Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

[_Hughes]

Why would "scientific reality" be rejected?

Of course the fact that information found in every cell, contained in DNA indicates there's an intelligence behind it, shows that there must have been a designer.

Well, if you accept the Biblical timeline and the old age of Biblical patriarchs, then you must reject scientific reality.

Similarly, your statement on DNA and intelligence also requires a rejection of scientific reality.

Since modern science uses many christian ideas, that God set up natural laws to govern the universe. I don't see the problem.

I do accept the biblical timeline and old age of the patriarchs, but even still that doesn't mean I reject science. It means I reject many supposed scientific conclusions, as not having enough support.

As you probably know, science uses models. I reject many of the models that use evolution as one dating method, commonly called "index fossils". You see, evolution needs long ages in order to be true. I don't care either way, I'm only interested in the truth. But, that is one model.

There are other models that use shorter ages for the earth and Universe, and they are more persuasive to me. Mostly because I don't care who has what agenda, I'm simply looking for truth. It could be that the Earth is 300,000 years old. It simply doesn't matter a whole lot.

[_Quasimodo]

I would like to see the straight forward experimental evidence that demonstrates that the DNA arises from non-living matter. Until then, I'm a skeptic. Until then what is straight forward is the fact that it takes intelligence to produce information, as found in the DNA.

LOL! I would like to see straight forward experimental evidence of ANY kind that points to intelligent design.

If you want to be a skeptic, you should be skeptical of old stories that were made up by people thousands of years ago. We've learned so much since.

[_Buffalo]

I would like to see the straight forward experimental evidence that demonstrates that the DNA arises from non-living matter. Until then, I'm a skeptic. Until then what is straight forward is the fact that it takes intelligence to produce information, as found in the DNA.

.

This is what's known as an argument from ignorance. History has shown over and over that arguments for god from instances are inevitably defeated when new information is available. While there is no clear theory for the origin of life yet, there are many plausible natural explanations, all of them many times more likely than yours, which is "it happened by magic."

[_Buffalo]

Since modern science uses many christian ideas, that God set up natural laws to govern the universe. I don't see the problem.

I do accept the biblical timeline and old age of the patriarchs, but even still that doesn't mean I reject science. It means I reject many supposed scientific conclusions, as not having enough support.

As you probably know, science uses models. I reject many of the models that use evolution as one dating method, commonly called "index fossils". You see, evolution needs long ages in order to be true. I don't care either way, I'm only interested in the truth. But, that is one model.

There are other models that use shorter ages for the earth and Universe, and they are more persuasive to me. Mostly because I don't care who has what agenda, I'm simply looking for truth. It could be that the Earth is 300,000 years old. It simply doesn't matter a whole lot.

There are very few things more accepted and better demonstrated than the general age of the earth and the fact of evolution. You ARE anti-science, you just don't know it because you don't seem to understand what the science IS on these topics.

There are NO scientific models that show an earth as young as you claim.

CFR that science uses "many christian ideas."

[_Some Schmo]

Until then what is straight forward is the fact that it takes intelligence to produce information, as found in the DNA.

This is simply not true. It requires no intelligence to produce information. There are an abundance of examples of information coming from non-intelligent events.

For instance, say there's a pane of glass sitting on the edge of a cliff. This represents some information, like dimensions, location, etc. Some wind comes and pushes it off the cliff and the glass shatters. Suddenly, a small amount of information becomes exponentially larger. It takes far more effort to try to reproduce the details of the shattered glass than the simple one piece pane. No intelligence was needed to increase the information. Just natural processes.

Unless you're saying that wind and gravity is intelligence...

[_Some Schmo]

Something else you should be aware of, Hughes, is that scientists don't think DNA was first. They think the ultimate ancestor was RNA.

If you'd like to see a bit of what you're looking for, check out this article called Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory.

[_Hughes]

I would like to see the straight forward experimental evidence that demonstrates that the DNA arises from non-living matter. Until then, I'm a skeptic. Until then what is straight forward is the fact that it takes intelligence to produce information, as found in the DNA.

.

This is what's known as an argument from ignorance. History has shown over and over that arguments for god from instances are inevitably defeated when new information is available. While there is no clear theory for the origin of life yet, there are many plausible natural explanations, all of them many times more likely than yours, which is "it happened by magic."

While I agree that science has done great things. I'd love to know how you think it's different to believe that science will eventually come up with a "plausible natural explanation" and believing that an intelligence source is the cause of Earth's life/intelligence/information.

I'm curious how you think one is magic and one isn't.

[_Hughes]

Since modern science uses many christian ideas, that God set up natural laws to govern the universe. I don't see the problem.

I do accept the biblical timeline and old age of the patriarchs, but even still that doesn't mean I reject science. It means I reject many supposed scientific conclusions, as not having enough support.

As you probably know, science uses models. I reject many of the models that use evolution as one dating method, commonly called "index fossils". You see, evolution needs long ages in order to be true. I don't care either way, I'm only interested in the truth. But, that is one model.

There are other models that use shorter ages for the earth and Universe, and they are more persuasive to me. Mostly because I don't care who has what agenda, I'm simply looking for truth. It could be that the Earth is 300,000 years old. It simply doesn't matter a whole lot.

There are very few things more accepted and better demonstrated than the general age of the earth and the fact of evolution. You ARE anti-science, you just don't know it because you don't seem to understand what the science IS on these topics.

There are NO scientific models that show an earth as young as you claim.

CFR that science uses "many christian ideas."

Then please demonstrate for me the age of the earth and the fact of evolution. I won't hold my breath.

As for your CFR. Many of the early scientists were Christian. And in fact used that philosophical bent, to base their scientific experiments on. The thinking goes like this. God created the Universe to operate based on natural laws. Therefore, such as Newton, when one drops an apple in Europe it falls with the same speed and force in Africa or North America as it does there. This whole philosophy that these early scientists used was based on their Christian world view.

[_Buffalo]

While I agree that science has done great things. I'd love to know how you think it's different to believe that science will eventually come up with a "plausible natural explanation" and believing that an intelligence source is the cause of Earth's life/intelligence/information.

I'm curious how you think one is magic and one isn't.

The very concept of god is inherently magical. The only difference between a miracle and magic is the source of power.

Science, by the way, already has plausible natural explanations for the origins of life. What it doesn't have yet is a solid theory. By contrast, the religious don't even have a plausible explanation, as "god did it" has no explanatory or predictive powers, and furthermore, there exists no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as a god exists.

All throughout history, believers have pointed to humanity's ignorance about something as evidence for god, including the regular motion of the planets, the diversity of species on earth, the existence of the earth and stars, the complexity of the body, earthquakes, storms, etc. All of these have crumbled one by one as science has found natural, non-magical explanations. God is shrinking. Science is growing. It doesn't take a fortune teller to see where things are headed.

[_Hughes]

Until then what is straight forward is the fact that it takes intelligence to produce information, as found in the DNA.

This is simply not true. It requires no intelligence to produce information. There are an abundance of examples of information coming from non-intelligent events.

For instance, say there's a pane of glass sitting on the edge of a cliff. This represents some information, like dimensions, location, etc. Some wind comes and pushes it off the cliff and the glass shatters. Suddenly, a small amount of information becomes exponentially larger. It takes far more effort to try to reproduce the details of the shattered glass than the simple one piece pane. No intelligence was needed to increase the information. Just natural processes.

Unless you're saying that wind and gravity is intelligence...

Maybe I was being too simplistic when I said, "as found in the DNA."

What I mean is similar to an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. The type and amount of information in the DNA is on a magnitude of millions larger than that found in a pane of glass.

If you honestly think that natural causes are enough to produce what we find in the cell and DNA, then it shouldn't be so hard to produce such experimental results that show it coming from non-living sources.