Why do intelligent designers have to oppose evolution?

Originally posted by chr0naut
It would appear, however that you are ignoring de-evolutionary trends which should be the dominant mode of expression of genetic mutation, but where are they?

Please explain the logic behind this conclusion of yours.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Look, to be honest? The main reason Creationists/Intelligent Designers/most Christians don't believe in Evolution, is because it just doesn't work. There is mountains of evidence that it DOES work, but there are mountains of evidence suggesting that it DOESN'T work.

Mountain of evidence for evolution, yes. Evidence against evolution, nope. There is NONE. The irreducible! complexity ignorance has been shown to be a false conclusion in every single case it has been suggested. These are the facts, so try to be honest. The main reason why religious people don't believe in Evolution is, because it contradicts their core magical beliefs. Evolution is not even a matter of belief, but understanding and logical reasoning, it's a law of nature just like gravity, and unlike for gravity, there actually is a complete theory that explains it.

edit on 4-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Law of gravity?! How do you explain angels, archangels and cherubs? How do you explain Jesus rising up to heaven? How do you explain God's flying sperm innoculating virgin mary? Explain the flying horsemen of the apocalypse. HUH?!

Explain this:

"Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll." (Zechariah 5:1)

Law of gravity, pffft!


Now that I've got you on the ropes...

EXPLAIN THE PLATYPUS, YOU HEATHEN!


/sarcasm

No one is opposing evolution.
The evolutionary self mutating process is already designed into the genetic code itself, and changes based on enviromental and natural surroundings.

The folks who currently design and develop virtual lifeforms are already programming self mutating algorithms into their working models.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Yes, but what is the exact quote? What does he say about the Y-chromosome? You can't expect me to read an entire book just because of some poster in the internet (that I assume is misinformed).

From Wikipedia

Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men (also known as Adam's Curse: A Story of Sex, Genetics, and the Extinction of Men) is a 2003 book by Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes expounding his hypothesis that with the declining sperm count in men and the continual atrophy of the Y chromosome, within 5,000 generations (approximately 125,000 years) the male of the human species will become extinct.

Here's the link Adam's Curse - Wikipedia

The entire premise of the book explores several issues from scientific data supporting the hypothesis that is in the title.

God left us two ways to know him.

One way is the Bible. There are many men who abuse this message and denigrate it unfairly in extremely biased onslaghts. They simply attack it any way they can. The Bible explains why this happens, so it's not shocking, but it is sad.

The other way is science. There are many scientists who idolize God's creative process and works, but deny him totally. Their are many other scientists who see God through science. God gave us the Earth and the Heavens. God gave us investigative minds.

Not only are human beings alive in spite of what predictions would expect, but we live in a perfect setting to do science, with perfect cognizance of how to actually do the science. That's the triple whammy of luck, or it's just as we suspected all along. It's God, silly.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Yes, but what is the exact quote? What does he say about the Y-chromosome? You can't expect me to read an entire book just because of some poster in the internet (that I assume is misinformed).

From Wikipedia

Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men (also known as Adam's Curse: A Story of Sex, Genetics, and the Extinction of Men) is a 2003 book by Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes expounding his hypothesis that with the declining sperm count in men and the continual atrophy of the Y chromosome, within 5,000 generations (approximately 125,000 years) the male of the human species will become extinct.

Here's the link Adam's Curse - Wikipedia

The entire premise of the book explores several issues from scientific data supporting the hypothesis that is in the title.

edit on 4/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Interesting. Thanks. Nonetheless, I can't see his argument against mine. I'm sure he must have addressed it at some point. Do you have an argument that counters what I said previously?

Originally posted by chr0naut
There appears to be other mechanisms for genetic change too (for which we do not have any adequate explanation).

As a physicist, i've always been more intrigued by D'Arcy Thompson's approach to the biological sciences than I have with the traditional mainstream body. Perhaps that's because of his mathematical inclinations rather than geological functionalism.

Reducing biological elements to quantities of physics or integers is far more coherent and satisfactory to me, and I think Richard Dawkins is doing a fantastic job in re-directing biology that way i.e. a focus on genes and hereditary information processes that are determined not by strict adaptation but more so the laws of physics and their mathematical constants.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I just don't understand why there is this idea that intelligent design as to be in direct conflict? I know many folks who believe in evolution, who debate for it day in and day out, and yet they are fairly religious, they are faithful.

Because creationists would consider it sinful to even entertain another possibility. There is no reasoning with them. You can present your case until you are blue in the face, and still, they believe it was all done, completed and good to go by the sixth day.

A creationist believes: God wanted an Oak tree. POOF! There on the ground stood a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Intelligent Design: God wanted an Oak Tree. He "arranged" for an acorn to be planted, and in seventy-five (of Earth years) he had a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Same but different. My belief anyway.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I just don't understand why there is this idea that intelligent design as to be in direct conflict? I know many folks who believe in evolution, who debate for it day in and day out, and yet they are fairly religious, they are faithful.

Because creationists would consider it sinful to even entertain another possibility. There is no reasoning with them. You can present your case until you are blue in the face, and still, they believe it was all done, completed and good to go by the sixth day.

A creationist believes: God wanted an Oak tree. POOF! There on the ground stood a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Intelligent Design: God wanted an Oak Tree. He "arranged" for an acorn to be planted, and in seventy-five (of Earth years) he had a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Same but different. My belief anyway.

There are actully many different beliefs among creationists. Some creationists believe in a young earth with no evolution. Some believe in a young earth with the illusion of an old earth. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth with evolution. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth without evolution.

I believe the Universe is old. I believe Macro-Evolution to be false. I believe the universe was intelligently designed.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by chr0naut
There appears to be other mechanisms for genetic change too (for which we do not have any adequate explanation).

As a physicist, i've always been more intrigued by D'Arcy Thompson's approach to the biological sciences than I have with the traditional mainstream body. Perhaps that's because of his mathematical inclinations rather than geological functionalism.

Reducing biological elements to quantities of physics or integers is far more coherent and satisfactory to me, and I think Richard Dawkins is doing a fantastic job in re-directing biology that way i.e. a focus on genes and hereditary information processes that are determined not by strict adaptation but more so the laws of physics and their mathematical constants.

I haven't read any of Thompson's work. Can you suggest one that I should begin with?

My fave science is physics too and everyone forgets it was a physicist (George Gamow) who actually cracked the code of DNA by determining that each codon consisted of three elements and this fitted the four bases into being able to produce the 20 amino acids (even though his initial idea of "overlapping" coding was not the one that actually occurred in nature).

Watson & Crick merely discovered DNA's chemical structure and then later determined that Gamow (whom Watson credits for the discovery) had been heading in the right direction regarding three element codons.

While I admit that Dawkins is forcing all sides of the evolution argument to hone their arguments, I have found that he still uses old arguments that have been rebuffed as fall-back position occasionally. This leads to having to circularly re-define an argument and just confuses the issue.

I also believe that Richard Dawkins used to visit ATS but I haven't seen what I assumed was him on for some time.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I just don't understand why there is this idea that intelligent design as to be in direct conflict? I know many folks who believe in evolution, who debate for it day in and day out, and yet they are fairly religious, they are faithful.

Because creationists would consider it sinful to even entertain another possibility. There is no reasoning with them. You can present your case until you are blue in the face, and still, they believe it was all done, completed and good to go by the sixth day.

A creationist believes: God wanted an Oak tree. POOF! There on the ground stood a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Intelligent Design: God wanted an Oak Tree. He "arranged" for an acorn to be planted, and in seventy-five (of Earth years) he had a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Same but different. My belief anyway.

There are actully many different beliefs among creationists. Some creationists believe in a young earth with no evolution. Some believe in a young earth with the illusion of an old earth. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth with evolution. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth without evolution.

I believe the Universe is old. I believe Macro-Evolution to be false. I believe the universe was intelligently designed.

I believe that the universe is actively being designed right at this moment. This implies that there is an overall direction it is heading and that it isn't over yet.

Ongoing Intelligent Design towards a planned outcome that does not yet exist!

Intelligent design, like most forms of creationism, is faith based. I never understood the constant attack on evolution, which is SCIENCE based. Most of the time the people criticizing evolution don't even have the most basic understanding of the theory, as was already demonstrated in this very thread. ID and evolution are both compatible, but separate concepts (1 being faith, the other being science). Unfortunately most ID supporters are christian fundamentalists stretching and cherry picking scientific data to fit their pre determined conclusion based on literal interpretation of the bible. But then they'll say you are wrong if you mention god and pretend they don't know who the designer is. The problem is, it's not science.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur

There, all 3 incorporated into one. Was that hard?

There's that Trinity wrench getting thrown in once again.

Originally posted by Barcs
Intelligent design, like most forms of creationism, is faith based. I never understood the constant attack on evolution, which is SCIENCE based. Most of the time the people criticizing evolution don't even have the most basic understanding of the theory, as was already demonstrated in this very thread. ID and evolution are both compatible, but separate concepts (1 being faith, the other being science). Unfortunately most ID supporters are christian fundamentalists stretching and cherry picking scientific data to fit their pre determined conclusion based on literal interpretation of the bible. But then they'll say you are wrong if you mention god and pretend they don't know who the designer is. The problem is, it's not science.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Evolution with the definiton; change over time, is a scientific fact. Evolution as an all encompassing theory that explains all life on the Earth is faith. Intelligent design is just a different view on that.

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Barcs
Intelligent design, like most forms of creationism, is faith based. I never understood the constant attack on evolution, which is SCIENCE based. Most of the time the people criticizing evolution don't even have the most basic understanding of the theory, as was already demonstrated in this very thread. ID and evolution are both compatible, but separate concepts (1 being faith, the other being science). Unfortunately most ID supporters are christian fundamentalists stretching and cherry picking scientific data to fit their pre determined conclusion based on literal interpretation of the bible. But then they'll say you are wrong if you mention god and pretend they don't know who the designer is. The problem is, it's not science.

edit on 4-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Evolution with the definiton; change over time, is a scientific fact. Evolution as an all encompassing theory that explains all life on the Earth is faith. Intelligent design is just a different view on that.

It's not faith, as we have the fossil record, genetics, biology, medicine and countless other field of science that are based on evolution causing the diversity of life on earth. ID is faith, there is no objective evidence behind it.

Originally posted by Barcs

 

It's not faith, as we have the fossil record, genetics, biology, medicine and countless other field of science that are based on evolution causing the diversity of life on earth. ID is faith, there is no objective evidence behind it.

What medicine is made based on scientific evidence of evolution?

Fossil Record - Science assumes it's true, which causes circular reasoning.

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

Genetics - Beneficial mutations are too innumerous to even allow for positive change.

John explained how mutations, which supposedly provide the new genetic information to make evolution possible don’t do the job:
‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),1 bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

Biology- This one is funny. It begs the question. You say evolution is not faith because of biology. Let's follow this logic. As you can see below, the definition of biology is life in all its forms and phenomena etc. But how can evidence for evolution be biology, when evolution is purported to explain the diversity in biology. That's like saying the evidence for God not being faith is a solar eclipse.

bi·ol·o·gy
   [bahy-ol-uh-jee] Show IPA

noun
1.
the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.

2.
the living organisms of a region: the biology of Pennsylvania.

3.
the biological phenomena characteristic of an organism or a group of organisms: the biology of a worm.

Originally posted by addygrace
What medicine is made based on scientific evidence of evolution?

en.wikipedia.org...

Fossil Record - Science assumes it's true, which causes circular reasoning.

"It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology."—Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record (1973), p. 62.

Science doesn't assume anything is true. We can dig up the fossils and date them based on the rock they are found in. The rock layers aren't based on the fossils. That is a lie and that accusation is absurd. We have several methods of dating, many of which verify one another, and are based on solid science that we can observe and study today.

Genetics - Beneficial mutations are too innumerous to even allow for positive change.

John explained how mutations, which supposedly provide the new genetic information to make evolution possible don’t do the job:
‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),1 bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

Sorry, false again, and why not even post your source? You are referencing an outdated study on mutation rates. Newer studies show the rates to be significantly lower for the deleterious mutations, plus it has been shown that rates vary from individual to individual. Claiming the rates prove evolution false is absolutely absurd.

Biology - This one is funny. It begs the question. You say evolution is not faith because of biology. Let's follow this logic. As you can see below, the definition of biology is life in all its forms and phenomena etc. But how can evidence for evolution be biology, when evolution is purported to explain the diversity in biology. That's like saying the evidence for God not being faith is a solar eclipse.

Evolution is biological process, and falls into the field of biology. Obviously you haven't done any research at all on it or you'd already know this. I'm not talking about the definition of biology, I'm talking about the entire field of science and what we understand about the biological processes such as evolution. That's absolutely hilarious that you'd post the definition somehow claiming evolution is wrong.

If you have objective evidence, please post it instead of rehashing creationist arguments that have already been debunked hundreds of times in this section. Post the peer reviewed science papers that say evolution is false or not part of biology. How about ANY physical evidence whatsoever of creation?

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by chr0naut
There appears to be other mechanisms for genetic change too (for which we do not have any adequate explanation).

As a physicist, i've always been more intrigued by D'Arcy Thompson's approach to the biological sciences than I have with the traditional mainstream body. Perhaps that's because of his mathematical inclinations rather than geological functionalism.

Reducing biological elements to quantities of physics or integers is far more coherent and satisfactory to me, and I think Richard Dawkins is doing a fantastic job in re-directing biology that way i.e. a focus on genes and hereditary information processes that are determined not by strict adaptation but more so the laws of physics and their mathematical constants.

That's not new, though. Biophysics been around since the 19th century when the Berlin School guys applied physics and chemistry (especially Newtonian physics) to biology.



Fascinating subject, by the way.

Because most people that follow the idea of intelligent design think there was a "fingersnap" and everything just appeared. They don't stop to think that maybe the "designer" was a brilliant scientist and laid out the course of things well in advance.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

I just don't understand why there is this idea that intelligent design as to be in direct conflict? I know many folks who believe in evolution, who debate for it day in and day out, and yet they are fairly religious, they are faithful.

Because creationists would consider it sinful to even entertain another possibility. There is no reasoning with them. You can present your case until you are blue in the face, and still, they believe it was all done, completed and good to go by the sixth day.

A creationist believes: God wanted an Oak tree. POOF! There on the ground stood a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Intelligent Design: God wanted an Oak Tree. He "arranged" for an acorn to be planted, and in seventy-five (of Earth years) he had a seventy-five year old Oak tree.

Same but different. My belief anyway.

There are actully many different beliefs among creationists. Some creationists believe in a young earth with no evolution. Some believe in a young earth with the illusion of an old earth. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth with evolution. There are old earth creationists who believe in an old earth without evolution.

I believe the Universe is old. I believe Macro-Evolution to be false. I believe the universe was intelligently designed.

I believe that the universe is actively being designed right at this moment. This implies that there is an overall direction it is heading and that it isn't over yet.

Ongoing Intelligent Design towards a planned outcome that does not yet exist!

edit on 4/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

A planned outcome? Well damn, and here I thought we had some free will.