Finding God with biocomplexity

EurekAlert ^ | Apr 25, 2008 | Grady Semmens

[RobbyS]

The purpose of the experiment is not to prove evolution, but to demonstrate that evolutionary processes mimic design. Chesterton once said that God writes straight with crooked lines.

[RobbyS]

You are talking about events occuring within certain parameters. IAC, the first definition of design is not a plan but of action with an end in mind and taking place on a kind of “playing field” and in accordance with certain rules. Sort of like a football game.

[onedoug]

Find the beginning, find the end.

[1Truthseeker]

You stated,"In simpler word's Science is incapable of explaining everything."

The original definition of the word Science is to know knowledge.

Science is not an entity, it is nothing more than knowledge.

Man who is fallible can not explain everything is the true statement.

[1Truthseeker]

“Words like ‘God’ and ‘sacred’ are scary to many of us who live in modern, secular society because they have been used to start wars and kill millions of people, and we just don’t need any more of that,” Kauffman says. “What we do need is for humanity to become reunited under a common global ethic based on the idea that we are all part of nature, and we will never be the master of it because it is not entirely knowable.”

The whole article is against God. This paragraph is a half truth that those who are on the fence and those who do not believe at all will use to justify their reason for not believing at all.

What god and what sacred is spoken of here, all ah the koran, buddha, cows, monkeys ect.

The Bible is clear we are to learn for ourselves of what it says and Jesus does not say go out and make war.

Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, ect. killed millions more than the so called holy wars.



It is unfortunate that many will read this and say yes that is what we need a one world government and religion, which by the way is Bible prophecy and is coming to a town near you.

[Between the Lines]

Man who is fallible can not explain everything is the true statement.

Man can not explain everything through science is equally true.

This contradicts what I have been told here in this forum.

[1Truthseeker]

True true.

Secular man requires a naturalist view of how it all came to be, to remove God which is Jesus from the equation of creation. This same removal also allows them to believe that our actions in the world do not effect others as long as we keep them in our own back yard, this is a lie that the devil has perpetrated upon man kind.

To many God did it is not enough or maybe to much for them as if God did it he may have rules to live by and these rules do not include the life styles that Holly-weird portray. Like the degradation of the family unit, putting down of the father figure and husband, fornication, drugs and alcohol ECT.

[VOA]

bump

[Robwin]

And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.

[Soliton]

And guess what, chum? That experiment showed that the optimum airplane was created by Intelligent Design, not random selection. Thanks for adding it.

The experiment has been conducted hundreds of times and has never supported intelligent design. If you have any scientific evidence FOR ID please offer it or be quiet and let the adults talk.

[Robwin]

Yeah, gee, I wonder if the adults noticed that: (1)no documentation for any of this was presented (no proof, just a claim, is typically evo);(2)the design teams were composed of intelligent beings with an envisioned purpose; and the optimum design reulted from, in your own words, “...so physics determines the wing shape, not some random event.” Yes, not some “random event”, but rather purposeful intent.

[MEGoody]

First evolution theory isn't about origins

I never claimed it was. I said the theory claims that all life evolved from the first single-celled life form.

natural selection picks from variations in the output or "phenotype' of EXISTING genes.

Unless you are trying to claim natural selection has intelligence, it is nothing more, in theory, than random mutations that turn out to be successful in helping the species survive. Limiting the choices of natural selection to wings and popsicle sticks is as joke as we both know that there are hundreds of millions of instructions in a single cell. Adding random mutation to that mix and you have an almost unlimited number of variables.

In this case, the die is used to randomely select a phenotype of a wing, long, short, thick, wide etc.

That assumes 'natural selection' has decided that a wing is the most valuable way for the species to survive, has 'selected out' all other options, and has limited the possible designs for the wing. Sorry, but unless you are claiming some intelligence in 'natural selection' that doesn't wash.

[onedoug]

Leviticus 11:19 uses the Hebrew word "tuf nun shin mem tuf" - "Tinshemet" - to refer to a "bird", then uses the same word in 11:30 to refer to a "reptile".

'Seems interesting to me.

[redtetrahedron]

The evolution team just has multiple lengths of straws and dozens of different wings to select from.

I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...

[Soliton]

I would personally like to know how the evolution team came up with the different straws and the wings to start with...

No you wouldn't. That would imply intellectual curiosity. As a primitive thinker who believes in ghosts, no rational explanation or mountain of evidence would suffice to convince you.