Quick question Zoom!Zoom!...

You said:

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it."

How is it possible, by your reckoning, that a drug may not be intelligently designed? Isn't everything intelligently designed in your book??

And, if there are things that are not intelligently designed, what are you using to discriminate between design and non-design?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Based on what exactly?

He's a question for you, can you provide a single piece of evidence (that can be subjected to falsifiability) that supports ID?

One example : ATP synthase . There is no living cell known to man that does not have a version of this machine.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Quick question Zoom!Zoom!...

You said:

How is it possible, by your reckoning, that a drug may not be intelligently designed? Isn't everything intelligently designed in your book??

And, if there are things that are not intelligently designed, what are you using to discriminate between design and non-design?

Anything that doesn't require any form of intelligence and only requires the natural laws. Examples: a river flows down hill, snowflakes, etc.

 

[Scaff]

One example : ATP synthase . There is no living cell known to man that does not have a version of this machine.

Now please explain (including falsifiability) how that proves ID, as all this consists of is an observation, and falls a long way short of proof.

 

[arora]

Anything that doesn't require any form of intelligence and only requires the natural laws. Examples: a river flows down hill, snowflakes, etc.

I can't follow that, surely you don't mean that God did not design those things? Please elaborate.

 

[Touring Mars]

Anything that doesn't require any form of intelligence and only requires the natural laws. Examples: a river flows down hill, snowflakes, etc.

That's not really answering my question - you've defined what the difference is between designed and non-designed things, but I was asking how you go about determining one from the other.

We know there are things in nature that are both highly complex and yet not designed - even you seem to accept this by citing the example of snowflakes. A single atom would be another good example. Organic and inorganic chemistry provide a practically infinite number of possibilities when it comes to the self-organisation of matter into increasingly complex states. Indeed, a paper I found recently shows that a single amino acid, phenylalanine, can form fibrils (that is a complex 3-dimensional structure) completely by itself. Small chains of amino acids can and do exist in a bewildering array of different structures, and can even interchange between completely random i.e. no structure, to extremely highly ordered (e.g. in a fibril), so I think it is fair to say that complexity alone is not a hallmark of ID, especially when these phenomena can be observed, replicated and entirely explained via 'the natural laws' as you put it.

So if complexity is not a hallmark of ID, then what exactly is?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I can't follow that, surely you don't mean that God did not design those things? Please elaborate.

I don't believe any designer is required in making every snowflake or storm or any other thing governed totally by laws of physics. (Of course a snowflake could be the result of intelligence ; a snow machine for example.)
Now I do believe mind (God) created the universe instead of the universe created the mind. The same both the DVD and the movie was created first by a mind. What is unseen and has no mass is more important than that which has mass.

We know there are things in nature that are both highly complex and yet not designed - even you seem to accept this by citing the example of snowflakes.

Snowflakes are useless and totally governed by the laws of physics. You can't even build machines out of snow and is extremely poor for holding information. Snow like crystals are not a good energy source. Snow is the result of water is losing the extra energy that holds water molecules tightly together (causes ice to float) becoming crystallized in the air.

 

[arora]

So a creator set things in motion and laws take over from there. It is usual for someone with your thought process(If I see correctly) that the creator has seen/imagined all possible scenarios the laws dictate.

Your mind business I'll just accept as something along the lines of consciousness. Having an idea and then building it is a very simple concept, not sure why that has importance to you.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Bacteria passes on genetic code to other bacteria. Bacteria also mutates at hot spots to find ways to counter antibiotics and to find a new food source. While man may have stumbled something by accident doesn't mean the final product it's not intelligent designed. Engineers have used trial and error for centuries.
The main point of DVD vs movie is to point out in fact it doesn't prove you are your brain. DVD and the movie are two separated things yet at the same time are one. If you are the brain then why are there a butch of brains trying to figure out how the brain works? Who is doing watching when researching the brain?

If I remember where to find the source I will post it. It's hard to remember every paper and thread I read thoughout the years. There seems to be a lot less people using the bad design argument today.

Lol. Bacteria doesn't mutate on the spot (do you mutate on the spot when you jump in the water? Lol); the allele frequency(ies) for drug resistance will only increase after several generations. What it is doing in response to environmental pressures is something we scientists like to call "evolution." Its not "finding ways to counteract" anything, voluntarily-spontaneously-immediately mutating, no one stumbled, and again it has nothing to do with trial and error from "engineers."

The rest of it is just useless. You're not answering any questions just spewing out nonsense and analogies again (which I don't need seeing as how I left high school in 2003).

One example : ATP synthase . There is no living cell known to man that does not have a version of this machine.

Lol. If anything that proves evolution... You know.. All living things evolved from the same single celled organism so we all inherently have almost identical cellular structures and functions? Lol.

Now you're really, really reaching for supporting proof... twisting evolutionary proofs to fit intelligent design? Lol.

It's apparent to me you are either voluntarily ignorant and choose to make outlandish claims which you believe are correct, or you're just trolling. Either way... good day to you.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

So a creator set things in motion and laws take over from there. It is usual for someone with your thought process(If I see correctly) that the creator has seen/imagined all possible scenarios the laws dictate.

Your mind business I'll just accept as something along the lines of consciousness. Having an idea and then building it is a very simple concept, not sure why that has importance to you.

Automobiles are designed to be governed by the laws of physics yet requires maintenance (man's involvement) every now and again. If you don't bring your car in for service it won't take long before it will brake down.

"Having an idea and then building it" may be simple when you have a mind yet not so simple without a mind. (AI)

 

[Scaff]

I don't believe any designer is required in making every snowflake or storm or any other thing governed totally by laws of physics. (Of course a snowflake could be the result of intelligence ; a snow machine for example.)
Now I do believe mind (God) created the universe instead of the universe created the mind. The same both the DVD and the movie was created first by a mind. What is unseen and has no mass is more important than that which has mass.
Snowflakes are useless and totally governed by the laws of physics. You can't even build machines out of snow and is extremely poor for holding information. Snow like crystals are not a good energy source. Snow is the result of water is losing the extra energy that holds water molecules tightly together (causes ice to float) becoming crystallized in the air.

None of which go in any way to providing a single example of proof of ID (including falsifiability) at all.

You have been warned about your constant avoidance and nonsense before, now please stop with the distraction.

We are all aware of what a snowflake is, what I'm more interested in is how you claim that ATP proves ID.

Answer that without any further avoidance and rubbish and I will be seriously impressed.

 

[Touring Mars]

Snowflakes are useless and totally governed by the laws of physics. You can't even build machines out of snow and is extremely poor for holding information. Snow like crystals are not a good energy source. Snow is the result of water is losing the extra energy that holds water molecules tightly together (causes ice to float) in the air becoming crystallized.

Yet not all naturally occuring things are as 'useless' as snowflakes. Organic molecules, including all biomolecules, are capable of forming extremely complex structures and products under the same laws of physics that make snowflakes, yet there is no need to invoke a designer in order to explain how they form and interact with other molecules and their environment.

Either way, you still haven't answered my question as to how to distinguish between design and non-design - although I suspect that you might have difficulty in doing so, given that there is no evidence ever found in the history of scientific endeavour to suggest that intelligent design has ever occured in any way. I also suspect that this is the reason that you're having such difficulty in answering the questions that others are putting to you.

 

[arora]

Automobiles are designed to be governed by the laws of physics yet requires maintenance (man involvement) every now and again. If you don't bring your car in for service it won't take long before it will brake down.

You are not easy to follow at all. So the river is or is not designed? Seriously.

"Having an idea and then building it" simple when you have a mind yet not so simple without a mind.

So, as I said, consciousness? Or we are programmed robots?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

None of which go in any way to providing a single example of proof of ID (including falsifiability) at all.

You have been warned about your constant avoidance and nonsense before, now please stop with the distraction.

We are all aware of what a snowflake is, what I'm more interested in is how you claim that ATP proves ID.

ATP synthase is a machine that will naturally fall apart if left to itself. If it's shown how ATP synthase could be the results of blind nature then it would falsify ID as complex machine can be formed without intelligence or information. I failed to see how information is nonsense.

Either way, you still haven't answered my question as to how to distinguish between design and non-design

We simply look what could be produced by laws of physics alone to determine if it requires intelligence. This is what SETI used to determine if a signal is the result of nature or an intelligence. One of the best evidence of intelligence is any kind of code (information).

 

[Scaff]

ATP synthase is a machine that will naturally fall apart if left to itself.

How does this proves ID at all?

If it's shown how ATP synthase could be the results of blind nature then it would falsify ID as complex machine can be formed without intelligence or information.

No it wouldn't at all, you appear to not actually understand falsifiability at all.

Claiming that if complex biological machines can evolve (which they can) refutes ID doesn't hold water any more that the claim made by many creationists that disproving evolution proves ID/Creationism.

What you are citing is irreducible complexity, which I'm afraid doesn't disprove evolution (and is not a falsifiability test for ID):

http://www.newscientist.com/article...cterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase

To test ID you would need to test the hypothesis that organism's are spontaneously brought into existence by a designer. As no one is able to do this and the claimed designer has not demonstrated it in any recorded way, we can not test it and it can't be falsified. It therefore fails not just as a hypothesis but as a science, which is why is it quite correctly labeled as a pseudoscience.

I failed to see how information is nonsense.

Because you refuse to answer questions when asked without serious and repeated requests, you throw the topic off-track with analogies that make no sense and have little to no bearing on the topic at hand and steadfastly fail to provide sources for you (factual) claims.

In short you have done nothing to either:

A) Disprove Evolution

and/or

B) Prove ID/Creationism

 

[dylansan]

We simply look what could be produced by laws of physics alone to determine if it requires intelligence. This is what SETI used to determine if a signal is the result of nature or an intelligence. One of the best evidence of intelligence is any kind of code (information).

This whole argument breaks down when you consider the possibility that intelligence itself could be produced by the laws of physics alone. Which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution is.

In essence your proof against evolution requires you to already assume evolution is false, and thus it is circular reasoning and not valid.

 

[AndersonG22]

Talking to a creationist is like talking to the color red, you can't make red blue. But there is always the chance blue will fade to red in the sun.

Edit: j/k

Why is evolution still a theory?

 

[Brett]

There are two types of theory, scientific theory, which is different than theory.

 

[homeforsummer]

Still waiting for an answer to this, Zoom!Zoom!:

Unless you mean the drugs, in which case I have no idea what you're on about, since drugs are either based on natural ingredients (in which case your theory is entirely based on a belief system, and therefore has no evidence) or they're concocted in a lab out of chemicals, in which case the only intelligent design they've been subject to is at the hands of humans, rather than god magically creating pills from the ether.

But I literally don't know what you mean about not taking a drug that wasn't "intelligent designed". Are you saying you'd avoid natural remedies? Or are you saying you'd avoid drugs designed by scientists to cure ailments?

It should (in theory) be easy for you to answer, since it doesn't require you to provide a source of any sort, and you're particularly good at not providing sources.

I'd just like you to explain what you mean by not taking a drug that wasn't intelligent designed. Surely - in your view - every drug is intelligently designed, either by human hands (and by extension, a higher being) or by nature (which is presumably, by extension, designed by a higher being).

What drug exists that isn't "intelligently designed" by your definition?

And don't give the river analogy again. It was rubbish, didn't make sense, and didn't answer the similar question posed earlier by someone else.

 

[BobK]

Since bacteria reproduces at a very fast rate it can use "trial and error" more effectively to discovery a way to keep antibodies from locking onto them.

Bacteria passes on genetic code to other bacteria. Bacteria also mutates at hot spots to find ways to counter antibiotics and to find a new food source.

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand how evolution works. This has been mentioned before but it seems it has to be repeated:

Evolution is not a goal-directed process.

Organisms do not evolve "in order to" do anything. They randomly mutate; if the mutation happens to make the organism more fit for its environment it's more likely to get passed onto progeny.

I'd just like you to explain what you mean by not taking a drug that wasn't intelligent designed. Surely - in your view - every drug is intelligently designed, either by human hands (and by extension, a higher being) or by nature (which is presumably, by extension, designed by a higher being).

What drug exists that isn't "intelligently designed" by your definition?

He said quite clearly that his belief is that they don't exist:

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design.

We could quibble about "drugs" vs "prescription drugs" I suppose.

 

[homeforsummer]

He said quite clearly that his belief is that they don't exist:

We could quibble about "drugs" vs "prescription drugs" I suppose.

It wasn't that clear because his second sentence then confused matters:

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it.

Dissecting it:

"All prescriptions are the results of intelligent design" - On its own, this doesn't make any sense, as I alluded to with my flippant comment about sorting prescriptions. A prescription on its own is a piece of paper. A prescription drug is a thing, but not all prescription drugs are man-made. I assume "man made" is Zoom!Zoom!'s criteria for calling something "intelligently designed", but since intelligent design is theoretically anything that a deity could have created - i.e. natural drugs from plants - even this isn't clear.

"If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it" - This also confuses me. Is Zoom!Zoom! saying he wouldn't take natural drugs, which haven't been designed by humans, or is he saying he wouldn't take man-made drugs, as they haven't been designed by an intelligent creator (other than... err... man)?

Neither of those sentences are clear. I'd simply like Zoom!Zoom! to clarify what drugs he would and wouldn't take.

 

[Ophiochus]

The biggest problem with this debate is people are trying to compare apples to apples, and picking and choosing what laws to obey.

I just think its a little to convenient to say 'I don't know so it must be a creator'. Im not trying to turn this into a 'is god real' topic, but cant we make an argument that the "Creator" was fathomed from early mans inability identify his own conscious? Same as a mentally unstable person believes in voices speaking to them, early man may have rationalized a thought process that it was not himself talking, but god talking through him.

Was it evolution or god that proved the earth was flat? it was the blossoming of thought and reason that resulted.

Not to sound like a waffle, but one question i would like answered, is creationists (if that's a real word) believe in 'Laws'. If that is the case then laws can be broken, and to that point, Laws of the natural world are generally only broken in case of interference , but the very idea of a 'Law' is that it is a rule broken by a entity (wind, human, animal). So if you are able to say that the Creator is absolute and created these laws to be followed, wouldn't it possible to say we evolved past the rules? We/it can be bent and broken, thus not created, but altered by exterior factors?


Edit: rereading the post above me made me think.... He speaks of Zoom!Zoom! saying "All prescriptions are the results of intelligent design"... Well... Isnt intelligent design the creationist's anthem? The bible (bad source i know) says we are made in gods image, sooooo wouldnt that mean we are in the league of him and his intelligent design?

 

[BobK]

It wasn't that clear because his second sentence then confused matters:

I simply believe all prescriptions are the results of intelligent design. If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it.

Dissecting it:

"All prescriptions are the results of intelligent design" - On its own, this doesn't make any sense, as I alluded to with my flippant comment about sorting prescriptions. A prescription on its own is a piece of paper. A prescription drug is a thing, but not all prescription drugs are man-made. I assume "man made" is Zoom!Zoom!'s criteria for calling something "intelligently designed", but since intelligent design is theoretically anything that a deity could have created - i.e. natural drugs from plants - even this isn't clear.

"If there was a drug not intelligent designed I would refuse to take it" - This also confuses me. Is Zoom!Zoom! saying he wouldn't take natural drugs, which haven't been designed by humans, or is he saying he wouldn't take man-made drugs, as they haven't been designed by an intelligent creator (other than... err... man)?

Neither of those sentences are clear. I'd simply like Zoom!Zoom! to clarify what drugs he would and wouldn't take.

I was simply taking what he said at face value. Sort of like if someone said:

I simply believe all automobiles have wheels. If there was an automobile that did not have wheels I would refuse to drive it.

Keep in mind also that, according to him (as I interpret what he's been saying) all drugs are the result of intelligent design, either directly by a human or by the "intelligent designer" that created the entire universe, and by implication everything in it including drugs.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Ya, I don't believe he is interested in answering anything that proves his point is wrong. Lol.

That's why he has been repeatedly asked and denied to respond. If he won't answer Scaff he won't answer you lol.

Two words for anyone who believes in intelligent design / creationism: vestigial organs