ID/Creationism challenge

[randman]

Randman, read the following argument:

There are dings in the side of my car door, even though there is no car parked next to mine. Therefore, this is positive evidence for the existence of magical Door Ding Gnomes! They appear from thin air, when they think no one is around, with little picks and hammers, to put dings into people's car doors.​

Can you develop an argument for Intelligent Design that is better, more reliable for biology - than my Door Ding Gnome Theory is for explaining car door dents?

Already have. If you are not going to address my points, then quit wasting my time.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Except it's not unless you want to argue the Multiverse did it, and we're not supposed to talk about evolution on this thread.

I guess the rules were designed so you guys could argue a point and not be debunked.

QM demonstrates we live in a fundamentally immaterial universe instead of a fundamentally physical one.

It seems like you're incapable of abstract thought Randman. No evolutionist positions were argued for until you decided to started citing evolutionary concepts that created debates around the subject. Nobody was arguing points.

The premise was not even necessarily for creationists to enter the thread and discuss. Proponents of evolutionary theory should also be attempting to imagine what sort of evidence for ID could be posited outside of attempting to falsify evolution.

The thread was created as a thought experiment. The rules of which you're using again and again in a weasel maneuver when you drag evolutionary theory into the topic then when challenged over what you've said you decide to play games with the established parameters and claim you're not allowed to defend yourself further without breaking the rules, as if the position you were challenged on already did not do that in the first place.

And really, how dare you suggest you're not going to waste your time after all the posts you made here in the last few days and the effort that has been made to debate with you.

On a side note; if you ever get around to it it would be nice if you would share what your religious beliefs are exactly instead of claiming "it's complicated". I'd be interested in learning how a mind like yours is able to see Christianity as the viable theology over the many humanity has created and how you could defend and explain your views in regard to some of the most common criticisms.

 

[randman]

On a side note; if you ever get around to it it would be nice if you would share what your religious beliefs are exactly instead of claiming "it's complicated".

Go back and read the thread. I laid them out later and even had an evo here commend me for answering clearly and honestly.

What bothers me is I don't know if you saw it and just want to waste my time suggesting I didn't post it, or not.

 

[sphenisc]

Thank you. In that case, your definition for "evidence" is entirely useless.

As I've used it here, you statement is observably incorrect.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

These are all very positive evidences, which can be and are demonstrated with repeatable experiments and predicted by basic QM.

What can't be demonstrated, though, is that these things are indicative of an intelligent designer. That's what you've got to provide evidence for.

Amazing considering your response to the point above where I did present scientific evidence for front loading via publishes papers from a biology professor that knows a heck of a lot more about this than you do.

I didn't ask you to provide evidence for front-loading. I asked you to provide evidence for special creation.

Yet, you responded:

Because the paper you cited was an attack on evolutionary theory, rather than positive evidence in its own right.

Ok, not in my opinion. The facts are incontrovertible and demonstrated by duplicatable experiments and predicted for over 80 years by basic QM.

Ah, so if the facts that quantum mechanics necessarily implies an intelligent designer are incontrovertible, then you should be able to supply these facts. Don't just post some stuff about quantum mechanics and say "therefore God", show the evidence of God.

Again, that's what this entire thread is about. So far you've not provided one bit of actual evidence. A cynical man might think that you were unable to do so. Prove that cynic wrong.

 

[randman]

What can't be demonstrated, though, is that these things are indicative of an intelligent designer. That's what you've got to provide evidence for.

Who says? On what basis? I gave you mine. You show me where I am wrong....on what specific basis?

Ah, so if the facts that quantum mechanics necessarily implies an intelligent designer are incontrovertible, then you should be able to supply these facts

Already have.

 

[Wowbagger]

Sure. Already did. QM is an observation of the Logos interacting with and manifesting the physical world (discrete physical form).

"Logos", whatever that is, seems no more reliable a theory than my gnomes. You are merely asserting its existence. You can not tell us anything that can be independently verifiable about the nature of this "Logos". You have some bad science, there, too.

And, it also sounds like a non-sequitur. Can you explain those places and points in time at which "Logos", or any of its cohorts, had to interfere with the development of life forms?

Give us some positive evidence for its influence on life.

 

[Slimething]

What I am saying is completely falsifiable though I admit that invoking a Multiverse is an alternative.

Again, no. Your basis facts are falsifiable. Your interpretation of those facts is not. You invoke a preternatural entity when you cannot explain some of the results of an experiment. That is not allowed in science. It's too easy and has been demonstrated to be wrong every time to date. Keep working at it.

I disagree that the Multiverse is more explanatory but considering those working on that, I can't irrefutably say they are wrong.

Getting back to the subject at hand: evidence that exclusively supports a biblically congruent explanation of biology. You have not provided any. Do you have any? If you're merely arguing that such a view cannot be dismissed, I really don't care. That's philosophy. I believe the OP is about science.

It takes a lot for me to say one group's theory is wrong for sure. You could say aliens are secretly among us and I might say, well, let's see the evidence or express some doubt. But I cannot rule it out.

So your argument is philosophical? Great. Fantastic. There's an old joke about scientists but it applies to any group: in a room containing n people you will have n+1 opinions.

About the only thing that can be is NeoDarwinism.

Had to slip that in? Feel better now? I will point out to you that your opnion and a nickel are worth exactly five cents. To me, anyway.

Do you have evidence tht exclusively supports chrisitian creationism or intellifent design? Yes/no question.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Debunking evolution and God of the Gaps. Typical creationist "arguments." Thanks for verifying that you're typical, Randman.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Who says? On what basis? I gave you mine. You show me where I am wrong....on what specific basis?

The specific basis that you're wrong in saying that you've provided scientific evidence for Cretionism/God is...that you haven't provided scientific evidence for Creationism/God. Please do so, or admit that you can't.

 

[tsig]

If the universe adapted itself to make sure your legs would be there, that'd be an indication of the kind of purpose we are talking of.

Esp. if the universe made them just long enough to reach the ground.

 

[tsig]

Um, so you are admitting red blood cells found?

They are not fossilized, and yes soft tissue was found. They are not lying.

Wieland returned to his misrepresentation of the Schweitzer research in Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really? (1999). One would hope that Wieland had taken the opportunity in the intervening years to have learned about the research he discussed. But one would hope in vain. We instead are confronted with this astounding distortion:

We have previously told you about the unfossilsed [sic] dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin. [reference to Wieland 1997]


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

 

[tsig]

Yes it can. In fact it necessarily must be.


Yes.


Yes


Yes it is.



False dichotomy.

Life exists, This is evidence that life originated in chemical reactions driven by high energy input.

 

[tsig]

Somehow I knew this would turn intoanother "debunk evolution, therefore God" thread. This thread proves the point that Creationism/ID is not science.

It was fun to see randman "off script" for a while.

 

[tsig]

Sure. Already did. QM is an observation of the Logos interacting with and manifesting the physical world (discrete physical form).

Is this Logos the Designer?

 

[Almo]

Plants are green because it's easy on the eyes, sucka.

Thunder is God's way of letting dogs know who is the alpha.

What's Parky got to do with any of this?

 

[randman]

"Logos", whatever that is, seems no more reliable a theory than my gnomes. You are merely asserting its existence. You can not tell us anything that can be independently verifiable about the nature of this "Logos". You have some bad science, there, too.

And, it also sounds like a non-sequitur. Can you explain those places and points in time at which "Logos", or any of its cohorts, had to interfere with the development of life forms?

Give us some positive evidence for its influence on life.

Sure I can and already have. The theory is the Logos is underlying informational order, the means, by which all matter is sustained and formed at all times through information existing outside space-time giving rise to the physical universe as a secondary or derived function.

That's exactly what QM unless one wants to go the Multiverse route, demonstrates. It predicts quantization of particles based on information being quantized as well.

Now if you took the time to learn what the above meant, you might look up papers claiming quantum mechanics control mutation in an adaptive fashion, meaning they are not random but selected for the conditions needed, at least more so, through superposition and processes of quantum mechanics.

This guy (don't know if is he an IDer or not) has written a book called Quantum Evolution and published papers talking about the application of QM to evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnjoe_McFadden

 

[randman]

Wiki mentions this:

Quantum evolution is the hypothesis that quantum effects can bias the process of mutation towards adaptive genetic variation.[1] It should not be confused with quantum evolution, a theory related to the modern evolutionary synthesis. The first publication on this subject, which appeared in a peer review journal, is by Vasily Ogryzko[2]. Biologist Johnjoe McFadden and the physicist Jim Al-Khalili subsequently published their own theory in 1999 [3] in which they proposed a mechanism based on enhanced decoherence of quantum states that interact strongly with the environment. McFadden published his book Quantum Evolution in 2000.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_evolution_(alternative)

This proposed mechanism is still being debated and researched so may or may not be right in it's application to biology, but it's definitely out there and being tested.

 

[ehcks]

Logos (Christianity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Christology, the conception that the Christ is the Logos (λóγος, the Greek for "word", "discourse" or "reason") has been important in establishing the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his position as God the Son in the Trinity as set forth in the Chalcedonian Creed.



Or did everyone else already know that?

 

[randman]

Logos (Christianity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Christology, the conception that the Christ is the Logos (λóγος, the Greek for "word", "discourse" or "reason") has been important in establishing the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ and his position as God the Son in the Trinity as set forth in the Chalcedonian Creed.



Or did everyone else already know that?

I thought they would. So I was focussing on other aspects of the Logos (aka the Word). The Bible says all things are created through the Logos (the Word) and that the Word upholds all things (sustains their physical existence).

When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life".... a more modern idea to explain "the truth" part is He is saying He is the reality. In other words, He, the Logos that took on flesh and lived among us as the gospel of John says, is the true reality and the physical world is derived from it. That's what the Bible says. The physical world is not self-sustaining but requires a constant "creation" in some sense via the Logos creating all things. Anything that is made is made through the Logos, period.

If you don't really know the Bible well, this may seem like a stretch which is one reason I cited Zeilinger's reference to the Logos in one of his papers. Zeilinger is a quantum physicist of note.

In quantum physics, you will sometimes hear someone like Feinman say we do not directly observe reality. All we do is observe what reality tells us. Reality itself cannot be directly observed.