[_ Old Earth _] Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal.

[BobRyan]

I think what I need to do is step back and try to grasp Bob's argument.


Correct me if I'm wrong at any step:

Circuits can be designed by engineers that can code and decrypt EM radiation signals and pick them up at a certain frequency,

Indeed they have "understood" the science of differentiating in favor of ID wave forms and against back ground noise. So as you flig through the channels on Radio or TV you are not bombarded by static (as in the ancient times with TVs) where YOU have to be the one to "distinguish" between ID wave forms and simple static "background noise".

The "science" in that exercise is such that circuits themselves are built to perform the task.

therefore...Finding ID in nature and the universe is a legitimate scientific pursuit therefore...
We should have the 'academic freedom' to 'admit' (not show evidence for?) that things which are complex are designed

Back to reason.

Therefore the circuits DO NOT have to engage in "abstract philosophy" as they filter IN FAVOR of ID wave forms and against background noise EVEN as they SCAN across the frequency bandwidth.

Hint: the TV WORKS so also do Radio Scanning circuits. Too late to suppose that they would need a "philosophy circuit" to filter in favor of ID wave forms.

and also...
Evolution is not 'proven' because lab experiments can't show every single prediction and facet of it

Wrong. As Patterson points out when HE ASKS for even ONE THING (regarding the salient point of evolutionism that differentiates it from common micro-evolution claims of creationists) PROVEN in the LAB.

As Patterson pointed out - You have to DO science to HAVE science -- you can not simply "tell stories".

(despite the mere thought of an experiment running long enough to demonstrate significant evolutionary change in a multicellular species being mind-boggling) nor create life in the lab (as if that would matter, of course, we can't make an earthquake but we still study what causes them and what they do)

wrong. WE CAN study the physics for an earthquake, tidal wave, hurricane, tornado IN the lab.

The gross equivocation between hard sciences like physics chemistry and math - vs the "story-telling non-science" exercises so common for promoting atheist darwinist orthodoxy is simply another "story" equally as transparent in its lack of substance 'in actual science' as many others in darwinism.

but there is not yet more evidence for design in nature than there is for the evolutionary origin of species.

wrong. Therer are no electronic circuits for "evolutoinisms story-telling". They do not find it at all in nature. Evolutionism can not be detected -- period BECAUSE "TELLING STORIES about how one thing came from another IS NOT SCIENCE" as Patterson points out.

And without that - you do not have evolutionism.

OK, just one last thing. Why do humans have the gene for synthesizing vitamin C but damaged and disabled? Is this evidence against humans being the product of intelligent design or not, and why?

Someone who can not master even one logic-circuit who then goes on to critique Blue Gene's buffering architecture or massively parallel design "is less than impressive". One is not advised to spend a lot of resources following up on such lightweight critique "in thought".

Surely you see that.

ALSO ID does NOT argue that all facets of nature exhibit design -- just as tuning circuits do not have to FIRST discover that every aspect of the universe is designed BEFORE finding an ID wave form.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Indeed they have "understood" the science of differentiating in favor of ID wave forms and against back ground noise. So as you flig through the channels on Radio or TV you are not bombarded by static (as in the ancient times with TVs) where YOU have to be the one to "distinguish" between ID wave forms and simple static "background noise".

The "science" in that exercise is such that circuits themselves are built to perform the task.

Again with the false comparison?

You are comparing a system in which a natural being manipulates a signal in order for said signal to be picked up by a machine built by another natural being and presented in such a way that a natural being can decipher what was picked up.

Science.

Not at all comparable to an entity outside of nature creating nature and an entity within that nature being able to decipher and detect that it was designed by said outside of nature entity.

Logical fallacy.

Wrong. As Patterson points out when HE ASKS for even ONE THING (regarding the salient point of evolutionism that differentiates it from common micro-evolution claims of creationists) PROVEN in the LAB.

As Patterson pointed out - You have to DO science to HAVE science -- you can not simply "tell stories".

If you understood science, you would realize that someone asking anything to be proven does not.

Heck, you can't even prove to me that you exist. (assuming you mean 100% surety when you use the term proven...)

wrong. WE CAN study the physics for an earthquake, tidal wave, hurricane, tornado IN the lab.

Yeah and we can study fossils, genetics, etc. in the lab.

Which is the same as studying anything in regards to the earthquake itself. We can't get into the earth to pull up a chair and see the earthquake up front, but we can study things closer to the surface, and use measuring devices to peer into the inner workings of the earthquake.

wrong. Therer are no electronic circuits for "evolutoinisms story-telling". They do not find it at all in nature. Evolutionism can not be detected -- period BECAUSE "TELLING STORIES about how one thing came from another IS NOT SCIENCE" as Patterson points out.

And without that - you do not have evolutionism.

So, what is all of the electrical equipment that is used in genetic sequencing?

Patashu:

OK, just one last thing. Why do humans have the gene for synthesizing vitamin C but damaged and disabled? Is this evidence against humans being the product of intelligent design or not, and why?

Bobryan replied
Someone who can not master even one logic-circuit who then goes on to critique Blue Gene's buffering architecture or massively parallel design "is less than impressive". One is not advised to spend a lot of resources following up on such lightweight critique "in thought".

Surely you see that.

ALSO ID does NOT argue that all facets of nature exhibit design -- just as tuning circuits do not have to FIRST discover that every aspect of the universe is designed BEFORE finding an ID wave form.

Obviously.

Is this a proper response?

To me it seems that you are exhibiting the very thing that ID has been criticized all along for. Laziness.

If we don't understand it, don't worry about it. The designer made it that way and we should just accept it and move on.

Sorry, I like my planes, trains, automobiles, and computers. Therefore I will stick with science over ID.

 

[BobRyan]

I have just demonstrated the fact that ATHEIST DARWINISTs themselves argue in favor of the blatatnly religionist positions of the non-science we know today as "darwinism" - at this link on THIS discussion thread.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=75#p387717

That is back just ONE page where we see that even a well known icon of atheist darwinists admitsto this "Religious argument" coming from what HE calls "Anti knowledge" within darwnism where they merely assume "the fact while claiming ignorance as to the means".

By CONTRAST we have PROVEN science SHOWING ID success in NATURE when it comes to one of the four forces of nature - exectromagnatism and the design of electronic circuits capable of discriminating in FAVOR of EM wave forms showing ID vs background noise.

The contrast between that PROVEN science and what an atheist darwinist such as Patterson calls "Anti-knowledge" and "story telling" in Darwinism COULD NOT be greater!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since the foxhole strategy of many atheist darwinist devotees is to "pretend not to notice" the devastating sections of the argument when confronted by evidence -- I will repeat what even their own atheist darwinist icon has said on the subject.

Dr. Frair quotes Colin Patterson: NY American Museum of Natural History – talk - 1981.

Colin PATTERSON:




about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

(Patterson took the words of Neal C. Gillespie alleging that the "pre-Darwinian creationist paradigm" was "'...not a research-governing theory, since its power to explain is only verbal, but an anti-theory, a void that has the function of knowledge, but conveys none'" and suggested ")...It must seem to you that I'm either misguided or malicious to suggest that such words can be applied to evolutionary theory.

"...Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?...I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely void, not just a lack of knowledge-I think it has been positively anti-knowledge. "...

What about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge but has it conveyed any?...It is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it.
...

(Again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered with this- ) "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: (saying) 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, IF you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here... "...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

HMMM - they "plead ignorance as to the means while affirming only the facts" -- what an interseting expose on atheist darwinist dogma.

And the "insightful" comment from our atheist darwinists here?

Is this a proper response?

To me it seems that you are exhibiting the very thing that ID has been criticized all along for. Laziness.

If we don't understand it, don't worry about it. The designer made it that way and we should just accept it and move on.

Sorry, I like my planes, trains, automobiles, and computers.

How sad that these guys do not seem to even appreciate the argument when it comes from one of their OWN.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When Patashu claims to be able to "out design God" while also claiming that he can not manage to come up with (by way of HIS own design) even ONE single celled life form --

I respond with the analogy for Patashu showing the lack of substance in his argument

Bobryan replied
Someone who can not master even one logic-circuit who then goes on to critique Blue Gene's buffering architecture or massively parallel design "is less than impressive". One is not advised to spend a lot of resources following up on such lightweight critique "in thought".

Surely you see that.

ALSO ID does NOT argue that all facets of nature exhibit design -- just as tuning circuits do not have to FIRST discover that every aspect of the universe is designed BEFORE finding an ID wave form.

Obviously.

Ok -- so far just stating the glaringly obvious.

Then we get the much-anticipated "I don't understand" response from atheist darwinist observers.

VZero4me
Is this a proper response?

Again -- how sad.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

Indeed they have "understood" the science of differentiating in favor of ID wave forms and against back ground noise. So as you flig through the channels on Radio or TV you are not bombarded by static (as in the ancient times with TVs) where YOU have to be the one to "distinguish" between ID wave forms and simple static "background noise".

The "science" in that exercise is such that circuits themselves are built to perform the task.

Again with the false comparison?

You are comparing a system in which a natural being manipulates a signal in order for said signal to be picked up by a machine built by another natural being and presented in such a way that a natural being can decipher what was picked up.

Science.

Still missing the point VZ4M -

ID science is not concerned with WHO the designer is -- just that something exhibits design.

The circuits that discriminate FOR ID in EM wave forms DO NOT FIRST seek to know the designer of the EM wave form.

Hint: There is no philosophy circuit there.

ALL real SCIENCE can do when evaluating the wave forms is to filter out background noise EVEN if the function is to SCAN across the bandwidth rather than dwell on one frequence or pattern. Doesn't matter what you THINK of the designer of the wave form or how "Acceptable" that source for design might be to atheists. The science for detecting those wave forms (no matter which direction you are facing) is the same.

Not at all comparable to an entity outside of nature creating nature

That is simply the blind circular argument of atheist dogmatists that have to continually worry about the "SOURCE of DESIGN".

Admittedly all SOURCE of DESIGN doctrines (about how there IS NO GOD) have to continually worry about admitting to design IF THE SOURCE might be a religiously anathema source.

Nice of you to keep pointing that out.

But that is not the concern in ID science. NO need to philosophize about what the DESIGNER may be having for breakfast before detecting design IN the part of nature (EM wave forms for example) being analyzed.

At least not if you are willing to distance your science from the religious concerns of atheists.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

ID science is not concerned with WHO the designer is -- just that something exhibits design.

Oh come on, no one is fooled by that yack. Everyone very well knows who they claim the designer is.



No matter how you try to white wash it, there are two choices:

1. Natural designer, which of course begs the question…..
2. Super natural designer, which makes ID non-science by default.

Which is it, or is there a 3rd option?

 

[BobRyan]

ID science is not concerned with WHO the designer is -- just that something exhibits design.

Oh come on, no one is fooled by that yack. Everyone very well knows who they claim the designer is.

This is the blind atheist argument that ANY science finding data inconvenient to atheists MUST be YEC!!

Such transparently religionist foxhole defensive statements are always accepted as "less than compelling" posts by the objective unbiased readers.

Why do you even bother? Why not make an actual point instead?

Then of course you offer to give us the atheist's anxiety over any science that aDMITS to seeing design in nature -- anxiety that ID science DOES NOT have to worry about because ID is simply "the Academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads EVEN if the data leads to a conclusion in favor of DESIGN that does not pander to the anxieties dogmas and doctrines of nervous atheist darinists"

Atheist darwinist fears that go something like this

No matter how you try to white wash it, there are two choices:

1. Natural designer, which of course begs the question…..
2. Super natural designer, which makes ID non-science by default.

Which is it, or is there a 3rd option?

Well - let's look at the EM wave form -- HOW many "religion and philosophy" circuits were NEEDED to discriminate AGAINST background noise when executing function such as "SCAN"?

None?

How "instructive".

ID is in search of DESIGN -- period. Which is why it is not acceptable to the YEC group as a substitute for their argument.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Bob's denials notwithstanding, the guys who invented ID have admitted that it's a religion. Not publicly, of course, but an internal memo leaked out and became widely known.

Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

After some initial denials, they admitted the document was authentic. Now they simply deny that it says what it says.