Intelligent Design: An Insult to Gods Intelligence?

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
CLAIM: Mathematical calculations and evidence show that nature has a tendency to disorganize: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy,guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it.

FACT: This shows the human genome to be DEVOLVING not EVOLVING. This is what ID predicts. Darwinism predicts the exact opposite tendency. This devolving tendency in vertebrate genomes is direct evidence for intelligent design.

Don't know if you'd want to even approach this issue Matt, lol.

The unnecessary portion of this claim is bolded.

Are you claiming that genomes are in a state of de-evolution?

I'm not claiming anything, it's a pro-ID/creation claim about how tendency to disorder supports them, I claim the natural processes of evolution have so far been shown to be sufficient, i.e. no need to invoke intelligent guidance.

I didn't think you would see any merit in it

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

[edit on 17-1-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't want to be cruel (I left that to someone else)

Just curious... was this directed at me? If so... where was I "cruel" to either the_partriot or LCKob?

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't want to be cruel (I left that to someone else)

Just curious... was this directed at me? If so... where was I "cruel" to either the_partriot or LCKob?

No, no, I wasn't claiming you were

but the entropy business is a very elementary mistake fo those who don't really understand the physics, and I didn't want to make the_patriot feel too naive. a quick look on wiki might of helped him understand why entropy is a non-issue. I thought I'd leave it to a senior member...

[edit on 18-1-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
No, no, I wasn't claiming you were

I was just checking... I have a tendency to go over the top, but I thought I was pretty good here.

My wife loves the fact that I come to ATS... it keeps me from starting what I call 'debates' but what she calls 'arguments' with her.

mattison0922:

"I was just checking... I have a tendency to go over the top, but I thought I was pretty good here."

LCKob:

Being the requester and recipient, I can say that I have no complaints ...




mattison0922:

"My wife loves the fact that I come to ATS... it keeps me from starting what I call 'debates' but what she calls 'arguments' with her."


LCKob:

I think what you describe with your wife is to a degree somewhat common among those with analytical mindsets ... I see similar instances and scenarios with friends of this general predisposition ... I have been told by a number of people that they find the disciplined application of logic and debate methodology to be daunting and "offputting" ... or as a good friends wife put it ...

"Its like arguing with Spock ... after the 20th dismissal of my point with a laundry list of pointers to improve my argument ... I give up ... "

Originally posted by dbrandt


Cancer is a result of sin. Mankind rebelled against God and sin entered the world. Sin affects all of creation in many aspects. We are experiencing a world that has rejected God. That is why all the suffering and evil. Thank God, He does intervene or it would be worse than what it is now.

So basically your god eliminates/punishes anyone living in "sin" , hmmm he/she/they/it is/are not very good at PR imho , or wait is it just evil taking over because your faith lacks fervor , correct me if i'm wrong isn't your evil (in a broader meaning) a creation of your god ?

What you just stated is one of the most vile insults towards cancer patients i've heard in long time , same sort of statement as a friend of mine reported after a two week radiotherapy , going back to work and having his boss ask him if his tan got any better.

and i always believed the catholic church was still unbeaten , seems like there's a new contendent ad that one hasn't evolved since a few hundred years. Actually i'm sure you would have been a great inquisitor.
I wish you the best and hope your god will have you rewarded for such righteous words and actions, you a re a true soldier of your faith and as it states in your own book of reference Matthew 26:51 "Put thy sword again into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword."

i definitely shouldn't have checked the origins and creationism part of this foru, makes me way to nervous .

Originally posted by Hvitserk
What you just stated is one of the most vile insults towards cancer patients i've heard in long time , same sort of statement as a friend of mine reported after a two week radiotherapy , going back to work and having his boss ask him if his tan got any better.

Yeah- kind of shocked me too. Which sin was it again? Original? I'll go chisel it as a footnote in my mothers gravestone and then make sure my aunty knows why she has to get chemo once a week. Dbrant you should be ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
and for your statement that birds came from dinosaurs is ridiculous-there is no proof. yes there have been found what evolutionists call "Dinosaurs" with feathers, but upon closer inspection you find that they are really either birds or dinosaurs, not a cross. archaeopteryx for instance, upon closer inspection, is found to be a bird. it was originally thought to be a dinosaur because of its sharp teeth, but that is not proof of being half dinosaur because there are birds today that have teeth. what you have is a species of bird that went extinct, not a half dinosaur half bird. and to address the whales and snakes have legs issue, first off there is no proof that whales had legs, ever. no one has found a whale with legs nor seen one, and the bones that they are assuming used to be hip bones, well thats it-an assumption. science still doesnt know everything and those bones may do something completly different and useful to the animal today. as for the snake, again same thing no proof, though if you were to dive into Biblical theory they did used to have legs, before the fall of man. when the serpent tricked eve, God cursed the serpent to crawl upon his belly. otherwise, God took the serpents (snakes) legs away, and possibly left the hip bones. so in the case of snakes, not proof of evolution and may indeed be another evidence towards intelligent design.
[edit on 13-1-2006 by the_patriot2004]

Whoa.

First off, I didn't say there was "proof" of evolution, I said evidence. And your explanation for the bird fossils is ridiculous.



No, YOU need to prove that there are extant birds with teeth. That is an outrageous claim that requires proof, not evidence. I mean, that is totally outrageous, so you have to post some photos of living birds with teeth. And while you're at it, post some pics of birds with hands that are not fused into wings, as Archaeopteryx had.

BTW, Archaeopteryx was probably not one of the organisms in the direct line from dinosaurs to birds, but rather an evolutionary offshoot. The point is that it offers evidence of transitional forms. And, you won't have "half and half" like you said; evolution is a gradual process.

As for the whales, there are fossils of whale ancestors with legs. If ID created whales, why not have them use gas exchange with gills, like fish? Why have them more connected to land organisms with a blowhole to breathe air?

And you actually think that the evidence for snakes PROVES the bible story?

Yeah, it's a correlation, but how the HELL does it prove the bible story and disprove evolution? If the christian god had zapped the protosnake and got rid of its legs, why do some large constrictors still have vestigial legs?

And, science does not claim to prove everything, but it's funny how bible supporters claim the bible does. Your whole post is quite funny, though, so thanks for the laugh.

Sorry trutthseeka,
Ask and you shall receive. I could not pass up the invite to show a living bird that has teeth.
Note there was no limitation set by you as to where these birds came from edition.cnn.com...

That was too easy

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Sorry trutthseeka,
Ask and you shall receive. I could not pass up the invite to show a living bird that has teeth.
Note there was no limitation set by you as to where these birds came from edition.cnn.com...

That was too easy

Nice try, but GE doesn't count.

I'm talking about birds that still have teeth through evolution. With your logic, we could have tobacco plants that glow in the dark, animals with human body parts, spider-goats, insects from Diptera with 4 wings, and plants that produce drugs and HIV virus through evolution alone.

Honestly, that was a pathetic example and you know it...especially since that question wasn't directed at you.

truthseeka:

I'm talking about birds that still have teeth through evolution. With your logic, we could have tobacco plants that glow in the dark, animals with human body parts, spider-goats, insects from Diptera with 4 wings, and plants that produce drugs and HIV virus through evolution alone.

As stated in my post you did not qualify your requirement of proof of some kind, you only demanded it. If you meant that your proof had to meet certain requirements then you should have stated so.

Honestly, that was a pathetic example and you know it...especially since that question wasn't directed at you.

You should definately NOT start to throw stones there You maybe very set in your ways that you can not identify humor when it is facing you. You may want to re-read the post and attempt to accept it in the spirit that it was offered. Now if you wish to have a debate with me on this subject I highly suggest that you curtail your short tongue and start approaching the subject without trying to toss flaming statements out there

[edit on 26-1-2006 by kenshiro2012]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
I didn't want to be cruel (I left that to someone else)

Just curious... was this directed at me? If so... where was I "cruel" to either the_partriot or LCKob?

No, no, I wasn't claiming you were

but the entropy business is a very elementary mistake fo those who don't really understand the physics, and I didn't want to make the_patriot feel too naive. a quick look on wiki might of helped him understand why entropy is a non-issue. I thought I'd leave it to a senior member...

[edit on 18-1-2006 by melatonin]

I've been gone for awhile, I'm sorry guys, but as far as this goes, but I am not Naive and I understand Entropy all to well. the basic law states that everything breaks down over time, all over the place. now heres the thing, the counter argument for that is people say that Entropy only works within a closed system, and there are no closed systems, except perhaps the universe. do you realize the problem with this. with just the first part of the statement, that there are no closed systems, take that alone, and you are basically saying that the law of entropy doesn't exist. at all. if it only works in closed systems, and there are no closed systems, then there is no law of entropy, yet we know it exists. now lets add the second part of the statement in, which is what makes the statement 100% true. "there are no closed systems except for the entire universe. ok if the entire universe is a closed system, then everything within the universe is subject to the law of entropy. this statement only all the more proves that the law of entropy can indeed be used as evidence against evolution. This is all I have to say about it, I can see this entropy argument going on until eternity, and will propose new evidence.

the new evidence? lets take a look at our sun. according to NASA (you can look it up) they can show and prove that the sun has been shrinking about 5 feet per hour. they can show the rate has not changed in the last 400 years. this is a fact, agreed upon by astronomers all around the world, whether they be proponents for Evolution, or Intelligent design, or what I like to call creation. in fact, if it keeps shrinking at this rate, in 100,000 years it will have shrunk to a dot. and only 100,000 years ago, it would have been twice the size it is now, which would make the temperature of the earth hotter, making the chances of life on earth being slim. bring it back couple million years and life on earth would be impossible. kinda puts a damper on those who want to argue millions to billions of years.

WB,

Now read.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

I'm really surprised people still use the sun argument after it was refuted before the year was up when it was first claimed...

Originally posted by Produkt
WB,

Now read.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

I'm really surprised people still use the sun argument after it was refuted before the year was up when it was first claimed...

It wasn't refuted, don't believe me, check with NASA, or the Naval aeronautical institute I believe is the name for it. they can prove its been shrinking at that rate for the past 400 years. nearly every science institution that studies the sun will admit to that. add onto that mere common sense. the sun, is basically a fusion reactor. to put a long story short, fusion reactors produce a LOT of energy, and I mean a LOT of energy. but they also lose energy. they lose energy in the form of heat. granted, the loss is miniscule, but over time a fusion reactor will burn itself out over time. the sun works on the same principle, its a fusion reaction, and is losing energy over time. now, when it comes to the size of the sun, 5 feet per hour is a miniscule loss, and if the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, that poses absolutly no problem. but to millions of years, it does pose a problem, and evolutionary scientists have seen this, and the more intelligent ones have attempted to explain it away. however, you still get the occasional wacko, who will call science a liar without doing proper research, just to prove his theory right, which the authors of those two sites have opted to do so.

Now, if you had come up with an alternate explanation instead of calling science a lie, then you might have an argument, and since you have failed to give a counter argument, I will do so for you. a counter argument might follow like this: the sun, since it is shrinking, so is its gravity well. the earth has always been the same distance to the sun, and as the sun shrinks, the earths orbit has shrunk proportionatly to the shrinkage of the sun. now this is a plausible counter theory, one that might work. you may ask, why am I doing this, is it not working against myself? well I'm doing it to show you science. you don't take scientific evidence and choose to disregard it simply because it doesn't fit your theory, you take scientific evidence as it is, whether it fits your theory or not, and if what we can see and observe disagrees with your theory, then your theory doesn't line up with the evidence then throw the theory out and start over.

now, as a counter to that argument, no evidence has been found to suggest the earths orbit has shrunk proportionatly to that of the sun. however, it has not been proven impirically that it hasn't either to my knowledge. you cannot prove that the earths orbit is shrinking proportionatly to that of the sun, however you can prove that the sun is shrinking. until you can find scientific evidence as to why this doesn't pose a problem to evolution, then this is a valid argument for a young earth. giving a couple sites by people claiming the sun isn't shrinking when its been proven by astronomers across the globe is not a valid scientific argument.

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
It wasn't refuted, don't believe me, check with NASA, or the Naval aeronautical institute I believe is the name for it. they can prove its been shrinking at that rate for the past 400 years.

Well lookie here:

image.gsfc.nasa.gov...
There is no evidence that the size of the sun has changed appreciably over the last 100 million years, because the amount of heat the sun produces at the earth depends on the second power of the solar diameter, all other factors being equal, so a little change on the sun would throw the earth into a global heat wave or ice age.

Now I do believe the response is from a NASA scientist.. and if you do some research you will discover that the authors themselves retracted this 'paper'.

nearly every science institution that studies the sun will admit to that. add onto that mere common sense.

Nonsense.

and if the earth is only 6-10,000 years old,

Now.. could you show where this paper is on the main NASA site? I couldn't find it..

[edit on 10-3-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by the_patriot2004

Originally posted by Produkt
WB,

Now read.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

I'm really surprised people still use the sun argument after it was refuted before the year was up when it was first claimed...

It wasn't refuted, don't believe me, check with NASA, or the Naval aeronautical institute I believe is the name for it. they can prove its been shrinking at that rate for the past 400 years. nearly every science institution that studies the sun will admit to that. add onto that mere common sense. the sun, is basically a fusion reactor. to put a long story short, fusion reactors produce a LOT of energy, and I mean a LOT of energy. but they also lose energy. they lose energy in the form of heat. granted, the loss is miniscule, but over time a fusion reactor will burn itself out over time. the sun works on the same principle, its a fusion reaction, and is losing energy over time. now, when it comes to the size of the sun, 5 feet per hour is a miniscule loss, and if the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, that poses absolutly no problem. but to millions of years, it does pose a problem, and evolutionary scientists have seen this, and the more intelligent ones have attempted to explain it away. however, you still get the occasional wacko, who will call science a liar without doing proper research, just to prove his theory right, which the authors of those two sites have opted to do so.

Now, if you had come up with an alternate explanation instead of calling science a lie, then you might have an argument, and since you have failed to give a counter argument, I will do so for you. a counter argument might follow like this: the sun, since it is shrinking, so is its gravity well. the earth has always been the same distance to the sun, and as the sun shrinks, the earths orbit has shrunk proportionatly to the shrinkage of the sun. now this is a plausible counter theory, one that might work. you may ask, why am I doing this, is it not working against myself? well I'm doing it to show you science. you don't take scientific evidence and choose to disregard it simply because it doesn't fit your theory, you take scientific evidence as it is, whether it fits your theory or not, and if what we can see and observe disagrees with your theory, then your theory doesn't line up with the evidence then throw the theory out and start over.

now, as a counter to that argument, no evidence has been found to suggest the earths orbit has shrunk proportionatly to that of the sun. however, it has not been proven impirically that it hasn't either to my knowledge. you cannot prove that the earths orbit is shrinking proportionatly to that of the sun, however you can prove that the sun is shrinking. until you can find scientific evidence as to why this doesn't pose a problem to evolution, then this is a valid argument for a young earth. giving a couple sites by people claiming the sun isn't shrinking when its been proven by astronomers across the globe is not a valid scientific argument.

You want a counter argument? Read those two links AND goto the NASA web site. And yes, the shrinking sun was refuted, by the year's end of it's first claim, don't believe me .... Reasearch and LEARN.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]

After reading this whole thread, the only conclusion I can muster is that whilst science (and the argument for evolution) draws upon a myriad of sources to set about demonstrating the hypothesis that mankind and indeed all life on our planet evolved, the argument for ID draws only upon one source (and its interpretations)..the Bible; a collection of anecdotes, traditions and oral histories that were written by many different scribes over several hundred years.

Originally posted by LCKob
Basically..["intelligent design"]..states that many livings things are too complex for evolution to have created them. The fundamentalists have even generated statistics reporting to show the improbability of evolution on such a complex level.

By this argument, say for instance, someone who has no understanding of micro-engineering/technology who finds the principles and circuitry of the computer they are sat at, too mind-bogglingly complex to comprehend; then can it only be assumed that God created that computer?

'Intelligent Design' is nothing other than intellectual laziness, whether you're unwilling or unable to understand the complexities of a system or function (be it biological/scientific/technological/etc) , just throw in a few biblical interpretations and presto! that's all the proof you need.


On a parting thought, how would the argument for creationism and ID stand up if evidence of past or present microbial life were found on Enceladus?

Cassini probe finds liquid water

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Taikonaut]