(January 13, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 6:15 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: It's simple: UNDERSTAND SCIENCE.

I understand science better than you guaranteed. At least biology and chemistry. You don't understand science if you think that people with disagreements among how to interpret scientific evidence are not scientific people. If I disagree with string theory, can I not be a physicist? Disagreements among people who study science is how scientific views are critiqued, revised, and improved. If everyone who disagrees with the current consensus is not a scientist, then Isaac Newton wasn't a scientist. Neither was Galileo, Lyell, Copernicus, Einstein, or even Darwin. YOU don't understand science if you think that you must agree with the scientific consensus to study science.

Of course you can disagree, but when you do, you have to make a reasoned, consistent argument, which involves displaying sufficient understanding of the subject. There are many, many examples of you misrepresenting evolution, science, the scientific community and evolutionary science. I refer you our exchange on page 49 and 50, wherein you misrepresent what evolution/evolutionary theory is:

Quote:I do understand it, and I think it is not the full explanation for life.

No one said it was, and no scientist would say that.

And you then go on to say:

Quote:Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

You accept the principles of evolution and then try to change what "evolution" means. Your definition of evolution is a vague, nebulous term that you apply liberally to suit your purposes.



And don't even get me started on the singularity.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 7:56 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: LOL, I just love how willing you are to non-sequitor your magic god with actual science when you think it may work! You know as well as any of us what would happen to your god if it ever happened that it was not only discovered to be real in some form, but understood thoroughly as is electricity. That's why your non-so-intelligent design theory requires a god idea, one which is to be forever mysterious, never to be understood by anyone. As NDT said, it's the philosophy of ignorance alright!

It's not ignorance. It isn't "we can't explain it, so God" It is "we know of only one cause that is capable of explaining the specified sequences and other features of life and the universe, and that cause is intelligence." You are relying on faith to think that another cause will arise.

Wrong.

You don't know jack shit about the universe, therefore you aren't qualified to weigh in on "cause". The world's best astrophysicists and evolutionary biologists don't know comparably much of the whole picture, which is why they are used to saying "I don't know" when that is fact. You can't imagine a better answer than your god answer, and it's so important to you that you will strut arrogantly into a science classroom with your pre-conceived idea, attempting (as Kitan pointed out) to make science conform to that idea, and this is not how science is done. You cannot call anything you like "science", and the bullshit you spew makes no more sense than the idea that it was created by invisible pink unicorns.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:08 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm)Kitan Wrote: Because it is intelligent design, whereby people are attempting to mold science to their preconceived notions.  That is not how science works.

And evolutionists don't do this? The theory has failed prediction after failed prediction, yet they will always mold the theory in distorted ways to try to account for the evidence. And intelligent design puts evidence first and conclusions after. Everyone has preconceived ideas about the world. Every single person. Even the scientists. It is science. You ought to read Signature in the Cell if you want to see why intelligent design is based on scientific grounds.

(January 13, 2016 at 5:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 5:03 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: In the universe, causes lead to effects, each cause is the effect of a cause, this is time and space at work, which are functions of the universe. If the universe was caused by some other temporal-based agent "outside" of the universe, then the laws of cause and effect were somehow in place before the universe existed, the cause of the universe would have to be the effect of a previous cause, and that cause would also be an effect of a cause, the chain reaction of causality would trace backwards forever to no determinable starting point, which would mean that time and space are eternal, not infinite, which to my mind sort of breaks time and space, seeing as it makes time timeless and space spaceless. My friend, it is you who believes the universe is eternal.

I think we're actually in agreement that our universe is not eternal, but I'm not sure. Wouldn't something outside of time be exempt from the need of a previous cause? Obviously we can't jump to God from that, but the God of the Bible does claim to be the creator of time and space, and therefore removes himself from the need for a previous cause.

yhwh claims no such thing, for the simple reason that imaginary things cannot make claims. The claims made by bronze age goat fuckers about the world which make up the early parts of the bible can be dismissed for the following:
1) Their claims do not describe reality (they literally claim a flat rectangular earth)
2) Their claims have no explanatory power
3) Their claims make no meaningful and testable predictions
4) Their claims demonstrate a woeful lack of data and knowledge.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:03 pm)AAA Wrote: That's hardly the only thing I am presenting for intelligent design. So science must not be associated with God?

No, really you presented nothing except you believe life is designed and god is the designer, Oh and you think life looks like a digital code. Where is the science?

No, it's not that life looks like a code. There IS a code with a specific order of nucleotides that must be ordered a certain (and unlikely) way to get the desired product. The science comes from all the structures in the cell that operate based on the instructions from the code, the different proteins interacting together, the epigenetic factors that influence body plan development and gene expression. The phosphorylation of proteins to change their function. The 106 proteins to translate mRNA into a protein. Thousands of nucleotides must be in a correct order for life to enter the supposed evolutionary pathway. It is a scientific argument regardless of your inability to understand the words I just wrote. 

And if God isn't allowed in science, then neither is Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything that Isaac Newton wrote about calculus or light. They both talk about God quite a bit.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm)AAA Wrote: And if God isn't allowed in science, then neither is Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything that Isaac Newton wrote about calculus or light. They both talk about God quite a bit.

Darwin and Newton can be proven to have existed. Can god?

(January 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: No, really you presented nothing except you believe life is designed and god is the designer, Oh and you think life looks like a digital code. Where is the science?

No, it's not that life looks like a code. There IS a code with a specific order of nucleotides that must be ordered a certain (and unlikely) way to get the desired product. The science comes from all the structures in the cell that operate based on the instructions from the code, the different proteins interacting together, the epigenetic factors that influence body plan development and gene expression. The phosphorylation of proteins to change their function. The 106 proteins to translate mRNA into a protein. Thousands of nucleotides must be in a correct order for life to enter the supposed evolutionary pathway. It is a scientific argument regardless of your inability to understand the words I just wrote. 

And if God isn't allowed in science, then neither is Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything that Isaac Newton wrote about calculus or light. They both talk about God quite a bit.

You really don't know jack!

(January 13, 2016 at 8:05 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:03 pm)AAA Wrote: That's hardly the only thing I am presenting for intelligent design. So science must not be associated with God?

Not until you can adequately describe and present proof of god.

Nothing will be adequate for a lot of atheists.  Even if God walked up to them right now and told them who He was, they would accept they  are hallucinating before they accept that God is real. Don't be one of these people. What do you make of specified nucleotide sequences that are extraordinarily unlikely that must be present before it can enter evolution? What about the fine tuning of the universe? What about predictions made thousands of years in advance in the Bible that came true?

(January 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:07 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: No, really you presented nothing except you believe life is designed and god is the designer, Oh and you think life looks like a digital code. Where is the science?

No, it's not that life looks like a code. There IS a code with a specific order of nucleotides that must be ordered a certain (and unlikely) way to get the desired product. The science comes from all the structures in the cell that operate based on the instructions from the code, the different proteins interacting together, the epigenetic factors that influence body plan development and gene expression. The phosphorylation of proteins to change their function. The 106 proteins to translate mRNA into a protein. Thousands of nucleotides must be in a correct order for life to enter the supposed evolutionary pathway. It is a scientific argument regardless of your inability to understand the words I just wrote. 

And if God isn't allowed in science, then neither is Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything that Isaac Newton wrote about calculus or light. They both talk about God quite a bit.

No, your not doing science, your simply looking at how life works and attributing it to a designer. Im not sure why you keep directing this god and science thing at me, I never mentioned it.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:20 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm)AAA Wrote: No, it's not that life looks like a code. There IS a code with a specific order of nucleotides that must be ordered a certain (and unlikely) way to get the desired product. The science comes from all the structures in the cell that operate based on the instructions from the code, the different proteins interacting together, the epigenetic factors that influence body plan development and gene expression. The phosphorylation of proteins to change their function. The 106 proteins to translate mRNA into a protein. Thousands of nucleotides must be in a correct order for life to enter the supposed evolutionary pathway. It is a scientific argument regardless of your inability to understand the words I just wrote. 

And if God isn't allowed in science, then neither is Darwin's On the Origin of Species or anything that Isaac Newton wrote about calculus or light. They both talk about God quite a bit.

You really don't know jack!

Please enlighten me with your elite knowledge about the universe