(May 21, 2016 at 3:55 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:09 pm)wiploc Wrote: But that's metaphor, right?  Without the metaphor, we'd say something like, "Chemicals in the cell react to other chemicals." 

If you don't mean it as a metaphor, if you think the chemicals are literal information, then you have a circular argument:  In order for chemicals to be information, you must think that they carry a message from one intelligence to another.  Something like that.  You are building your conclusion into your premises, begging the question of whether chemistry is really information.

Well they do contain information. They aren't information. A book isn't information, but it can contain it. 

Why must I think they carry a message from one intelligence to another? That doesn't follow. But there are enzymes that read the code and use it to build other enzymes. It definitely contains information, I hope you aren't going to argue that it doesn't. Yeah it's all based on chemistry and physics, but that doesn't change the fact that it possesses information.

You claim that snowflakes are designed, and then it turns out that all you mean is that they are regular.  I'm going to assume that a discussion of "information" would come out the same way.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:58 pm)wiploc Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:51 pm)AAA Wrote: I'm saying that life contains features of design. Order is one quality, yes.

You can say that, and that's fine.  When you say that biochemists believe it, that's a different matter.

Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 12:36 pm)AAA Wrote: How is evolution a falsifiable explanation for life's systems?

You're serious?

You're serious, aren't you.

You have to be winding us up.

Do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you seriously think a scientific theory is just announced, and people accept it?

(May 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.

You fucking retarded motherfucking idiot.

Something can be referred to as a design without the obviously obtuse definition of intelligent being carelessly thrown behind it.

Grow the fuck up already.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Helios Wrote: That is what the evidence leads us to conclude, yeah.

Are you just saying that because that's what everyone else says and you think that agreeing with them makes you appear to be more intelligent?

These are the kind of sentiments you project onto someone else when you yourself have never been confronted with evidence contrary to what you want to believe and changed your mind as a result of this evidence.

In other words, you can't image what is going on in the head of someone who understands the evidence for evolution as a teleonomic process. You don't have the colors in the pallette to paint the picture. But hopefully, one day, you'll find out what it's like to put antecedent belief and social pressure aside, and just evaluate the evidence.

Then you'll be able to fulfill one of the most basic and essential requirements of rational dialogue, which is to come to the discussion in good faith and trust that (however mistaken you might believe they are), your interlocutor is sincere in their beliefs.

(May 21, 2016 at 4:03 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: You're serious?

You're serious, aren't you.

You have to be winding us up.

Do you have any idea how real science is done? Do you seriously think a scientific theory is just announced, and people accept it?

I think that would be good enough for you to accept something

(May 18, 2016 at 1:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Science cannot prove or disprove God.

Then god is an irrelevancy.

That is the crux of the matter. If God does not impact the world in a verifiable way, then God is irrelivant to the world. Or to put more simply, the invisible, silent, smelless, soundless, massless; and the nonexistent are remarkably similar.

(May 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Are you just saying that because that's what everyone else says and you think that agreeing with them makes you appear to be more intelligent?

These are the kind of sentiments you project onto someone else when you yourself have never been confronted with evidence contrary to what you want to believe changed your mind as a result of this evidence.

In other words, you can't image what is going on in the head of someone who understands the evidence for evolution as a teleonomic process. You don't have the colors in the pallette to paint the picture. But hopefully, one day, you'll find out what it's like to put antecedent belief and social pressure aside, and just evaluate the evidence.

Then you'll be able to fulfill one of the most basic and essential requirements of rational dialogue, which is to come to the discussion in good faith and trust that (however mistaken you might believe they are), your interlocutor is sincere in their beliefs.

Let's talk about the evidence then and evaluate it. 

A few days ago I read about the cooperative binding of hemoglobin molecules in our red blood cells. The hemoglobin is a tetramer ( a protein with four subunits). Cooperative binding means that when one molecule (of oxygen) binds to a subunit, oxygen will be more likely to bind to one of the other subunits. When oxygen binds to an iron ion on one subunit, it results in a conformational change that pulls an alpha helix change which separates the subunits enough to encourage oxygen to bind to one of the other subunits. This phenomenon allows the hemoglobin to release oxygen molecules efficiently to tissues. If it did not have this mechanism, we could not metabolize enough to support our bodies. Not only that, but CO2 (released from metabolizing tissues) causes the hemoglobin to release oxygen. There are also molecules that regulate this. This is a gross oversimplification of what is going on. 

Now why can't I evaluate this evidence and say that it might have been designed by an intelligence?

(May 21, 2016 at 4:28 pm)AAA Wrote: Now why can't I evaluate this evidence and say that it might have been designed by an intelligence?

I don't know.

Perhaps due to the very real fact that you have no evidence to support the intelligence to which you refer.

You are making the grave mistake of filling in the gaps.

Oh, it is a very common mistake, fear not.

However, one of your supposed caliber of knowledge should be capable of understanding precisely to what I am referring.

(May 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, at least the authors of my textbook do. Not to mention the hundreds of times my professors (not ID advocates by any means) use the term design simply because biology clearly reflects intention and precise functioning at every step.

You fucking retarded motherfucking idiot.

Something can be referred to as a design without the obviously obtuse definition of intelligent being carelessly thrown behind it.  

Grow the fuck up already.

PLEASE READ THIS. I have said many times that I know the DON"T think it was intelligently designed. They think it was designed by natural selection. 

please read it again. Please read it a third time. One more time. If you tell me again that I think they believe in ID then you will have convinced me you can't read.