Intelligent Design

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Why...what will happen to us?  Cut to the moneyshot missionary.

What do you make of specified nucleotide sequences that are extraordinarily unlikely that must be present before it can enter evolution?

Fiction.

What about the fine tuning of the universe?

Fiction.

What about predictions made thousands of years in advance in the Bible that came true?

Hilarious fiction.

[AAA]

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.

Sorry, maybe that was someone else who mentioned that. 

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

[ApeNotKillApe]

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.

Sorry, maybe that was someone else who mentioned that. 

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

Problem is highlighted. Intuition is not scientific.

[Silver]

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

Due to the fact that there is nothing to infer a designer.

Science has no problems stating "I don't know".

Only religion and intelligent design jumps to the erroneous conclusion of "I have the answer, and it's god."

[AAA]

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:

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:

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.

Those aren't misrepresentations. Obviously we all know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. But the fact that they are related is not up for debate. My second statement was true. Tell me how information can be added to organisms? You actually think mutation is capable of helping the organisms.?

[Mr.wizard]

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.

Sorry, maybe that was someone else who mentioned that. 

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

You can infer what ever you want, but that's not science.

[AAA]

Sorry, maybe that was someone else who mentioned that. 

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

Problem is highlighted. Intuition is not scientific.

infer and intuition are different. I infer it based on evidence. How could anyone prove anything (that isn't repeatable) in your mind? Is it possible?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

Because it doesn't bear any hallmarks of design. It looks more like trial and error.

Boru

[Silver]

I infer it based on evidence.

Nope.

[AAA]

And evolutionists don't do this?

No, which clearly shows how little you know of science and evolution.

Actually the fact that you think evolutionists don't have presuppositions shows your misunderstanding of the character of scientists.