Evidence of Intelligent Design (BIG Post)

[Mr.Cat]

Quote

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.

DNA is likely designed
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves.  These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals.  These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA.  The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code.  Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.  Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
This phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system – which really means any system of sufficient complexity – of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.

During transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to inter molecular friction and collisions. A certain amount of “transformation energy” S will be expended as the molecules of the “working body” do work on each other when they change from one state to another.  Should the process be reversed, that energy S will typically NOT be recoverable. Theoretically-speaking, a reversible process, or reversible cycle, can be “reversed” by means of applying infinitesimal changes to some property of the system, as long as this process can occur without entropy production – that is to say, without any dissipation of energy in the system.

Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system remains in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process.  BUT… and it’s a big but…

Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. A system that undergoes an irreversible process may still be capable of returning to its initial state.  However, the impossibility occurs in restoring the environment to its own initial conditions because an irreversible process increases the entropy of the Universe. But, because entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is the same whether the process is reversible or irreversible.  The second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible or not.

Defining Entropy
Broadly speaking, entropy is then a measure of ‘disorder’. Classic examples for depicting entropy include:

a dropped cup or egg: it will smash into pieces upon reaching the floor, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup or an unbroken egg. a hot cup of coffee: it will always cool down if left untouched, but it will never draw warmth from a room to heat itself back up.

what does this has to do with our subject?

According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

Fruit Fly
This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others.  Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.  Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – that is not the argument, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

In defense
Technically there are some ways "new information" can be created with Gene Duplication yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. Also perhaps in some cases mutations can “undo” anything they “can do but the proponents of intelligent design aren’t asking how complex structures can degrade, but rather how complex structures can be built in the first place.

In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study. Axe calculated that when a “multi-mutation feature” requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.4 He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds. That implies that protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme — the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen — would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth’s history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the “edge” of what Darwinian evolution can do.

An empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. The reason the gene could not be fixed was because it got stuck on a local fitness maxima, where it was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would “find” the mutations that fixed the gene.

This corroborates a 2010 review paper by Michael Behe in Quarterly Review of Biology which found that when bacteria and viruses undergo adaptations at the molecular level, they tend to lose or diminish molecular functions.

The problem here, again, is that sometimes mutations can’t “do” what they can “undo”: sometimes it’s more advantageous in the short term to take a path that leads away from a complex structure, even if that structure would lead to a significant advantage.

The take-home message here is that the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

Order versus Disorder.
There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life.  It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule.  The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.”  Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

Someone might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible with the knowledge have so far!

Alien life
Its also important to point out how unlikely it is we are the first ever life form created in the whole universe if life is something that is created by chance or some unknown law. Even worst, if we assume that our universe is infinite not only our chances that we are the first is unlikely but impossible. Why do i mention life on earth being the first? Because if we are not the first life form in existence then it would be more likely even if an Alien civilization (a orderly being) designed our DNA or a version of it than our DNA being created directly from chance alone.

To go back to the original argument of this point. Why is it, that a theory like that of intelligent design is not supported more than the theory of chance by scientists considering the fact that the evidence show order is more likely to come from order and not disorder and everything mentioned previously?

Consciousness (the philosophically colloquial 'type' of consciousness)
Even if we can come up with a theory about the origin of life outside of intelligent design, it is impossible to come up with a theory on consciousness and the reason of its evolution from chance. Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red? One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences. The argument here is that not only consciousness is not needed for evolution to occur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), but there is ultimately no reason for consciousness to evolve if we assume life is not designed but rather its the result of a process based on chance. If we on the other hand assume that life was designed, consciousness then can be explained as being an intentional piece of the creation by the designer and thus part of the creation. Lastly, If we assume that consciousness was always a part of the universe or matter (something scientific materialism and scientist who support this idea like to assume) then that would mean the universe is conscious since consciousness is part of the universe. If the universe is  conscious then this again suggests intelligent design.

https://justpaste.it/39ryu

[iNow]

Just paste it, indeed. 🙄

 

https://www.google.com/search?q="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.+These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS796US796&oq="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.++These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&aqs=chrome..69i57.1393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Phi for All]

You've plagiarized several already refuted websites to stitch this bullshit together. Why should anyone respond to your idiot copypasta?

Great example of how ID has to cheat, deceive, and lie to gain traction with the uneducated.

[exchemist]

34 minutes ago, Mr.Cat said:

DNA is likely designed
Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves.  These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals.  These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer from what the evidence suggest so far. We know of millions of examples of intelligence producing codes, yet non that dont include intelligence. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA.  The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code.  Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols.  Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

All natural complex processes are irreversible - Entropy
This phenomenon of irreversibility results from the fact that if a thermodynamic system – which really means any system of sufficient complexity – of interacting molecules is brought from one thermodynamic state to another, the configuration or arrangement of the atoms and molecules in the system will change in a way that is not easily predictable.

During transformation, there will be a certain amount of heat energy loss or dissipation due to inter molecular friction and collisions. A certain amount of “transformation energy” S will be expended as the molecules of the “working body” do work on each other when they change from one state to another.  Should the process be reversed, that energy S will typically NOT be recoverable. Theoretically-speaking, a reversible process, or reversible cycle, can be “reversed” by means of applying infinitesimal changes to some property of the system, as long as this process can occur without entropy production – that is to say, without any dissipation of energy in the system.

Due to these infinitesimal changes, the system remains in thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the entire process.  BUT… and it’s a big but…

Since it would take an infinite amount of time for the reversible process to finish, perfectly reversible processes are impossible. A system that undergoes an irreversible process may still be capable of returning to its initial state.  However, the impossibility occurs in restoring the environment to its own initial conditions because an irreversible process increases the entropy of the Universe. But, because entropy is a state function, the change in entropy of a system is the same whether the process is reversible or irreversible.  The second law of thermodynamics can be used to determine whether a process is reversible or not.

Defining Entropy
Broadly speaking, entropy is then a measure of ‘disorder’. Classic examples for depicting entropy include:

a dropped cup or egg: it will smash into pieces upon reaching the floor, but those pieces will never spontaneously recombine back into a cup or an unbroken egg. a hot cup of coffee: it will always cool down if left untouched, but it will never draw warmth from a room to heat itself back up.

what does this has to do with our subject?

According to Darwinian evolution, the necessities of the environment, random mutation and natural selection working together caused the antelope to grow a longer neck and become a giraffe.  Natural Selection is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again.
But most people will be very surprised to discover that no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. In communication systems, Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it similar to entropy.
A Snowy TV In communication systems is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy.  Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. In a similar sense, random mutations will act the same way, thus random mutation is probably not the source of biodiversity. Not only that, but as mentioned previously, random mutation hasn't demonstrated the ability to create new information in a lab.

Fruit Fly
This observation is also confirmed biologically by Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments, and others.  Decades of research were conducted in the early 20 th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures.  These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.  Giraffes may have evolved from antelopes – that is not the argument, and I remain open to the possibility that it did. But it certainly wasn’t because of Random Mutation!

In defense
Technically there are some ways "new information" can be created with Gene Duplication yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. Also perhaps in some cases mutations can “undo” anything they “can do but the proponents of intelligent design aren’t asking how complex structures can degrade, but rather how complex structures can be built in the first place.

In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

Douglas Axe demonstrated the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce multi-mutation features in a 2010 peer-reviewed study. Axe calculated that when a “multi-mutation feature” requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.4 He provided empirical backing for this conclusion from experimental research he earlier published in the Journal of Molecular Biology, finding that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds. That implies that protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme — the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen — would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes, exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth’s history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the “edge” of what Darwinian evolution can do.

An empirical study by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke similarly found that when merely two mutations along a stepwise pathway were required to restore function to a bacterial gene, even then the Darwinian mechanism failed. The reason the gene could not be fixed was because it got stuck on a local fitness maxima, where it was more advantageous to delete a weakly functional gene than to continue to express it in the hope that it would “find” the mutations that fixed the gene.

This corroborates a 2010 review paper by Michael Behe in Quarterly Review of Biology which found that when bacteria and viruses undergo adaptations at the molecular level, they tend to lose or diminish molecular functions.

The problem here, again, is that sometimes mutations can’t “do” what they can “undo”: sometimes it’s more advantageous in the short term to take a path that leads away from a complex structure, even if that structure would lead to a significant advantage.

The take-home message here is that the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth. There are good reasons to expect that random mutations cannot build many complex features we see in biology. Some non-random process that can “look ahead” and find complex advantageous features is necessary.

Order versus Disorder.
There are some things that we know happen constantly. Things tend to go from order to disorder.. Order can create order easily, (humans giving birth to other humans or creating codes as mentioned previously, music, structures like the pyramids of Giza..etc). Disorder can sometimes create order as well, but the probability for disorder to create order is very very very small.. Considering an intelligent being as orderly (or maybe order itself?), wouldn't the natural path to human existence and life itself (something orderly) come easier from something with orderly characteristics similar to its creation rather than disorder? (chance?)

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

To point out the burden placed on chance by evolution, Allen Cornell, in the journal, “Firm Foundation” calculated the likelihood that one million monkeys typing randomly would produce the phrase “Why not creation?”  If the monkeys typed at the rate of 10 keys per second, all worked 24 hours a day, all have typewriters equipped with only 30 keys (26 capital letters, three punctuation marks, and a space key) and hit the keys entirely at random the monkeys would produce the phrase once every 41 billion years and this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form.

Furthermore, he says, “The burden on chance does not just occur at the point of the origin of life.  It reoccurs at every point in the evolutionary concept that demands the emergence of an entire new protein molecule.  The genetic material, and the proteins that it codes for the production of, is the point where we have to place unmerited faith in chance.”  Not only this, but the necessity of chance in the evolution of the plant world is also often overlooked.

Order points to a designer everywhere
If you find a deck of cards, the odds of it being in any particular order are 1 in 10^68. So if it is a Jack of Spades, followed by a Queen of Hearts, followed by a 1 of Diamonds, the chances are not good enough to claim that someone did it. however, if you find it in order, we can safely say that we have more evidence that it was arranged by someone with the intent of ordering the cards numerically than saying it is there by chance. This is exactly how detectives solve crimes. They are looking for patterns of order and repetition to come to a conclusion and follow a path that will lead them to finding the murderer. Lets add another example. When you see the ancient pyramid, a structure with order. Do you assume it was randomly formed that way or do you assume that it is made by an intelligent civilization? So how come with evolution we conclude the opposite?

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution
Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense.

Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most.

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

Someone might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible with the knowledge have so far!

Alien life
Its also important to point out how unlikely it is we are the first ever life form created in the whole universe if life is something that is created by chance or some unknown law. Even worst, if we assume that our universe is infinite not only our chances that we are the first is unlikely but impossible. Why do i mention life on earth being the first? Because if we are not the first life form in existence then it would be more likely even if an Alien civilization (a orderly being) designed our DNA or a version of it than our DNA being created directly from chance alone.

To go back to the original argument of this point. Why is it, that a theory like that of intelligent design is not supported more than the theory of chance by scientists considering the fact that the evidence show order is more likely to come from order and not disorder and everything mentioned previously?

Consciousness (the philosophically colloquial 'type' of consciousness)
Even if we can come up with a theory about the origin of life outside of intelligent design, it is impossible to come up with a theory on consciousness and the reason of its evolution from chance. Explaining how something as complex as consciousness can emerge from a grey, jelly-like lump of tissue in the head is arguably the greatest scientific challenge of our time. The brain is an extraordinarily complex organ, consisting of almost 100 billion cells – known as neurons – each connected to 10,000 others, yielding some ten trillion nerve connections.

We have made a great deal of progress in understanding brain activity, and how it contributes to human behaviour. But what no one has so far managed to explain is how all of this results in feelings, emotions and experiences. How does the passing around of electrical and chemical signals between neurons result in a feeling of pain or an experience of red? One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can’t look inside someone’s head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. We know that consciousness exists not through experiments but through our immediate awareness of our feelings and experiences. The argument here is that not only consciousness is not needed for evolution to occur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), but there is ultimately no reason for consciousness to evolve if we assume life is not designed but rather its the result of a process based on chance. If we on the other hand assume that life was designed, consciousness then can be explained as being an intentional piece of the creation by the designer and thus part of the creation. Lastly, If we assume that consciousness was always a part of the universe or matter (something scientific materialism and scientist who support this idea like to assume) then that would mean the universe is conscious since consciousness is part of the universe. If the universe is  conscious then this again suggests intelligent design.

https://justpaste.it/39ryu

This is very tedious.

You do not understand entropy for a start. There is no reason why nature cannot spontaneously produce a lower entropy system from  a higher entropy one, provided more entropy is created in the process elsewhere. This is what  happens every time a crystal forms, for instance.

Secondly, the whole notion of "design" in nature is a useless concept from a scientific point of view, because there is no way to define it objectively.  There is thus no way to determine whether or not anything is designed.

Thirdly, the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design was blown out out of the water years ago and its founder (a lawyer of course, not a scientist) is now dead.  

 

[Mr.Cat]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

Just paste it, indeed. 🙄

 

https://www.google.com/search?q="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.+These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS796US796&oq="Many+patterns+occur+in+nature+without+the+help+of+a+designer+–+snowflakes%2C+tornados%2C+hurricanes%2C+sand+dunes%2C+stalactites%2C+rivers+and+ocean+waves.++These+patterns+are+the+natural+result+of+what+scientists+categorize+as+chaos+and+fractal"&aqs=chrome..69i57.1393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

i literally wrote it.  Thats my account on hack forums lmao

Edited April 12, 2022 by Mr.Cat

[iNow]

That doesn't make it any better... the fact that you're spamming this all around the internet

[Mr.Cat]

53 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This is very tedious.

You do not understand entropy for a start. There is no reason why nature cannot spontaneously produce a lower entropy system from  a higher entropy one, provided more entropy is created in the process elsewhere. This is what  happens every time a crystal forms, for instance.

Secondly, the whole notion of "design" in nature is a useless concept from a scientific point of view, because there is no way to define it objectively.  There is thus no way to determine whether or not anything is designed.

Thirdly, the pseudoscience of Intelligent Design was blown out out of the water years ago and its founder (a lawyer of course, not a scientist) is now dead.  

 

This doesnt really address my points. 

Just now, iNow said:

That doesn't make it any better... the fact that you're spamming this all around the internet

i am looking to discuss the subject somewhere else. How is that spamming? 

[iNow]

I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you

[Mr.Cat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

You've plagiarized several already refuted websites to stitch this bullshit together. Why should anyone respond to your idiot copypasta?

Great example of how ID has to cheat, deceive, and lie to gain traction with the uneducated.

Well can you at least show me where my points have been already refuted?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Mr.Cat said:

Well can you at least show me where my points have been already refuted?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

[swansont]

When we ask for evidence, the implication is scientific evidence. That is, evidence that supports an hypothesis while excluding competing ones. Add to this the notion that science has to be, in principle, falsifiable.

ID ticks off neither of these boxes. And it ignores the question of who designed the designer.

[Mr.Cat]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

When we ask for evidence, the implication is scientific evidence. That is, evidence that supports an hypothesis while excluding competing ones. Add to this the notion that science has to be, in principle, falsifiable.

ID ticks off neither of these boxes. And it ignores the question of who designed the designer.

Yes and i fully agree with this. I stated what scientific evidence is here.

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

Evidence in science and scientific theories
In science the primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof... and evidence has many forms. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists have to prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem. In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.

There is no better theory?
So its puzzling to put is nicely as to why the currently accepted theory for our creation and everything around us is a process that starts from disorder and ends to order. It almost seems as if science goes backwards here. To believe that matter organized itself into complex information systems against everything we know and observe obviously requires faith. Not only faith, but blind faith!

I am not an Intelligent design advocate. I am using some of their arguments as evidence for the concept of intelligent design.

ID might ignore the question of who designed the designer ( but i don't really think they do), but i don't.  I support that the evidence we have so far show that our creator has consciousness just like we do and thus purpose for creating us.

[Peterkin]

Same misconceptions, misinterpretations, misrepresentations and fallacious deductions, all packaged up with bolded headings.

I particularly appreciated the sheer mass of bogus math.

 

 

[Phi for All]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Cat said:

Well can you at least show me where my points have been already refuted?

As for the first couple that seem to be in your own words:

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone.  Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.  (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.  (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.

Energy is a property of matter, not a thing in and of itself. DNA is not a molecule, it's a polymer. Your reasoning is that this polymer is really a code, so magically it stops being a part of chemistry and becomes rigidly defined as being created by a conscious mind, therefore blah blah bullshit. It's proof of nothing except that you don't understand what you're criticizing.

 

Quote

Similarly, the word “Evolution” in the English language always refers to an intelligent process (in business, society, technology etc.) and the only usage in which it allegedly doesn’t is naturalistic Darwinian evolution. Why this exception?

Are you kidding me? You're cherry-picking terms that fit your argument, while leaving out the rest. Plenty of business, technology, and societal aspects "evolve" without being specifically designed to do so, so they don't "always refers to an intelligent process". What makes you think language evolves according to some kind of overarching design?

13 minutes ago, Mr.Cat said:

I am not an Intelligent design advocate. I am using some of their arguments as evidence for the concept of intelligent design.

If this is true, then you should read everything at the talkorigins.org link iNow gave earlier. It's the best source for debunking all those tired, ignorant arguments made by the creationists you plagiarized.

[studiot]

Hello @Mr.Cat

I have a real problem understanding your points.

In Science we give words very carefully specified definitions to be able to reason and discuss scientifically, as scientists consider that it is very important that all parties to a discussion understand and use the same meaning for all important words.

Very often there are also barroom definitions to these same words for those who like to shoot the breeze in the bar.

Your use of these barroom definitions of words like entropy, evolution, random, order, disorder, theory, fractal, chaos, code, pattern to name but a few, make your text unworkable in scientific terms.

So where would you like to start rectifying your misunderstanding of proper scientific use of these terms ?

Edited April 12, 2022 by studiot

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

i literally wrote it.  Thats my account on hack forums lmao

59 minutes ago, Mr.Cat said:

I am not an Intelligent design advocate. I am using some of their arguments as evidence for the concept of intelligent design.

Literally wrote it yourself, or not an advocate and just using some of their arguments, which is it? 

Is this an example of a person of faith using bad faith arguments? Or are you beginning to see why all these points were refuted quite some time ago?

 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

i literally wrote it.  Thats my account on hack forums lmao

Is your name Casey Luskin? Did you write it in 2014?

From the OP:

"[] the Intelligent design movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the entire history of the Earth."

From A Reader Asks: Can Microevolutionary Changes Add Up to Macroevolutionary Change? | Evolution News:

"The ID movement is producing both empirical and theoretical research showing that when multiple mutations are required before conferring any advantage on an organism, the “waiting time” for those mutations is often beyond the time available over the history of the Earth."

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

This doesnt really address my points. 

 

So all that stuff you wrote about entropy and about design didn't make any points, then? 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Mr.Cat said:

i literally wrote it.  Thats my account on hack forums lmao

Is your name Henry M. Morris? Did you write it in 2003?

From the OP:

"All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion."

From The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org):

"All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion."

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Mr.Cat said:

...[snip].......

In 2004, Michael Behe co-published a study in Protein Science with physicist David Snoke showing that if multiple mutations were required to produce a functional bond between two proteins, then “the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.” In 2008, Behe and Snoke’s critics tried to refute them in the journal Genetics, but failed. The critics found that, in a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution “would take > 100 million years,” which they admitted was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.” It’s becoming increasingly clear that many such “multi-mutation features,” which would require multiple mutations before providing any benefit, are likely to exist in biology.

....[snip]..............
 

This is in fact untrue.  I quote from one commentator in 2006, after the Kitzmiller trial which basically destroyed ID:

"We all remember a few years ago as Dembski spoke breathlessly about how Behe and Snoke's upcoming 2004 paper "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." In fact, that paper ended up as one of the nails in the ID coffin in the Kitzmiller trial, as Behe was forced to admit  under oath that their computer simulation had in fact concluded that an irreducibly complex protein binding site could evolve in only 20,000 years even when the parameters of the experiment were purposely rigged to make it as unlikely as possible."

I think that's rather funny. Hahaha. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by exchemist

[Ken Fabian]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

barroom definitions of words like entropy, evolution, random, order, disorder, theory, fractal, chaos, code, pattern to name but a few,

I think the definition of "therefore" is presenting real problems too.

Too many misunderstandings backed by faith rather than evidence or reason. Throw enough doubts around about abiogenesis and evolution amongst people who know little about either and even the most outlandish hypothesis - a supernatural being did it - can sound reasonable. It doesn't work with people with even a basic understanding of biology and evolution.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Mr.Cat said:

Yes and i fully agree with this. I stated what scientific evidence is here.

ID is not falsifiable.

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think the definition of "therefore" is presenting real problems too.

Too many misunderstandings backed by faith rather than evidence or reason. Throw enough doubts around about abiogenesis and evolution amongst people who know little about either and even the most outlandish hypothesis - a supernatural being did it - can sound reasonable. It doesn't work with people with even a basic understanding of biology and evolution.

+1

Another point, usually overlooked in 'discussion' about evolution is that external factors which bring about upward evolution can also lead to degeneration or even species extinction.
There is strong evidence of this latter in the recent geological records of Europe as compared to North America.