transitional fossils

Originally posted by KellyJay
Everyone who rejects religion and God has an interest in not seeing
it no matter what! Are you serious! Everyone who has ever entered
into an evolution creation debate has an interest in seeing it or not, all
who want the universe to be regarded as completely godless by that
very definition has a vested interest in not seeing design. As soon
as design ...[text shortened]...
as well, I don’t see how you can say no one has a vested interest
in not seeing design.
Kelly

I disagree. Firstly I don't believe there is a God to reject so I wouldn't say I reject him. I did used to believe in God, and I know the comfort that religion confers. I have no intrest in seeing a Godless universe. I have interest in the truth. And I do not believe the existance of God to be true. I would not want to believe in God for purely comforts sake if he did not exist. I would only want to believe in Him if he does.

There is no design to be seen in DNA. And yes your right; if there was, and 'God' was conclusivly prooved, there would still be no reason to follow any spesfic God, or believe in an afterlife, or soul, or a God that intreacts with humans through prayer. God may even be an experimenting higher life form and not supernatural, just hugey more advanced then humans. Anyway, speculation like this is not really useful. So far the evidence for God has not been shown, and there is no reason to believe.

So can you tell me why anyone would want to veiw the universe as Godless, even if it wasn't? Surely we all just want the truth?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, both sides of that discussion are doing the same thing!
They look at DNA and one say yes, the other no; depending on who
is talking there either is or isn't design in DNA.
Kelly

The difference between scientists (in the field of Biology) and the ID folks is:
1. Scientists look at the evidence, and use the scientific method to discover that evolution is taking place.
2. ID folks believe that there is a designer then try to manufacture evidence that there is one.

As far as I know, no ID person has ever presented a single scientific paper which provides any evidence for a designer that has not since been shown to be false. The basic premise of ID is "there is no other plausible explanation for this phenomena". For every phenomena so far presented, another plausible explanation has been found.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The difference between scientists (in the field of Biology) and the ID folks is:
1. Scientists look at the evidence, and use the scientific method to discover that evolution is taking place.
2. ID folks believe that there is a designer then try to manufacture evidence that there is one.

As far as I know, no ID person has ever presented a single scien ...[text shortened]... henomena". For every phenomena so far presented, another plausible explanation has been found.

That's a bogus charge.

It is like someone coming accross Mt. Rushmore having never known anything about it. When that person perceives that the cliffs have somehow been designed into human faces rather than eroded into those facial shapes, you come along and charge him with manufacturing evidence to fit preconceived wishful assumptions.

For some scientists it is what they do know about order as opposed to disorder which convinces them that the evidence leads to an intelligent designer.

The faces of four men on the side of a mountain is evidence which leads strongly to the indication of design (perhaps and most probably human intelligent artistry on Mt. Rushmore).

A DNA molecule, a functioning eyeball, a protien manufacturing cell, and working respitory system, a sexual reproductive system are samples of things in nature which at least plausibly indicate purposeful intelligent design.

Even a "poor" design (by somone's standard) or a design upon which you think improvement could conceivably be made is still a design.

When I asked Michael Behe what would he say to the critics who say that IDers have just thrown up their hands and said "Well, we don't understand it. We don't know how it works. So God must have done it."

His reply to me was that his decision to adopt Intelligent Design did not arise from what he did not know, but rather from what he did know.

Originally posted by jaywill
That's a bogus charge.

Then demonstrate it, instead of setting up a strawman.

It is like someone coming across Mt. Rushmore having never known anything about it. When that person perceives that the cliffs have somehow been designed into human faces rather than eroded into those facial shapes, you come along and charge him with manufacturing evidence to fit preconceived wishful assumptions.
OK lets look at your example for a bit.
1. Suppose their claim is that the only possible way that Mt. Rushmore could be explained is via intelligent design (ie there must have been an intelligent designer.) That is a good and acceptable hypothesis. However, if I show that there is a natural process which could explain the existence of Mt. Rushmore then I have proved the hypothesis to be false. If they then present Mt Rushmore as evidence for their hypothesis after my refutation has been published then they are being dishonest.
2. If their hypothesis is, as you appear to be claiming, that intelligent design is one possible explanation (amongst many), then I would accept it as a valid hypothesis. However it would not have Theory status.
However, you are misrepresenting the ID folks with your claims because they are claiming 1. and not 2.

A DNA molecule, a functioning eyeball, a protien manufacturing cell, and working respitory system, a sexual reproductive system are samples of things in nature which at least plausibly indicate purposeful intelligent design.
But intelligent design is not the only plausible explanation, nor is it even the most parsimonious. In fact, considering the available evidence, it is up there with "the pink unicorn did it" explanation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then demonstrate it, instead of setting up a strawman.

It is like someone coming across Mt. Rushmore having never known anything about it. When that person perceives that the cliffs have somehow been designed into human faces rather than eroded into those facial shapes, you come along and charge him with manufacturing evidence to fit preconceived wi considering the available evidence, it is up there with "the pink unicorn did it" explanation.

But intelligent design is not the only plausible explanation, nor is it even the most parsimonious.
There you go: playing fast and loose with words again. According to the basic concept of science, typically the most economical explanation is the preferred one, if not the right one as well. This general rule rises from the experience that energy follows a fairly conservative arc.

However, nothing could be less economical than the millions upon billions of failed attempts necessary for that force-that-is-not-a-force, natural selection, to get even one thing "right."

If parsimony be the guide, nothing man can conjure could possibly compete with an intelligent designer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There you go: playing fast and loose with words again. According to the basic concept of science, typically the most economical explanation is the preferred one, if not the right one as well. This general rule rises from the experience that energy follows a fairly conservative arc.

Not true.

However, nothing could be less economical than the millions upon billions of failed attempts necessary for that force-that-is-not-a-force, natural selection, to get even one thing "right."
How is that relevant?

If parsimony be the guide, nothing man can conjure could possibly compete with an intelligent designer.
And there you go again with your failure to understand even the simplest of sentences.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true.

[b]However, nothing could be less economical than the millions upon billions of failed attempts necessary for that force-that-is-not-a-force, natural selection, to get even one thing "right."
How is that relevant?

If parsimony be the guide, nothing man can conjure could possibly compete with an intelligent designer.
And there you go again with your failure to understand even the simplest of sentences.[/b]

How is that relevant?
It isn't relevant to those who aren't paying attention to the subject at hand. For those who are actually engaged in the conversation, the comment is critical. No wonder it was lost on you!

You (not me, not anyone else, just you) claim that relying upon an intelligent designer is not parsimonious. Using the most common meaning and universally-accepted usage for the word 'parsimony,' your sentence is rendered non-sensical, as an intelligent designer is THE most parsimonious idea currently available.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But intelligent design is not the only plausible explanation, nor is it even the most parsimonious.
There you go: playing fast and loose with words again. According to the basic concept of science, typically the most economical explanation is the preferred one, if not the right one as well. This general rule rises from the experience that ...[text shortened]... ony be the guide, nothing man can conjure could possibly compete with an intelligent designer.[/b]

If we're getting into Occam's Razor, the reason the "millions and billions of failed attempts" explanation turns out to be the most economical is because that's what we have. We've independantly verified that the earth is five billion years old and that there's been life on it for most of that time. An intelligent designer turns out to be a much less economic explanation because we have no external indication of that designer. Evolution relies for its basis on things we already know to be true; it requires far less conjecture than intelligent design.

Originally posted by darthmix
If we're getting into Occam's Razor, the reason the "millions and billions of failed attempts" explanation turns out to be the most economical is because that's what we have. We've independantly verified that the earth is five billion years old and that there's been life on it for most of that time. An intelligent designer turns out to be a much less ...[text shortened]... ings we already know to be true; it requires far less conjecture than intelligent design.

If "that's what we have" were true, why are there so many who--- after studying the exact same evidence, and equipped with the same or greater analytical abilities--- disagree with that conclusion?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If "that's what we have" were true, why are there so many who--- after studying the exact same evidence, and equipped with the same or greater analytical abilities--- disagree with that conclusion?

I... wouldn't know? Why is it my responsiblity to speak for those people?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You (not me, not anyone else, just you) claim that relying upon an intelligent designer is not parsimonious. Using the most common meaning and universally-accepted usage for the word 'parsimony,' your sentence is rendered non-sensical, as an intelligent designer is THE most parsimonious idea currently available.

By your flawed interpretation of the word the most parsimonious explanation would be 'it just is'. But I guess I should be parsimonious and stop wasting my time with you as you seem intent on making up nonsense in just about every thread. At first I thought you didn't understand the topics but now I realize that you do, but are a liar.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The difference between scientists (in the field of Biology) and the ID folks is:
1. Scientists look at the evidence, and use the scientific method to discover that evolution is taking place.
2. ID folks believe that there is a designer then try to manufacture evidence that there is one.

As far as I know, no ID person has ever presented a single scien henomena". For every phenomena so far presented, another plausible explanation has been found.

You are doing the same thing when you are presenting your view,
and using the DNA to back it up as is. The fact that there is
information inside of DNA, it does work with stop and start
mechanisms that maintain critical balance within systems, as well
as the timing of events within the system I would have thought
would have clued you in that those types of things just do not
happen with the sophistication we see because of DNA. You are
doing it too and using it to back up the notion that there isn’t a
designer to life, as well. You may as well say that none of the posts
at RHP have any designer behind them too. Those types of things
just happen and that is that, and if someone says they believe the
exchange of language is caused by intelligent design, just deny it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
By your flawed interpretation of the word the most parsimonious explanation would be 'it just is'. But I guess I should be parsimonious and stop wasting my time with you as you seem intent on making up nonsense in just about every thread. At first I thought you didn't understand the topics but now I realize that you do, but are a liar.

It's comical that every time your arguments fail you insist on giving me credit for statements I have clearly not made. You should see someone about that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's comical that every time your arguments fail you insist on giving me credit for statements I have clearly not made. You should see someone about that.

Maybe you are just incapable of clearly articulating a point. You tend to be a little vague - I suppose because you know you are talking nonsense and don't want it to be too obvious. So where have I credited you for a statement you have not clearly made? Elaborate. I guess you are using the 'clearly' as your 'get out of jail free' card because you never say anything 'clearly'.