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

What makes plasmids so special? Eukaryotes have chromosomes which can all be viewed as separate, non-circular plasmids if you want to. Actually, when DNA damage occurs in bacteria it triggers the SOS response which includes the upregulation of error prone polymerases and recombinases. The random mutation rate and random recombination rate is elevated in hostile environments. This is the observed mechanism. The evolution of tetrapods resulted in the loss of the pre-existing function of fins to produce legs. Why is this a problem? How is modification of pre-existing structures a problem for evolution since this is exactly what the theory proposes?

And of course I could not prove your conclusion wrong. But now watch, even if I disagreed with your conclusion, both postions on each side woud be tenable and acceptable as far as evidnec goesIve said it before and I will say it again, your disapproval of obvious oder, leading to the conclusion of design, does nothing to remove it as acceptable both logically and practically.Therefore since both are tenable and reasonable from a logical and physical standpoint, both should be tuaght, since both follow all the same rules of evidence and science.Really what science or your type of scientist want is for us to prove what they do not require in thier own philosophies and "science"Both design and evo should be taught in the classroom, concerning the make-up, mechanics and origin of physical propertiesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Its not a matter of purpose, its a matter of what is logical and acceptable as evidence. You are perfectly happy to run with the conlcusion of atheism, when coupled with evolution.Its not a matter of your desires but what is acceptable as logical and demonstratable from the available evidenceThink only in logical terms not emotional onesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

But I didn't disapprove, so you clearly didn't read my post. I'll take your evasion as concession that you cannot tell me the clear purpose of life without making the mistake of saying its purpose is to do what it does - which is clearly not an answer. My apologies I thought I was talking to a person that made the claim

quote:

---

The result of the order is a CLEAR PURPOSE. Only an idiot would not acknowledge something so simple. Once the purpose is defind and recognized, design is a logical conclusion of that intricate design

---

Since that person seemed to suggest that once we have defined the purpose, and recognized it we could logically infer design. I was wondering what the defined purpose of life was, you see. But since you don't think purpose is relevant I won't waste any more of your time Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Stay focused Oni, I didnt introduce purpose, M did. Purpose is irrelevant to logical and demonstratable evidence. I dont need to demonstrate design anymore than you need to demonstrate matter eternal, if your conclusion is already, these things do it by theirselfAll I need to demonstrate is order and law, the conlcusion of which could logically be design, the same way you conclude matter etrernal by whatever means you do.I cannot show you design anymore than you can show me matter eternal, but that is what you would need to prove evolution is a product of mindless eternal matter, or demonstrate my design position wrong.Guys go pick up a good book on rational thinking when you get an extra minute, ha haDawn Bertot

Purpose to the demonstration of order, hence design is your strawman not mineLike design and matter eternal, purpose is a conclusion either established by the evidence or not. It does not mater whether you can demonstrate purposeMy answer to purpose is as good as anyones, but purpose, design and matter ETERNAL are not the issues. What can be deduced logically from the evidence is what is at stake.I expected better of you Modulous. I have considered you the Spock and data of the boardShame on youDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im sorry its simply not relevant, because it is a conclusion, not provable, like both sidesBut since both sides are demonstratable both should be taught

Well obviously. But you seemed to suggest that purpose was CLEAR, and once recognized - could be used to logically infer design. If you are now saying that purpose does not serve as evidence then I consider my input in this thread a success. Maybe I'll look at some other claims of evidence to see if they really are evidence. If you want to shame someone, humility is the key, Dawn.Now - I'm sorry that I interpreted the words "Once the purpose is defind and recognized, design is a logical conclusion" was a statement that would imply you were making logical deductions from the evidence which is purpose. I'm sorry I thought it might be interesting to see how you defined the purpose of life to see if we could try logically inferring design from it.Maybe, given how I have not met your intellectual expectations - you could enlighten me as to what your words, "Once the purpose is defind and recognized, design is a logical conclusion", actually meant?

You cant be serious. Why does it have to be from one species to another. Why cant I just show you a charactistic in the human body, the eye for example , how it benifits the body and hence was designed to do soOr how the male benifits the female, etc.Watch your straw menDawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Think about it logically modulous. Where evidence of the absolute nature is not available, the best evidence is what we use, correct?You must have some positive evidence (some argument to set out in logical form)for concluding God does not exist besides, there is no evidence to you, correct.?In this situation, design based on available evidence is both logical and reasonable, therefore tenable as evidence goes I was kidding of course, I still consider you the best intellectual here outside of jaywill and Iano, which I have to read several times over Not a problem. I can see to me what seems to be a valid purpose, but purpose is still a conclusion. it is not how i derive my conclusion. The actual available evidence serves that purposedawn bertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sure you did, when you gave your definition of order.See: No, you said purpose was demonstratable, and useful, and clearly visible.That was how you logically concluded design, because order produced a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose.Are you now saying that order does NOT produced a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose? I keep seeing you write that, but I have no clue what matter eternal is. Can you explain that?However, you do need to demonstrate evidence for design in this thread. And you did. It was order, which you define as: "properties working together in a harmonious and logical fashion to produce a clearly visible, demonstratable and useful purpose."Now, if you wish to redefine that better, to the actual definition of order, and remove the "demonstratable purpose" part, do so.But, note that properties arranged in a harmonious fashion is in no way evidence for design. A design needs purpose, you actually do need to show evidence of purpose for order to be evidence of design. If not, it's just order. Then do you concede that you have no evidence for design? Because that's exactly what we all have been saying. We have, we told you there was no evidence, that you couldn't show us evidence for design.And you have apparently admitted that you can't.In your words: "I cannot show you design."So I guess this debate is over.- Oni

I get what you're saying.You take the available evidence that science has been able to produce in fields like cosmology, biology and chemistry (that you don't understand) and from that, conclude that it's logical and reasonable to suggest it was designed.Scientist, however, take the same available evidence that science has been able to produce in fields like cosmology, biology and chemistry (that they DO understand) and conclude nothing about the origin of the universe.So you see, you're the only one trying to establish a valid model for the origin of existence based on limited evidence. And, since logical conclusions are limited to the available evidence, it is clear that you are limited as to what you can conclude about the origin of existence.Our side doesn't do that. We recognize the limits and accept them as such, rendering no conclusions about the origin of existence.It seems to me that logically, no one should be making ANY claims about the origin of existence.- Oni

quote:

---

Now that you point it out, I realize that only a fool would take the Bible literally. Anyone with a brain knows that it needs to be interpreted in a metaphorical sense.

---

So I need not bring up the chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea, along a sand bar the stretches across it, right where the Bible claims Moses parted the sea with his staff, and the Egyptians were consumed by it.

quote:

---

They're not really wise, and they can't actually talk either. Especially not about eating forbidden fruit.

---

Off topic for this thread, but I'll respond. If ID supported christian religion, you would have a point, but you don't, because they don't. Just as any other religion that believes that the earth was formed over millions of years would have nothing to do with evolution.But if Biblical Christianity is true, then possession was, and is possible, since there are powers at work with the ability to do so. The serpent in Genesis was not the only animal to speak:"27 When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff. 28 Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" 29 Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now." 30 The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said. 31 Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown. "
Numbers 22:27-31So the real question here is not can snakes talk, but rather is it possible that God exists. If a supernatural being exists, then he may very well have the power to influence or possess animals to do things impossible to the natural species.But you believe in chemical evolution, so the odds of animals speaking should be well within your grasp.

Too funny. Maybe you will actually be the very first person that can actually present even a shred of evidence in support of that nonsense.Of course, even if you could support that assertion it would add zero support to the topic of this thread.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There are no chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, nor any sandbar across it, as you can plainly see in Google Earth.