The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

quote:

---

But how does the sandbar traverse the central median trench?

---

ForbiddenAgain, the sand bar runs the length of the Red Sea, underwater.Off topic, stay on topic, see map for furthur clarification.

HI Dennis,First, you can complain about my attitude all you like; you initially responded to my message with your infantile drivel. I was not talking to you in the first place. All you had to offer was highly distilled idiocy and the apparent inability to understand simple English. If you want intelligent responses, you might do better by having something intelligent to say. Rather than asking stupid questions in an unwarranted tone of superiority, why don't you try and explain to me why you think the odds of DNA "developing information" are so prohibitively low. Of course, you should realise that to work out the odds of an event, you need to know all the variables; do you know every last variable concerning the workings of DNA? No? Why? What has that got to do with anything? If you want to make an argument for design around water, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. I fail to see what it has to do with a designer though. If you are going to insist that water molecules are evidence of divine intervention, then it's hard to imagine how anything might not qualify as evidence. Okay, on this, we more or less agree. This differs though from your previous statement that evolution "explains lifes {sic} natural origins". Thank you very much, I shall hold you to that. You asked imbecilic questions that betray your failure to even understand what I said. I was left in the position of defending my point against your nonsense. I love it when you guys pick up on my little signature! You're always so ham-fisted with it and it's always the biggest jackasses who chose to have a go at it. Tell me, is this the first time you've encountered a figure of speech? I'll give you a clue; my sig isn't actually about biology.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Well, no, a central median trench with depths in excess of 7000' runs the length of the Red Sea.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

As you should have noticed, if you had quoted me accurately, I didn't say that DNA has no function. I said that it has no "intelligent function", no more so than a snowflake.The function of DNA is to act as a template, as it were, for the production of proteins. It has the same function in bacteria, squid, giraffes, etc. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

YOu will notice that jar said evidence. The website you proovided has no evidence. It is nothing but assertions. Please show where evidence is presented.Their supposed evidence

quote:

---

See an Update about this discovery on Page not found - Anchor Stone International and see the new depth printout at Page not found - Anchor Stone International

---

Do not go to any evidence. The second URL goes to this
"I'm sorry, that page does not exist, or you may be attempting to access an outdated link. Please visit our home page at Anchor Stone International - Ron Wyatt, Noah's Ark, Sodom & Gomorrah, Red Sea Crossing, Ark of the Covenant and click on our search button to search for the information you need."We have threads on this issue. You will notice all the information on the webpage you ahve posted has been debunked.This was actually a very feeble attempt at a gish gallop.ABEoh yeah.
You lose.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

In order for the sandbar to have been of use to Moses and his minions it would have to go across the Red sea, not run the length. Please explain how a sandbar running the length of the Red Sea would have assisted the crossing of the Red Sea.The map shows no sand bar either running the length or across. You brought up the subject in order to do a gish gallop. If you bring it up it is incumbent upon us to present the evidence to show that you have no evidence for you assertions.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Dennis, this is a free for all area and we are well past normal alloted posts. With admins permission I am sure you may be able to proceed with those topics as you wishDawn Bertot

Look if your going to change your avatar please dont go from one extreme to the other, I cant handle that ugly freak. Sharon atleast added some comfort to the pain of reading your postsDawn Bertot

It's the same avatar, just different lighting.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Of course it does butDont cream yourself with excitment oni. Order does produce clear and visible purpose, but purpose is a conclusion of order and design.Order can be tested against physical reality because that is what it produces in its properties. The eye functioning is physical and demonstratable order, to which youhave agreed.As I pointed out earlier the purpose is the result of the order, just like matter eternal and design are conclusions of order.One can dispute purpose and find relative reasons or funtions in some designed items. But one cannot realistically dispute the order itself, therfore the conclusion of design remains as valid as ever. You approval is not necessary to demonstrate something that simple and obvious.lastly, you must follow your own rules, if you require someone to prove design, then it would follow that you should demonstrate that chance and matter in motion are all that exist for matter to operate on its ownDesign and eternal matter are conclusions of observed reality. Now which of us can prove our position to he satisfaction of either

Thank you and how did you know it was order, please explainOni, ideas and concepts have to be pitted and tested against physical realites. what you have written above is philosophical jargon, not testable agains reality.Design does not need a purpose, that meets your approval, that is a philosophical conclusion not testable against reality. Now watch, things operating in logical and orderly fashion are reality and testable whether I agree that they are or not.Purpose like the shape of a crystal can be contested as purpose and design because there is no complete objective standard, unlike atoms and molecules and the such like that remain basically the same in thier order and functionTo demonstrate relative design, Im sure you are pretty much a nerd looking dude, not even as well built or good looking as I am, but inside we are the same, one the outside we share some similarites, but the design is relative because no one else looks excally like we doAnd in your case thats probably a good thing,hahahahaha."I say I say son, thats the funny stuff, are you getting any of this, nod If you are getting any of it" Foghorn LeghornDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why do you try to test us? You already told us that it did.

That would be added information in the DNA of an organism that previously did not exist, which changed its phenotype and gave it the ability to cope better in an environment than its parent population. Not barrowed, duplicated, cyclically lost, gained or replaced genes. It needs to be a beneficial mutation that demonstrates how the DNA strand could have formed to begin with. Well gee... if a single string of prime numbers equals evidence of "intelligence," then what does a DNA strand that contains enough particularized information to fill literally thousands of books the size of encyclopedias equal?

If the total number of atoms available in the entire universe are around 10⁸⁰, while most common estimates of the odds of generating one protein by unguided forces is one in 10¹³⁰, that means there are not enough atoms existing in all of the universe let alone on earth to generate one protein by chance. That's the real point here!Then if protein based life did accidentally organized on earth in the first two billion years, that means that nature would have to have been testing out 10¹¹⁴ new amino acid combinations every second. There is just not enough matter or enough time to get that lucky.No matter how you look at it, design is the only logical conclusion.

As I said, sorry. I thought when you said "design is a logical conclusion" once "purpose is recognized" you were saying you can derive design from purpose. I don't think I hold full blame for this communication error, though.When you are talking about design and a designer I rather presumed you were referring to an entity that designs things with forethought. The fact that things have a set/standard layout(ie., humans have two arms, two legs, two eyes etc etc), doesn't necessarily imply forethought so I can hardly bring myself to call it evidence for your position.It is suggestive of forethought, it certainly 'brings to mind' things which have been designed with forethought. The purpose line of thinking at least had as its merit the concept of forethought (seeing a need and designing life to fill that need).As you noted, law and order alone is insufficient to conclude design. And you seem to be suggesting that the evidence you have favours both hypothesis equally, which would essentially imply it is not evidence for your position at all.Unfortunately - the fact that no evidence says "Almost certainly designed with forethought" and a lot that suggests "Not designed with forethought" would mean that "Designed with forethought" is not on equal footing with "Not designed with forethought." In order to get them even we'd have to ignore the rest of the evidence, rather than merely considering some ambiguous subset.