Posted on 07/31/2017 11:58:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
Yes, a system that is complex and works together for certain purposes is intelligent design.
YOU gloss over the fact that TRUE science (not the phony Lying Leftist false “science” of today) knows from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that living things don’t randomly come together in a complex working design.
ID is absolutely scientific.
“OK, let us say you are a scientist. Show us how you would use ID in an experiment. Or in a conclusion. What tool will you build in the real world? How will you apply ID? How will your ID finding be reproducible?”
You make good points.
Substitute evolution for ID and the same questions apply.
>>Show us how you would use TToE in an experiment.<<
I have isolated a virus. TToE suggests it will become resistant to antivirus treatments over time. I will conduct experiments to determine if it eventually becomes resistant
>>What tool will you build in the real world? How will you apply TToE? <<
I will attempt to develop an antivirus that adapts in a similar manner as the virus it is attacking. I will then apply my tests against this recursively.
>>How will your finding be reproducible?<<
I will publish my findings including the makeup of my antivirus and have then follow my steps and methodology. I invite them to create their own resistance scenarios.
And that was off the top of my head.
Waiting for the same for ID.
>>Yes, a system that is complex and works together for certain purposes is intelligent design.<<
You are begging the question. Repeating yourself doesn’t change your failed argument.
>>knows from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that living things don’t randomly come together in a complex working design.<<
It says no such thing. It deals with how energy and work relate. Trying to scotch tape it to the side of TToE is a non sequiter.
Now: how about answering the questions I posed to you and stop building straw men.
The nature of randomness and chance means there is no science, there cannot be reproducible results.
Any experiment you do is a one off....................
That there is a design means you can discover the design and know that it is always true.
But admitting a design means that there is a creator and we won’t go where that evidence leads..........
“I will attempt to develop an antivirus that adapts in a similar manner as the virus it is attacking. I will then apply my tests against this recursively.”
That doesn’t depend on evolution any more than ID.
“I will publish my findings including the makeup of my antivirus and have then follow my steps and methodology.”
Again, fail.
Not evolution. Or, either is as much evolution or ID.
I’m a biochemist/molecular biologist. One could substitute ID for evolution and there would be the same utility.
Neither one is much of a science.
Look at a molecular phylogram for example. One could call it the evolutionary relationship or the design relationship, it’d be the same thing.
We call it an evolutionary relationship but it is in fact a physical relationship we infer is evolutionary. The physical relationship is what is important for drug design, for example, it doesn’t matter whether the structure evolved or was designed or some other paradigm.
>>That doesn’t depend on evolution any more than ID.<<
Of course it does. Immunology is based on adapting to the environment, which is the entire foundation of TToE.
Don’t let your ignorance of TToE omehow make your argument.
>>I’m a biochemist/molecular biologist. <<
That is the most amazing thing I have ever read on the internet. I don’t know how that is possible.
>>We call it an evolutionary relationship but it is in fact a physical relationship we infer is evolutionary. The physical relationship is what is important for drug design, for example, it doesn’t matter whether the structure evolved or was designed or some other paradigm.<<
You are saying ID has nothing to do with science. I agree. That is not the thesis that began this discussion.
My argument hasn’t failed, there’s no strawmen here, and how about YOU answering the challenge I initially issued you about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you summarily and erroneously dismiss.
The second law of thermodynamics states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html
I did not mention earlier you made the common mistake of mixing up natural selection and evolution.
“Immunology is based on adapting to the environment, which is the entire foundation of TToE.”
That is incoherent, a weird non-sequitar.
Adaptive immunity is selection in response to encountered antigens.
You’re understanding of biology and logic is very weak and it would take a lot to explain to you how you are mixed up.
1) your example of designing a drug to adapt itself in response to a virus adapting to become resistant to the drug is incredibly vague.
Perhaps you could explain it more.
Essentially all you have said is, immunity is adaptive and evolution is adaptive and therefore I would use evolution to design a therapy to help the immune system respond to a virus that adapted to evade being immunologically neutralized.
Are you a scientist?
The scientific method is just a limited tool.
It will never be able to give meaning to anything it observes or measures.
So ultimately, the scientific method is meaningless.
The scientific method is definitely useful, just ultimately meaningless.
People who place their faith in it are mere faith-based operators.
>>The scientific method is just a limited tool.<<
It will never be able to give meaning to anything it observes or measures.<<
Not what it is supposed to do.
>>So ultimately, the scientific method is meaningless.<<
Says the person posting on the Internet.
>>The scientific method is definitely useful, just ultimately meaningless.
People who place their faith in it are mere faith-based operators.<<
That wasn’t what I have been arguing. I specifically said that I a surprised scientists DON’T see God as they see His wonders exposed by science.
>>My argument hasn’t failed, there’s no strawmen here, and how about YOU answering the challenge I initially issued you about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you summarily and erroneously dismiss.<<
You won’t answer my questions (no surprise) and don’t understand my answers.
We are done here.
>>Are you a scientist?<<
Yes, but not the lab coat type.
That has nothing to do with our discussion. I ask to be evaluated on what I post. Your questions suggests another agenda.
You will not draw me out to refight the CREVO wars.
We agree ID has nothing to do with science, which was my main point.
I let you draw me out by your irrelevant statement comparing ID and TToE. That is on me, as I should know better.
Have a blessed evening.
Glad we both agree that the scientific method is just limited tool and nothing more.
But, you too are just another person posting on the Internet, so you did nothing to help your cause there.
Nonetheless, your last statement is completely wonderful. Kudos!
>>But, you too are just another person posting on the Internet, so you did nothing to help your cause there.<<
It was a dry observance of how “meaningless” science gave us the internet. But I eventually saw your meaning of “meaning” was spiritual, so there we go :)
“Yes, but not the lab coat type.”
What does that mean?
“That has nothing to do with our discussion.”
True, but it has to do with how to try and explain things to you.
I still hold ID and evolution could be interchanged and not change anything.
If there were a bizarro world where ID was the accepted paradigm it wouldn’t change anything. Instead of talking about evolutionary relationships we’d be saying the design relationship.
I have no interest in crevo wars. But in all candor, you seem to.
YOU won’t address the FIRST issue in this discussion - the one I brought up to you - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You come across as chicken.
And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you don’t seem to understand, IS the answer to your hypos.
You’re way off the track here free-dumb. Come back when you’re able to answer substantive issues rather than deflecting with hypos.
Bye.
Yes a very relevant scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.