Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

amusing really;
they are bursting their brains trying to reconstruct the genesis of life-- they have been unsuccesful; yet they claim it is not intelligent-- what does that make them?

answer: buffoons </div></div>

your characterizations give you away. you are stating opinions- ignorant ones- as if they are facts. they are your facts.

what it makes them is a group of people searching for and finding answers. each answer brings them closer to a solution. buffoons would simply shrug their shoulders and be unable to draw inferences from independent or convergent streams of inquiry.

they don't know. YET.

they can make very educated guesses. which I might add, is a lot more than what you have got on your hands.

you can't make one single prediction or application based on life being intelligently designed. not one.

yet with evolution being true, we have overwhelming substantive, repeatable, applicable results of discovery.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">amusing really;
they are bursting their brains trying to reconstruct the genesis of life-- they have been unsuccesful; yet they claim it is not intelligent-- what does that make them?

answer: buffoons </div></div>
I see that you believe that the careers of countless thousands of scientists over the last 150 years have been a meaningless waste of time, because they have missed a simple truth that you know. Isn't it possible your insight may have been considered?
</div></div>

i did not claim to know what they missed...the truth i do know is that they created a fancy name for a new study- abiogenesis-- which concerns itself with the origin of life;
what i do know is that <span style="font-style: italic">they</span> don't know how life originated...
they are expending great amounts of money &amp; brainpower trying to figure it out-- let alone reproduce it...they have not been able to explain or duplicate life;
so how on earth can they claim it is not intelligent?- when their own intelligence can not yet decipher it...
this is a contradiction in terms

[johnnycakes]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

The people working on the origin of life have only been doing so for a relatively short time. Think about how short a time that DNA has been used and in that short time they were able to trace human origin to southwest Africa up through northern Africa and then out to the rest of the world with just this one discovery which, prior to electron microscopy, was not possible.
The fact that they have not yet worked things out means only that they have not YET worked those things out.
It does not mean that they cannot or will not be able to do it.

Modern science is still in its infancy but is making enormous strides in knowledge of the world.
Knowledge builds on knowledge.
At one time in the not-too-distant past it was possible for one person to know all there was to know.
Today knowledge has expanded exponentially to the point where one person cannot even know all there is to know about a single thing like the human liver.

So just sit back, wait and watch what will be discovered and learned in your lifetime and don't be too quick about making hard assertions about what we can and will learn.

As someone ends their posts with:
Science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.

What would a caveman think of television or a chocolate bar for that matter ?

Well, like them we will be amazed and indeed we are sometimes amazed at what science is finding that only 100 years ago would have been unimaginable.

The fact that knowledge is not static, that what we know and what is added to our store of knowledge grows almost geometrically and that this enables us to learn more at a much faster pace just about guarantees that we will find out how life can begin with the elements that existed on Earth when life arose.

Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in your lifetime but eventually.

Don't underestimate human intelligence.

After all, we were created in WHOSE image?

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i have seen no definitive knowledge...
evolutionists can not prove their hypothesis yet claim it to be 'fact'...since when can there be 'fact' which is not proven...&amp; since you consider your take on it to be the correct one- where are your facts to support your view?
any absence of that is simply faith-- you are more religious than you realized </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">actually you have. you have introduced lots of biologic examples and tried to imply how wondrously complex they are, they can't be duplicated by man, etc etc etc, but bredren, EVERY single one I have shown you how man would and has improved on the original to make it better. Like new heart valves grown from stem cells.</div></div>

man has never produced a single cell let alone improve on one...
heart valve <span style="font-weight: bold">grown from stem <span style="text-decoration: underline">cells</span></span>...see that?
grown from cells- they have merely used what was already existing; they have never created new life

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now you are trying to say that there is no evidence that cells <span style="font-style: italic">became</span> more complex over time from more simple structures? REALLY? You haven't seen different cells compared with one another, from simpler, earlier organisms, dating back further, to more recent more complex forms?</div></div>

yes i have seen cells;
you are making a fallacious statement- implying a linear relationship between time &amp; cell complexity---that cells become more simple the further back in time we go; but that is not true;
simple cell organisms as simple as bacteria still exist to this very day; complex organisms existed as far back in time as they are able to ascertain

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if what you say is true, we would see examples of the same organisms from the dawn of the record until now. We do not see that though at all. What we DO see, is that older life appears as simpler forms and structures, and while these simple forms remain in existence, enough members of any given population EVOLVE and become more complex. </div></div>

this is incorrect as i stated above...simple &amp; complex organisms have existed side by side simultaneously way back in pre-history &amp; they still do to this very minute...



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean, I have shown you repeatedly incontrovertible proof of evolution. And I know for a fact that you would rely on the fact of evolution in a heart beat in any number of hypothetical situations despite your protestations or 'belief'.</div></div>

i have seen no proof of evolution

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you right, it just makes you remaining in ignorance.</div></div>

ignorance is a funny word...what do you call those who think they know but do not actually know?
yep- they are ignorant also

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know how many times I have to explain this, but EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL form. YOU are a transitional form, *I* am a transitional form. You don't see how humans are changing over time? Even amongst modern humans? You can't see any significant changes over time? Really? I think you are being purposefully obtuse JY.</div></div>

you are a transitionary form?
what are you transitioning into?
i mean, you were once a bacteria, then you became a fish, then you became a dinosaur, then an ape....
what will you be next?
any idea?
i mean you are changing species at a rapid rate...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't understand how you can look at simple genetic facts of inherited traits- traits which can only be shared through inheritance, and STILL claim you have not seen evidence of evolution.</div></div>

i have not seen it...
i see humans, i see apes &amp; i see fish...that is what i see;
shared inheritance is me having my father's eyes...not me having a fin

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean it is literally like you are jumping up and down and yelling at the top of your lungs that because you have never seen the earth from space, there is NO WAY it can be round. Until YOU see it.</div></div>

nope
earth was proven round before the advent of spaceships...
it could be tested by sailing toward a certain direction as far as one can go...
one would reach back to the starting point &amp; not fall off the edge of the earth...
evolution can not be proven without positively identifying the very first life forms &amp; their method of creation/ appearance...natural selection can not explain this so it is by definition an incomplete theory which picks up after the bigger mystery of the method of assembly for life...what puts it together &amp; what makes it work? expand, multiply, adapt...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is an interesting statement:

<span style="font-style: italic">does that mean that a creator would have had to make sure that we shared no genetic material with any other substance on earth or in the universe to be efficient?</span>

Can you please define for us what you think 'intelligent creator' means.

What is the signifier that we have been created intelligently.</div></div>

the form of creator or method i do not know-- but the creations are certainly intelligently designed in terms of plan &amp; function---it is more than intelligent- it is genius...
the signifier?- the laws of universal cause &amp; effect--
intelligent functional systems never come about spontaneously...digital coding &amp; transcription (the language of dna) can not be a chance occurrence..
computers have to be given intelligence in order to perform their functions...cells are very similar to computers- they just do as much processing in a much smaller space- and are able to reproduce

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because we have some glaring errors which on their face would show we have been created rather unintelligently and very inefficiently, to use your word.</div></div>

to use my words again, if these intelligent scientists can not produce so much as a single cell from scratch-- despite their fervent attempts-
they are in no position to argue that its creation/appearance is not intelligent;
it is like me saying my car was not designed intelligently...yet i don't know how to produce a car engine let alone improve on it...in that case the car manufacturer is certainly more intelligent than i am, even though i am cursing his creation at that particular time;
they now claim to have produced synthetic life; but when you read further you realize the still needed previously existing life to help them out:


<span style="font-style: italic">Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved...
The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as &quot;a defining moment in biology&quot;
The new organism is <span style="font-weight: bold">based on an existing bacterium</span> that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.</span>

seems it took some intelligence to create this...
so why do they insist organisms' design are not intelligent?



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you explain, through your model of intelligent creation, why are we no longer able to regenerate limbs?</div></div>

i am in no position to explain why our design is exactly as it is...
can you explain through your model of chance appearance why some of us chose to keep this feature (lizards) while some of us chose not to (humans)?
why did this magical supernatural force called natural selection not sort this out?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can explain this very easily through evolution, and I am dying to hear your explanation as to why an intelligent creator would give us the same set of genes as frogs but then turn off our protein switch.</div></div>

as i am to hear you explain why natural selection gave bats &amp; dolphins sonar but gave us none...
or made plants stationary while we move (we share genome with plants too)...what about that is an advantage? natural selection fell asleep there? or played a cruel joke?
you seem puzzled that we share genome with other beings but that is simply the ingredients that life is made of...by natural selection logic all plants that are eaten should have been wiped out..
you will always be at a loss attempting to explain life by comparing yourself to other animals and plants...


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That would be like building a space ship and including a car with no fuses so that it <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> work, but doesn't. Still, it is part of the spaceship.</div></div>


bad analogy...
you would not include a random car in the spaceship, you would have things in the structure of the spaceship that are used by both a car &amp; a spaceship...(metal, glass, fuel, engine, rubbers, plastics, navigation, etc.-- as these are the materials common to many motor vehicles- boats, motorcycles, submarines, etc...
just as cement might be used on a 4-foot doghouse or a thousand-foot skyscraper...



but my questions for you;
using spontaneous appearance to evolution as the model;
what form was the first organism &amp; how would you imagine that it assembled itself or became assembled into a coherent bio-system with precise, defined functions...was it only one that first appeared, or multiple life forms appearing at the same time...
if so did they all have the same form &amp; then each went its own way to evolve, or did one just split apart &amp; reproduce itself, went its own way &amp; began to adapt &amp; evolve from there?

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">amusing really;
they are bursting their brains trying to reconstruct the genesis of life-- they have been unsuccesful; yet they claim it is not intelligent-- what does that make them?

answer: buffoons </div></div>
I see that you believe that the careers of countless thousands of scientists over the last 150 years have been a meaningless waste of time, because they have missed a simple truth that you know. Isn't it possible your insight may have been considered?
</div></div>

i did not claim to know what they missed...the truth i do know is that they created a fancy name for a new study- abiogenesis-- which concerns itself with the origin of life; what i do know is that <span style="font-style: italic">they</span> don't know how life originated...they are expending great amounts of money &amp; brainpower trying to figure it out-- let alone reproduce it...they have not been able to explain or duplicate life; so how on earth can they claim it is not intelligent?- when their own intelligence can not yet decipher it... this is a contradiction in terms </div></div>
&lt;snip&gt;

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Another related error made by some creationists is the idea that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of the universe while creationism does — and, once again, evolution is inferior to creationism. However, the origins of the universe are even further removed from evolutionary theory than is the origin of life. There is some connection in that scientists seek naturalistic explanations for both, but that is simply due to the fact that they are both scientific pursuits and not because of any inherent relationship such that problems with one will undermine the other.

In both instances described above, the creationists spreading this misunderstanding are doing so for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that they simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, they mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on their attempts to critique it, however.

The second possibility is that some creationists do understand what evolution is and do understand that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe are really relevant to the truth or validity of evolutionary theory. In such cases, the creationists in question are being consciously and deliberately dishonest with their audience. Perhaps they imagine that by confusing people as to the true nature of evolution, they will be able to gain more support for their own position — a position which is, according to them, more in accordance with the will of God and Christian doctrines.

link

[johnnycakes]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Creationism is based on a belief in a God. Intelligent Design COULD be the result of aliens sowing life from planet to planet or God or??? .

Religion and ID are FAITH based. They do not need proof of anything.
Believers/creationists, because what they believe is under attack (There is no God) from people who are asking for proof of God's existence, have gotten into a very defensive attitude towards anything coming close to something that attacks their beliefs and often this makes them fight facts as in the case of evolution.

It is strikingly familiar to those on the far right (talk show fans, et al) who will not look at the other side (which they consider heresy) for fear of losing THEIR faith.




scientifically factualv

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=jah_yout]
i have seen no definitive knowledge...
evolutionists can not prove their hypothesis yet claim it to be 'fact'...since when can there be 'fact' which is not proven...&amp; since you consider your take on it to be the correct one- where are your facts to support your view?
any absence of that is simply faith-- you are more religious than you realized </div></div>

the fact is that despite your protestations, the theory of evolution is applied daily to scientific endeavors across multiple fields.

no matter how hard you try to think it is otherwise this is a simple fact. if evolution were not true, then modern science would collapse.

since it is not in any danger of collapsing, you are wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
man has never produced a single cell let alone improve on one...</div></div>

modern science is able to protect cells from damage that they can not protect themselves from.

the operative word in your statement is actually missing- that word is YET.

but one day they will, since they keep progressing and now have models which are plausible. yes that word again. which means there is enough evidence to suggest.

which is more than what you have to say, because you have no evidence. nothing backs up your belief.

your alternative is a logical absurdity. an intelligent creator which begs an intelligent creator which....ad infinitum.

that is absurd.

so if simple and complex organisms have existed side by side at the same time why is it that that is not reflected in the fossil record which clearly shows that simple organisms came first? that we still have simple cells is not a falsification of evolution being true. because evolution states that more complex organisms branch off from simpler forms- simpler forms do not necessarily die out or go extinct.

you are wrong.

as to transitional forms- modern humans ARE evolving and ARE changing. It doesn't happen in one lifetime that you will become a different species. Again, you are ignorant of what evolution states.

but anyone can plainly see micro evolution in any several hundred fruit fly generations.

macro evolution has also been recognized recently when a dog tumor evolved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i have not seen it...
i see humans, i see apes &amp; i see fish...that is what i see;
shared inheritance is me having my father's eyes...not me having a fin</div></div>

shared inheritance is YOU having a GENE that came from SALAMANDERS that WOULD allow you to REGROW limbs just like they can, but you can't, because your genetic switch that turns on that gene was damaged by a distant mutation.

ALL creatures that share that ancestry possess that gene, and where it became damaged, those creatures can no longer regenerate limbs.

Do you understand this premise and what it implies when someone says you have the exact same gene as a frog. The frog can regrow a limb. You can not, once you leave the womb.

Why?

Why is it that science, if evolution is so obviously false, why is it that science is working hard now to decode the genetic switch that <span style="font-weight: bold">will</span> allow us to regrow limbs.

Why would they even try that, spend all the money on research...if evolution were not true.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why is it that science is working hard now to decode the genetic switch that will allow us to regrow limbs.</div></div>

working hard to decode something that came about so simply &amp; unintelligently?
in hopes of re-creating or creating it?
i thought this stuff was a piece of cake

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they even try that, spend all the money on research...if evolution were not true.</div></div>

spending money to discover how genes work is proof of evolution?
these intelligent scientists should have no problem with this unintelligent stuff...
so we should be close to deciphering the lung-gill of our fish ancestors would have needed to make the transition from sea to land...
the whale is interesting because they claim it went back into the sea from land...
where is the lung-gill?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

&quot;spending money to discover how genes work is proof of evolution?&quot;

Well if our genes contain the ability to regrow limbs, that means we may have had that ability at some point in our early development but through genetic mutation, lost it.

It may also mean that that trait is yet to evolve.

Why would a Creator or ID put that in there and not have it work?
in this case it makes a lot more sense to ascribe that genetic trait to evolution.

IMO