41: My Criteria for Design


The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below. 

 

I am often asked by evolutionauts to specify what makes me think an entity is designed rather than being an illusion of design.   This question is so simply answered, anyone with half a brain could put together a rational answer.  One would think evolutionauts could play devils advocate, and put an answer together themselves; an answer that they would think a person that thinks the way I do might put forth.    They don’t.  Not because they only have half a brain.  I truly think most evolutionauts are very intelligent.  But because they are so ingrained that evolution is correct, the don’t want to even consider the fact of design.  They are universally so adamant that there is no design in nature, and they work so hard to keep that illusion going for themselves. The notion that there IS design is abhorrent to them.  They can’t in any way even consider thinking of an answer.  They have to pretend 100% that there is no design.  Evolutionauts are not on a search for truth.  They think they have already found truth, and they don’t want it disturbed.

For there to be proven design in nature, there must be a criteria that separates design from randomness.  In other words, the random shape and character of a cloud needs to be separated from the designs in living organisms.  I have often been asked, is the shape of a cloud designed?  Do clouds have design?  I would answer no, their shape is dependent on the surrounding weather environment.  The air pressure, temperature, winds, and humidity rule the shape of clouds.  Clouds DO have a critical use, of course, and it would be easy to claim design for clouds.  They are incredible water machines.  They carry water from the atmosphere over the oceans and deliver that water to land living organisms.  Without clouds and their utility, there could be no living organisms on land; at least they could not inhabit land that is very far from a body of water. So, out of ‘nothing came a universe.  And that nothing had no clouds.  At a point in time there were no clouds, and now there are.  And those clouds are an absolute necessity for the existence of land living life on earth.  Without clouds carrying water  inland, there would be no vegetation very far from bodies of water.  Vegetation utilizes carbon dioxide to manufactures the oxygen that we breathe. Without the invention and existence of clouds, it is doubtful that mankind could exist. So clouds are just one of the numerous inventions that are requirements for life and man to exist.  Further, they are made up molecules composed of hydrogen and oxygen, two very light gasses.   These gasses combine in the most unlikely way to form a heavy liquid, water. Why would hydrogen and oxygen not combine to form a new but heavier gas?  Why water?   Are the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up clouds designed?  Is water, the most unique and unlikely liquid in existence?  So then are clouds designed?  I would answer that by saying  absolutely yes, but there has to be several levels of design.  A criteria could be set up for testing whether or not non-living entities are designed.  For right now I going to focus on the the living.

So I have written an answer for the evolutionauts who ask me to define the designs in nature.  I am certain that these ten criteria will be dismissed by the questioners, but that is their modus operandi.  It is unlikely that they will be rationally discussed.  Right now there are ten points to this answer, and I am sure it will expand as I think of more points that demonstrate design.  All of these ten points are to be taken together.  Any entity in nature that is designed will own all of these point.  Are there exceptions? Probably.  I can’t think of any right now.  But I am sure there must be some entities that don’t fit all ten of these qualities.  An entity that only exists in one single species will not have the common existence quality.  Everything isn’t perfect, but sure as shooting, evolutionauts will come up with an exception and think that destroys the whole list.  Well, it doesn’t.  Remember, all I have to prove is that only one single entity cannot be brought forth by evolution, and the whole theory crashes; only one entity! Because there cannot be two major theories that brought all of nature into being, evolution and something else.

So, here is a definition for design as written in Wikipedia, and below that are my ten qualities that prove a living entity must be designed.

According to Wikipedia:  Design as a noun informally refers to a plan for the construction of an object or a system while “to design” (verb) refers to making this plan. More formally, design has been defined as follows.

(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;

(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[3]

Here, a “specification” can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product and “primitive components” are the elements from which the designed object is composed.  Each “primitive component” in itself is a designed entity.  In biology, an eye has dozens of “primitive components”: a lens which shows design, a retina which shows design, an iris….as is true with all of the individual “primitive components”.  They all demonstrate design.  The lens must be designed for a specific function, the retina must be designed for a specific function, the iris must be designed for a specific function, the optic nerve………

A model was developed to describe design called the Rational Model.  It was independently developed by Simon,  Pahl, and Beitz.  It posits that:

  1. designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
  2. the design process is plan-driven,
  3. the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.

Qualities of an entity that demonstrate design in living organisms according to stevebee:


  1. USE: The entity in question has a highly defined function that fills a very useful need for the user organism.
  2. LOCATION: The entity in question is specifically located in an organism or the biochemistry of that organism so that it can accomplish a highly defined function for that larger organism.
  3. INDIVIDUAL SHAPE: The entity has a very specific shape or configuration which makes it conducive to accomplishing its specific function.
  4. COMMON SHAPE: Its specific shape is common to other entities that accomplish the same function in other organisms.
  5. ASSEMBLY: The entity, if it is made up of multiple primitive components, requires ordered original appearance, configuration, and/or assembly of its components.
  6. SUB-FUNCTION: The primitive components of the entity require a specific design so they can fulfill their sub-function which is a necessary part of the major function of the entity.
  7. INVENTION: The entity in question requires invention.  That is, the entity did not exist at a point in time.  There was at one time no notion about the existence of this entity or its function.  It was then brought into existence.
  8. COPIED OR STUDIED BY MAN: Copies of the entity are constructed by human intelligent engineers that mimic the entity that previously existed ONLY in living organisms. Note: This one is an exception to the requirement that all of these criteria must be utilized in grading design.  Obviously only the useful entities to mankind will be copied.   Further, whether the entity is copied by man or not, it’s configuration and characteristics  are studied by intelligent scientists. 
  9. RANDOM NATURAL OCCURRENCES: It has never been shown by any man who ever lived that random natural happenings can invent, design, assemble, and sustain the entity in question.
  10. COMPLEXITY:  The entity is incredibly complex.  Complexity is in inversely proportion to the ability and chance of random happenstances in nature building it.

Now to example the visual system and show how it fits these qualities.  In reality, just about any natural entity could be used and would fit these criteria.

Use: vision, of course.

Location: Front of the face, and bilaterally is certainly the best location on the body for the eyeballs.  Much better than under the arms or on the stomach.

Individual shape:  The ball shape allows for rotation in a socket so the eye can view in all directions.

Common shape:  The ball is the common shape of almost all vertebrate eyes. Owls are a rare exception.

Assembly:  The optic nerve, visual cortex, eyeballs, and code are all parts that need assembly and must have existed all together for functional vision.  The list is, in reality, long, if we add in the lens, retina, iris, oculomotor muscles, nerve controllers for the iris, lens, ………

Sub-function: The lens must be able to focus light that enters the eye, the retina must be able to take the image and pass it on to the optic nerve,…….

Invention:  At one time on the earth there was no vision, and no concept or notion of what vision might be.

Copied by man: Digital cameras.

Random natural occurrences: There has never been an instance when any man has shown that natural selection and friends can invent and construct a lens, an eyeball, much less a complete visual system.

Complexity: What could be more complex than a complete visual system?

Complexity is the quality of design that is made most fun of by leading evolutionauts like PZ Meyers, biology instructor at the University of Minnesota.  However, making light of a point that kills your belief system as it does PZ’s is only a childish way of trying to get around reality.  The more complex any entity is, including all man made devices, the more difficult they are to invent and build.  Any dad building Christmas toys for his kids knows that.  Nature would certainly find that to be the case as well.  So laugh away evolutionauts, as you sink in the quicksand of complexity.

So, there you have it. My list showing the qualities that show design in nature.  These ten qualities will be common to almost all entities in question.  If an evolutionaut can prove that these qualities show that random occurrences in nature can invent and assemble entities with these qualities, I would be excited to read their findings.  But I am not too worried.  Evolutionauts should be.

To be fair, I will post the answer to my list of criteria that I think show design.  I always think that my readers would like to see how evolutionauts would respond to my thinking and writing.  Showing only my point of view makes things a bit slanted.  ADParker is an outspoken  evolutonaut from New Zealand who spends a lot of his time trying to debunk my writing.  I find it interesting and entertaining that I am 100% incorrect 100% of the time in the world of evolution and at http://www.rationalskepticism.org; and of course, any and all other evolutions sites I visit.  ADParker has a website with several quotes from famous people at the top that I find interestesting.  He has no idea that these fit him to a tee.  Interesting what indoctrination does to people.  You see, I say I don’t have the answer to the Puzzle.  He is 100% certain that he does.  First the quotes:

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Socrates

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” George Bernard Shaw

“Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.” Andre Gide

Anyway, here is his/her answers to my list, without comment.  I will let his responses speak for themselves:

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

by ADParker » May 02, 2011 2:30 am

stevebee92653 wrote:
I have been asked this question so many times that I made a page on my blog on the subject.

And failed to address it adequately every time. Only enough to impress yourself.

stevebee92653 wrote:
I really think you and your fellow evolutionauts are so adamant that there is no actual design in nature that you blind yourselves to the fact of design.

Sure there is design in nature. People design all kinds of things, and we are “in nature.” So too do other primates, birds…And it all depends on how one defines “design.” There is plenty of unintentional “design.” The serious doubt is this notion of Intentional Design existing somehow prior to biological brains sufficiently developed to devise intentional designs themselves.

stevebee92653 wrote: I did the same, so I know the mindset.

Give it a rest, no one’s buying it steve.

stevebee92653 wrote:
I am sure this will be torn to shreds.

:-)

stevebee92653 wrote:
With partial exception of #8 which fits most major entities, all of these criteria are to be taken together as a whole. Take any living entity (heart/lung system, vision, auditory, hepatic, bird flight, bat sonar…..), and see if all of these criteria describe that entity. If they do, then I would say DESIGN.

And you would be wrong. In that you would be unjustified in doing so.

stevebee92653 wrote:I DO realize no matter what, you will disagree.

No, not “no matter what”, but based purely on what you assert.

stevebee92653 wrote:Consider my advantage: I only have to prove one entity that cannot come into existence without design.

Sort of yes. Bird nests are intelligently designed, in that they are the products of intentional design; the intelligent designers being the birds that made them. But otherwise, yes, all you really need to do is provide one piece of convincing evidence for your intelligent design assertions. Isn’t it interesting that you (along with all Intelligent Design proponents [cdesign proponentsists]) have thus far completely failed to do even that?

stevebee92653 wrote:You, on the other hand, must prove that every single entity in nature came about by RM and NS+.

You are incorrect. You are simply displaying your scientific illiteracy in asserting such things. Science doesn’t “prove” things for a start.
You want proof? Try Mathematics, Formal Logic or Alcohol.

stevebee92653 wrote:
1. USE: The entity in question has a highly defined function that fills a very useful need for the user organism.

Not evidence for Intentional Design.
If I find a lump of drift wood, and use it as a door stop, then that has a use as defined, but in no way implies that it was designed, let alone for the task it was subsequently used for.

stevebee92653 wrote:
2. LOCATION: The entity in question is specifically located in an organism so that it can accomplish a highly defined function for that larger organism.

Again not evidence of design, that it was put there FOR that purpose. Only (again) that when there, by whatever means, it has been used for that purpose.

stevebee92653 wrote:
3. INDIVIDUAL SHAPE: The entity has a very specific shape which makes it conducive to accomplishing its specific function.

Again not evidence of design, that it was shaped in that way FOR that purpose. Only (again) that when there, by whatever means, it was of a shape that ended up being of use in a particular fashion.

stevebee92653 wrote:
4. COMMON SHAPE: Its specific shape is common to other entities that accomplish the same function in other organisms.

Irrelevant. It is redundantly unimpressive that things that tend to be used in the same ways, has similar form. All cutting implements tend to be sharp to some degree, the “common shape” is nothing more than that which makes it useful for that common usage, nothing more.

stevebee92653 wrote:
5. ASSEMBLY: The entity, if it is made up of multiple primitive components, requires ordered original appearance and/or assembly of its components.

Um what?! It is such that it does the stuff for which it is used for? So what? Again not evidence of design, but merely evidence that it is of use to that which uses it as it does.  Salt, Sodium Chloride, is made up of multiple primitive parts; Sodium and Chlorine. Requires “original appearance and/or assembly of its components” in that the two must bond to form the NaCl molecule, which changes a toxic gas and a corrosive “alkali metal” into common table salt. Does that imply intentional design? No, it’s just chemistry. No matter how useful it is. The value of use is something that (again) comes after the ‘design,” and says nothing about the nature of that design; intentional or otherwise.

stevebee92653 wrote:
6. SUB-FUNCTION: The primitive components of the entity require a specific design so they can fulfill their sub-function which is a necessary part of the major function of the entity.

Adding nothing to the issue. The “design” of the parts are no more evidence of intent that that of the entire “entity.” Like the “entity” the parts do whatever it is that they do, and as a result work as a part of the whole, no matter how they formed.

stevebee92653 wrote:
7. INVENTION: The entity in question requires invention. That is, the entity did not exist at a point in time. There was at one time no notion about the existence of this entity or its function. It was then brought into existence.

Your use of the word “Invention” here is just stupid, if not deliberately manipulative.
Some things are “brought into existence.” So what?! That says nothing about how that occurred.

stevebee92653 wrote:
8. COPIED BY MAN: The entity is constructed by human intelligent engineers that mimic the entity that previously existed ONLY in living organisms. Note: This one is an exception to the requirement that all of these must be utilized in grading design. Obviously only the useful entities to mankind will be copied.

Irrelevant. Are you claiming that things that aren’t intentionally designed can’t be COPIED BY MAN?!

stevebee92653 wrote:
9. RANDOM NATURAL OCCURRENCES: It has never been shown by any man who ever lived that random natural happenings can invent, design, assemble, and sustain the entity in question.

Another irrelevance.  The mechanisms of evolution through Natural Selection are well known and recognized. And those mechanisms are equally well known to be quite capable of numerable biological developments. The same can not be said for intentional design agents existing prior to the emergence of relatively complex neural system. Which all evidence points to having developed (over time, through stages) after most of the things you assert are the product of such design. So Evolution has the advantage of it’s mechanisms actually being known to exist.

stevebee92653 wrote:
10. COMPLEXITY: The entity is incredibly complex. Complexity is in direct proportion to the ability and chance of random happenstances in nature building it.

What utter meaningless bullshit. Complexity isn’t even evidence for intentional design. On the contrary it is often evidence against it, as good design is often established by its ‘economy’ of complexity, by doing the intended job with a minimum of complex interactions; this ensures that less is liable to go wrong. More complex systems are often the product of messy chaotic design (intentional or otherwise.) Often including ultimately needless complexity as a result of ‘patches” upon what went before, what one already has, rather that starting from scratch, or even re-designing the existing product. (E.g. added components to make the human eye more efficient rather than simply flipping the existing photoreceptor cells around the ‘right’ way, removing any need for the numerable extra ‘fixes.’ – a sloppy patch up job, poor design if intentional.)

stevebee92653 wrote:
Now to example the visual system and show how it fits these qualities:

Why? None of those qualities, even hint at intentional design, so; no way can their combination do so either.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Use: vision, of course.

So what? Use in no ways implies why or how it came about in the first place.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Location: Front of the face, and bilaterally (for depth perception) is certainly the best location on the body for the eyeballs. Much better than under the arms or on the stomach.

Actually the “best” location varies between species. Even in mammals alone, the location is best served in different locations depending on ones status as predator and/or prey. And they vary enough to satisfy that.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Individual shape: The ball shape allows for rotation in a socket so the eye can view in all directions.

So its useful. Why assume that it came about as a matter of intentional design? No matter how it came about, the ones that were of that sort were of greatest use to us. Once again your claimed qualities of intentional design are independent of their ‘design.’

stevebee92653 wrote:
Common shape: The ball is the common shape of almost all vertebrate eyes. Owls are a rare exception.

Because for owls that is sub-optimal. Again this offers nothing in the way of how or why they came about as they did. Could be intentional design, could be natural selection of effectively random variations, or just random chaotic dumb luck. Your “quality” hints at nothing on the subject your are pretending that it does. But only on what use it has after the fact.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Assembly: The optic nerve, visual cortex, eyeballs, and code are all parts that need assembly and must have existed all together for functional vision. The list is, in reality, long, if we add in the lens, retina, iris, oculomotor muscles, nerve controllers for the iris, lens, ………

And?

stevebee92653 wrote:
Sub-function: The lens must be able to focus light that enters the eye, the retina must be able to take the image and pass it on to the optic nerve,……to accomplish the end result: vision.

And…Somehow this must have come about. Yes; somehow. You have offered no reason to suggest that this “somehow” must be Intentional Design. Particularly due to the enormous, and always doggedly ignored and avoided, issue of there being no evidence of even the plausibility of any intelligence possibly existing at a time prior to the emergence of brains and their functions that we call “mind.”

stevebee92653 wrote:
Invention: At one time on the earth there was no vision, and no concept or notion of what vision might be.

At one time there were no rocks either. Of what possible relevance is that?!

stevebee92653 wrote:Copied by man: Digital cameras.

Irrelevant. Man can copy that which was not initially intentionally designed as easily as that which was.
In fact it is how some aspects of science have come about; some accidental occurrence gave an interesting result, and this was subsequently intentionally copied to useful effect.

stevebee92653 wrote:
Random natural occurrences: There has never been an instance when any man has shown that natural selection and friends can invent and construct a lens, an eyeball, much less a complete visual system.

Although there are innumerable examples of what count as Transitional forms, making their formation through innumerable stages, through natural selection means, infinitely more plausible than the existence of some kind of “intelligent designer” even existing early enough to have any part in it whatsoever.
And: There has never been an instance when any man has shown that Intelligent designers could have invented and constructed a lens, an eyeball, much less a complete visual system, prior to humans developing something close to that ability after close and careful examination of those that already existed before they ever came on the scene.

stevebee92653 wrote:Complexity: Not many entities as complex as a complete visual system.

Needlessly complex in many ways, in actual fact.

stevebee92653 wrote:
If you think random selected happenstances can meet these criteria, and there is no design, we are down to pure belief.

“Random selected happenstances” is an oxymoron that makes no sense whatsoever.
And you little set of criteria are useless, so who cares?

Another evolutionaut from rationalskepticism.org had a go at destroying my list above.  So, again, I am posting it here without comment.  The commenter’s name is Delvo.  He is also an outspoken fan of evolution.  So here is his take on why my list crashes:

by Delvo » May 05, 2011 2:58 pm

Out of the 10 items you listed there, I’ll start with #9 (RANDOM NATURAL OCCURRENCES: It has never been shown by any man who ever lived that random natural happenings can invent, design, assemble, and sustain the entity in question.)  because it’s the strangest. It’s not even a criterion of any kind for anything at all. Criteria would be traits that we could observe in the object in question, which would allow us to conclude something about the object. #9 offers no such traits to observe or even to seek; it’s just a statement that nobody’s ever seen something that “evolutionauts” don’t even claim anybody ever should have seen. For all the relevance that has to a request for criteria by which to determine design or non-design, or to a debate about anything about evolution at all, you might as well have been writing a review of a ballet performance.

#10, complexity, (COMPLEXITY:  The entity is incredibly complex.  Complexity is in inversely proportion to the ability and chance of random happenstances in nature building it.) is at least the beginning of a potential criterion for determining design or non-design. But in order to actually be used to make such a determination, it would need details: how complexity is measured or calculated, and what values would indicate design and what values would indicate non-design. It would also need justification; as it stands right now, there’s no reason why anybody should accept the idea that complex things couldn’t evolve, and thus no reason to accept this criterion as accurate even if the necessary details were provided.

#7, stated as “invention”, (INVENTION: The entity in question requires invention.  That is, the entity did not exist at a point in time.  There was at one time no notion about the existence of this entity or its function.  It was then brought into existence.)  is just a re-wording of the same thing you’re trying to use it to prove, not a criterion for determining whether it’s accurate or not. The explanation that’s attached, though, has nothing to do with anything being invented. It just says that the thing at one time didn’t exist and then later did. That’s not “invention”; that’s just a beginning. And because both designed and non-designed things, including evolved things, can come into existence after having not existed before, and new things coming into existence that didn’t exist before is a result that natural selection predicts would happen, this is no criterion for distinguishing between them. Both natural selection and intelligent design have this in common, so it can’t be used to pick one over the other.

#8, being copied by humans, (COPIED BY MAN: The entity is constructed by human intelligent engineers that mimic the entity that previously existed ONLY in living organisms. Note: This one is an exception to the requirement that all of these must be utilized in grading design.  Obviously only the useful entities to mankind will be copied.) is something that you can’t even really believe indicates design yourself. There are too many organisms and traits of organisms that humans have not copied, which, if this were truly a design indicator, would mean those organisms and their traits are not designed. There are also too many things we only began to imitate fairly recently, which, if this were truly a design indicator, would mean those things weren’t designed before, and then retroactively became designed only after we started copying them. (So there’s the idea of human minds causing changes in the past again!) There are also too many things we’ve imitated that aren’t even alive, and too many things we’ve invented that don’t imitate anything we had ever observed in nature, which illustrate that human inventiveness is not limited to copying some particular set of things, which means that whether we’ve imitated something or not says nothing about how the thing being imitated got that way.

#2, #3, #4, and #6 (Location on the organism, individual shape, common shape, and sub-function) are all really just parts of #1, that a designed trait is useful to the organism possessing it. But that’s also exactly what natural selection predicts would usually be the case; usefulness is pretty much the whole idea. So, again, useful traits are no criterion for separating design from non-design, because they would have given “useful” results. Worse yet, it brings up the question of what we are to think when we see the opposite: traits that are NOT useful, or are or inefficient or obviously suboptimal at serving their function, or even counterproductive. Designed organisms probably shouldn’t/wouldn’t have such traits, but natural selection predicts that some would, and in reality, traits like that are all over the place.

So, out of 9 items in the list so far, only 8 are actually expressed in a way that gives us something to actually observe and try to draw conclusions from, but none of those 8 would actually work out as a way to tell whether something is designed or not, because every single thing that’s said in there about designed things can also just as well be expected from non-designed natural selection. That only leaves #5, “assembly”. This one is unique because it actually is something that could distinguish between designed and non-designed things. Evolution could never be expected to assemble anything, but design might, so if assembly is observed, then evolution can’t explain it and design can. So all that needs to be done is for someone to point out an organism which is put together from separate pieces (or point out even just a piece of an organism that’s just waiting for other pieces to come along and attach it to them). But it hasn’t happened yet; from what we’ve seen so far, they all grow and develop into shape, no matter how many different parts that includes, by having one original tissue separate into two which develop differently side-by-side and can then undergo similar differentiation themselves.

58 Comments

  1. Challagar said,

    Excellent article my friend! Keep up the good work!

  2. Dane said,

    Unfortunately, this fails to address two things:

    That any any evolved organism will display these traits,

    and,

    You still cannot explain how the illusion of design is NOT present when this list contains articles that are wholly dependent on internal perception of an external article, i.e., the notions of complexity, assembly, invention, etc. STILL only exist as mental constructs, not facts.

    Nice try, though.

    • Challagar said,

      Stop with the “internal perception of an external article” already. You sound like a parrot every time you say that. What professor brainwashed you with that load of CRAP?

      • Dane said,

        In other words, you’re saying “Stop saying the thing that I know undermines the whole of ID but I just don’t want to admit it”.

        And I’m brainwashed because I understand one of the most basic tenets of philosophical discourse? Since Steve purports his entire is philosophical and not scientific in nature, it seems rather appropriate to respond thusly.

        I’m sorry this most basic idea so chops away at the fundamental structure of ID, but truth is truth, like it or not.

      • Challagar said,

        No, I said what I meant.

      • Dane said,

        I know you meant what you said…I just had to translate it into ‘honest-speak’ so no one would get confused.

      • Challagar said,

        That wasn’t a translation. That was an inward perception of an external article.

      • Dane said,

        FINALLY.

        Now, perhaps at last, you will realize the unquestionable flaws inherent in ID and any associated ideas.

      • Challagar said,

        Keep believing that.

      • Dane said,

        I will. I’m a sucker for lost causes. You’ve already taken your first step down the road of realizing just how badly ID fails, both scientifically and philosophically. I know you’re still not ready to admit it out loud, but you’ll get there.

      • Challagar said,

        You are so funny. Sorry if this dampens your spirits, but the more I study, the more I am convinced in a Designer. Why? I have the discernment to see illogical catch-22s in nature when I see them, whereas you see just one more thing to figure out some fictitious, sophistic explanation to fit it into your unreasonable pseudo-science

        Also, I see the signs of the time. And before you start rattling off nonsense about vague prophecies, try reading some of them sometimes. They are much more specific than you realize.

        All you have is subjective “inward perceptions of external articles” to believe in evolution. Also, you have the mistaken belief that nothing can exist except for what can be proven by the god of science. Reality check! When you start seeing some supernatural stuff happening in the next couple of decades, remember our little discussion. When they do start happening, don’t hold too closely to your precious little articles.

        Your reasoning from naturalism is just as circular as (if not more circular than) the reasoning you accuse believers of using.

        You crack me up. I’m pulling your chain but you’re too dense to realize it. You somehow think you have a victory when in reality you’re making a fool out of yourself.

        Well, maybe you can celebrate a little bit. You did manage to suck a few more words out of me. Which is more than I had intended because it is futile to try to reason with your thick, un-skeptical, incurious, unreasoning head.

      • Dane said,

        You’re right, this is a victory for me because by just needling you a little bit, I’ve managed to get you make a declaration that’s based on utter nonsense.

        Vague, ambiguous Biblical prophecies that have been thought to be coming true more than once (and been wrong)…the supposed observance of that which is supernatural, without methodology actually proving it’s ‘supernatural’…and yes, though you hate it because it so wrecks and invalidates ID on the philosophical level, you can’t get past the idea that your internal perception of an external article might be wrong.

        This is why religious fanatics like yourself will eventually lose any grip you have on the social engines of humanity. Sooner or later, the majority of humanity will see you for the illogical, ill-sighted, ill-educated fanatics you are and simply reject the whole lot.

        Of course, I’m sure that will figure into one of your “prophecies”, right? I bet you’re one of those fanatics who scans news services for seemingly ‘unexplainable’ events and then says “Aha! The supernatural!”.

        I pity the lot of you.

      • Challagar said,

        I wasn’t debating the issue. I already gave up on trying to reason with you a long time ago. I am saying that there will be a day when the truth will be made plain to you. I can’t say that I don’t care that you don’t realize the truth when you see it because I do care, but there are so many more people out there who have the discernment to see truth when they see it. I can’t be wasting my efforts on someone who neither wants to seek the truth (not just through science, but through all resources) nor has the discernment to see beyond your his own nose.

      • ADParker said,

        Challagar said:
        “Also, I see the signs of the time. And before you start rattling off nonsense about vague prophecies, try reading some of them sometimes. They are much more specific than you realize.”

        And then Challagar said:
        “When you start seeing some supernatural stuff happening in the next couple of decades, remember our little discussion. When they do start happening, don’t hold too closely to your precious little articles.”

        Some supernatural stuff… in the next couple of decades?! Is that what you mean by “not vague, but much more specific”?!

        Care to actually put yourself forward in ANY way? To present any REAL prediction? What EXACTLY will happen, and when? Or is it just more vague empty assertions?

        Although; as we haven’t seen ANY of those things come to pass, ever, there is currently no reason to believe any of it anyway. Not yet.

      • Dane said,

        That’s the funny thing about religious fanatics like yourself…you’re so convinced that you have the inside line on truth that it never, even once, occurs to you just how faulty your methodology is or that you might be wrong.

        See, people like me DO seek truth…the truth of what is knowable, discernible…what we can know about phenomenal reality. We don’t rely on metaphysical wishes or ambiguous ancient texts to tell us what is true. We understand that as we learn more and accumulate new info that what we thought was true before may not be so now. There is change…but that change is predicated by that what is logical, demonstrative and rationally objective. It is not predicated by the pure subjective projection of religious fanaticism which, thanks to the ambiguous and ill-defined ‘facts’ of religion, can take virtually anything it views and find some way to fit into it’s particular religious niche.

        It’s a pitiable thing but as I’ve said before, it’s a damn hard thing to reach fanatics.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        That’s the funny thing about evo- fanatics like yourself…you’re so convinced that you have the inside line on truth that it never, even once, occurs to you just how faulty your methodology is or that you might be wrong.

        See, people like me DO seek truth…the truth of what is knowable, discernible…what we can know about phenomenal reality. We don’t rely on ambiguous ancient texts like Origin of Species to tell us what is true. We understand that as we learn more and accumulate new info than what we thought was true before may not be so now. There is design…but that design is predicated by that what is logical, demonstrative and rationally objective. It is not predicated by the pure subjective projection of evo-fanaticism which, thanks to the ambiguous and ill-defined ‘facts’ of evolution, can take virtually anything it views and find some way to fit into it’s particular evo-niche. :-)

        It’s a pitiable thing but as I’ve said before, it’s a damn hard thing to reach fanatics.

      • Challagar said,

        Let’s see, I told you about the RFID technology that they want to use to “make buying and selling more convenient for us.” Did you not know that there is a big controversy about going to a cashless society? Did you not know that the elite political powers are working to make the Americas into the same type of society as the European Union? They have the same agenda for Africa and Asia and Oceania. Conspiracy? No, just common minded people working toward a common goal. Nothing more. Secret? No. Highly visible and influential political leaders have publicly lauded the ideal of the New World Order.

        You think it is fantasy? It happened in Europe, it could happen here, but it’ll take longer to overcome the patriotic spirit of most Americans. But, it is happening, gradually.

        The Bible says that in the end times there will be a mark that will regulate who can buy and sell. Well, isn’t that exactly what the RFID technology would accomplish? And, a little known fact is that it doesn’t even have to be a chip. There is a tattoo that accomplishes the same end result as the chip does. RFID electronic Ink tattoo. Look it up. Also, look up SOMARK and Philips. They are two companies, that I know of, who are developing the technology. (Note of interest: The Philips product can even move and change shapes on your skin. It is kinda creepy to watch a demo of it.)

        This is not some technology that is developed in the basement of some mad scientist. This is in the mainstream media, though you probably haven’t heard it on the nightly news. You might have been lucky enough to see a report about it, but of course most people dismiss these reports as science fiction, just as the internet was thought to be science fiction decades ago. I was one of those who thought so as well, though I am not proud of that fact.

        In biblical days, such an idea was sheer fantasy, something out of Greek mythology. But, today it is a real possibility. You would have been laughed at for even suggesting such a thing then, but now it is not such an impossibility.

        The chain link fence I mentioned in one of my posts is the site of Mt. Sinai. The altar is there where they made the golden calf in Exodus and the mountain top is scorched and blackened where nothing will grow. Also, not far from there is the rock that Moses struck and water gushed out, enough to fill a small lake. The rock is split from bottom to top. It and the ground below it is as smooth and polished as the bottom of a riverbed. And today there is no sign of a water source whatsoever.

        This rock is not some little boulder, either. It is large enough to hollow out and allow a large family to live in comfortably. It is bigger than the apartment building I live in.

        I could go on, but I don’t see the point. I am sure this is not enough to prove my case, but I don’t have much hope of any of this sinking in. You will just blow it off as “internal perceptions of external articles.” Go ahead. It won’t change reality. If you can’t use at least a little bit of discernment, then there isn’t much hope for you.

        Proverbs 26:12 Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

      • Dane said,

        Oh Steve…I see rather than addressing the issue you just parrot my words. That’s the court of last resort for those who know they can’t counter the argument.

        Do continue, though.

      • Dane said,

        Well see…all that right there just shows how far you are reaching, Challagar.

        First off, yeah, I’ve seen Revelatations 13:17…and you know what? it’s just as ambiguous as any other ‘prophecy’. It provides no clear definition of what the ‘mark’ is supposed to be or exactly who/what ‘the beast’ happens to be. Christians have been attributing the ‘mark’ and the ‘beast’ to many things for centuries, but what happens? “Oh, guess that actually isn’t it”. It’s just a cyclical chain of looking for the next thing you can force to fit this ‘prophecy’.

        Second, RFID technology is a technology that, when employed legitimately, actually makes sense as does moving towards a more or less cashless society. The concept of a cashless society isn’t new…it’s been in the province of science fiction for a century now. Where do you think the idea sprang from? It makes complete sense…why would a society waste resources printing money when it can, far more efficiently and economically, simply be transferred as electronic data.

        As far as RFID tech goes, it’s not some end times disaster. LIke all technology, some have employed it for good, some for ill. For example, the auto industry tried to get away with installing RFID devices without telling people and that blew up in their faces. This is ALWAYS going to happen when tech advances. It’s the price we pay for advancing our understanding. All we can do is stay vigilant and hold those who make ill use of tech responsible and punish them accordingly.

        Third, RFID tattoos have, so far, only been used on livestock and NOT humans. So far, the human application ideas are for miltary personnel to make coordinating the efforts easier and for civilians to use it for the storage of medical data so that if someone is injured, detailed medical knowledge about them can be accessed instantly.

        Unfortunately, despite what you think, this will never pass to be a mandatory tech for consumers to use. The vast majority of humanity will simply not permit itself to be branded like cattle and watched 24 hours a day. I know, that given the awful things some humans have done, it’s attractive to jump both feet into this conspiracy and think it’s really going to happen. It’s true that most humans are sheepish and do what’s necessary so as not to rock the boat…but there’s a limit. Humans are still humans and they still need some measure of freedom to function. The fear that you feel and create is pretty baseless.

        Finally, if you’re talking about the fence the Saudi government put up around the supposedly “rediscovered” Mount Sinai, then you really are reaching. There is no consensus on this at all. For every Biblical scholar that says Jebel al-Lawz is Mt. Sinai, there is one against it. Christians can’t even agree on LOCATIONS, much less anything of actual importance.

        Sorry, but you’re going down the wrong avenue. You’re just acting like the stereotypical, Fundamentalist, conspiracy minded Christians…you’re just looking for things that you can fit into a prophecy…until you find out the fit isn’t so good, so you go looking for the next thing.

      • Dane said,

        “OOOO, I get it, just like evolutionists have had to discard each “missing link” that they have supposedly uncovered over the years. All of them have either been frauds or cases of mistaken identity.”

        LOL…and what ‘missing links’ would these be? Science has discarded that which it found to be incompatible with the facts. ET has never just blindly accepted anything. Anything of a fraudulent nature or data that revealed a hypothesis was incorrect was due to intentional investigation.

        Religious fanatics, on the other hand, just look for occurrences that they can force feed into their ‘prophecies’ or ‘predictions’, run amuck screaming about end times….and then when there is no apocalypse or end of the world, they offer up some half-baked excuse and slink away waiting for the next thing to latch onto. Sorry, but trying to compare this to honest scientific endeavors is a FAIL.

        “You just have no skepticism whatsoever, do you? You think that the government is just all for the American people, don’t you? No matter how many scandals that are uncovered or how much our taxes have to go up to pay for our debt.”

        And this has what to do with the point I was making? Oh yeah…nothing. I have plenty skepticism concerning the political motivations of certain members of the U.S. government; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that electronic transfer of funds is far more efficient than the ever growing need to mint more and more currency. It doesn’t matter whether a person believes the government is for us or against us…an efficient idea is an efficient idea no matter what.

        “Wow, you really are an eternal optimist. You have so much faith in mankind, especially our government. The government has a long standing history of ill use of technology and they rarely are held accountable.”

        And your point is? Even the most benevolent governments on Earth will use available tech to further it’s own ends. There’s no escaping that. However, when the citizenry has an understanding of the same tech and isn’t intimidated, it creates a check and balance. It’s not governments that I believe in…it’s humanity I believe in. Now, if you’ve got a better solution, then by all means, get the word out.

        “Yes, you are right! “So far” Have you not been paying attention to such things as the Patriot Act and Presidential Decision Directive 51? How that in the event of an emergency the executive branch can suspend the constitution? All it will take is a monumental disaster of the caliber of, or surpassing, 911. After that, all bets are off. You are so naive and so trusting. The buying and selling part is just a front for the real motives of the mark. It is so that there can be more control over our lives. Do you think the government, or more specifically the IRS, cares how convenient it is for us? Can you not see how this could be abused? Why would the IRS not want this form of commerce? It would make it so much easier to go after tax evaders and they could raise your taxes without you even knowing it. History has shown how ruthless the IRS can be when it comes to getting what’s owed them.”

        First off, the suspension of Constitutional government in the face of any nationwide disaster or threat is pretty much a given in the post 9/11 world. That’s just a fact. Whether The Patriot Act (which has been gutted since Bush went out of office) was on the books or not, it’d still happen. As far as PDD 51 goes…have you read the actual PDD yourself? What does it do? It allows the President to form a 10 person council consisting of 10 State Governors who will meet with various heads of departments to discuss matters pertaining to homeland defense and civil support. And it grants them….um…nothing, actually. No legislative powers whatsoever. This council can form sub-committees to assist them..and draw up a charter to help allocate duties….and the only duties of this council is to…well, talk. That’s pretty much it. In fact, it says right in there that the purpose of the council is to exchange views, information and advice. Wow. That sure sounds threatening.

        As far as the IRS goes, this is probably the one place where we’re in agreement, but probably not for the same reasons. The graduated income tax is a hopelessly flawed economic tool and it utterly fails to accomplish anything other than paying the interest on our national debt. The IRS is just as ruthless as any other government agency, so I don’t see them as the boogeyman others do. However, the tax system needs to be revamped and the IRS abolished.

        “Yeah, people are pretty sheepish aren’t they? And, yes there is a limit. The Bible never says that all people will submit to it. They will resist because that limit has been reached. But many will welcome it. They already have! Mainstream media have reported on it as special human interest stories. Some people, a small minority, have the implant already and have even gone so far as implement its use into every aspect of their life, such as locking and unlocking their cars with it.”

        I wouldn’t use the Bible as source material as it has a pretty bad track record. As far as those people who are already using RFID chips, they have done so voluntarily for what they believe is best for themselves. It’s not for you or me to say otherwise. The number of people that have done this is so small that it barely measures on the radar…and you’re panicking.

        “There is so much you don’t know. Unfortunately for me, Steve doesn’t like videos posted on his site or I would show you some, recorded from mainstream, non-conspiracy theory sources, that would shake your theory to the core.”

        I know a lot more than you think. Mainstream media has zeroed in on these stories and made it sound like it’s something that it’s not. To me, this is like Y2K all over again. Mainstream media loves to jump on stories like these and exaggerate them to the fullest. If you don’t realize that, then you should just stop this nonsense now.

        “Do you think people would allow their cell phones to have mics built into them so that they can be listened in on at any time? Well, even after some major companies admitted to building listening devices into their cell phones because the government mandated it, do you see people en masse tossing their cell phones out the windows?”

        And why aren’t they tossing those cell phones? Because they’re too lazy. Because they don’t want to give up the convenience. Because the limits of peoples patience haven’t been reached yet. Sooner or later, virtually no one will tolerate this. That’s been the history of this country…we’ve tolerated a smack to our civil liberties for a while, but that’s always on a timer…and when time is up, the bullshit ends.

        “Who are these people who challenge it? I’m sure there could be someone, somewhere. But, either they are as determined to hold on to their established beliefs, like you are, or they just have never seen the footage of the location for themselves.”

        There’s Dr. Menahse Har-el of Tel Aviv University, there’s Gordon Franz, a professional researcher, there’s James Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament History and Arcaheology and more besides, all of whom have seen all the evidence and have more than a few objections. Just because YOU want to believe it’s true doesn’t mean everyone has to.

        “I am as skeptical as anyone when someone claims to have found Noah’s Ark or the Ark of the covenant, which is why I don’t bother to use either of them, or other such supposedly found holy grails, in any of my arguments. But I have seen the footage of this place for myself and I can honestly not debunk the footage (and not because I wasn’t tempted). I told you I am a skeptic. By insinuating that I believe everything that I read and hear is accusing me of hypocrisy.”

        That’s fine, but as I note above, they are plenty of others who CAN raise objections and, in their view, debunk the claim. As I said, just because you want to believe it’s true doesn’t make it true.

        “Sure, people have jumped on bandwagons, just like many have jumped on the bandwagon of evolution without approaching it with a skeptical mind. But for me to see any basis for using this in an argument, it means that I have looked at the evidence for and against it and looked at the history of it before settling on any conclusions.”

        That’s rather the problem with religious fanatics…they think they are skeptics, but really all they are looking for is something to fit into their world view. That’s what makes them fanatics. I seriously doubt that you’ve looked into the facts as closely as you claim, but it doesn’t matter what I say.

        “Oh, and speaking of looking for the next thing, how’s Ida going for ya? Looking for the next thing, yet?”

        And this is supposed to mean what to me? It’s already been well established that Ida was no kind of ‘missing link’, but at best may be a transitional form. And how was that established? Could it have been due to honest scientific inquiry and not just running amuck like fundies who think they’ve seen The Second Coming?

        Another nice try, but you get the short end again. There’s really nothing left to say.

    • Challagar said,

      “First off, yeah, I’ve seen Revelatations 13:17…and you know what? it’s just as ambiguous as any other ‘prophecy’. It provides no clear definition of what the ‘mark’ is supposed to be or exactly who/what ‘the beast’ happens to be. Christians have been attributing the ‘mark’ and the ‘beast’ to many things for centuries, but what happens? “Oh, guess that actually isn’t it”. It’s just a cyclical chain of looking for the next thing you can force to fit this ‘prophecy’.”

      OOOO, I get it, just like evolutionists have had to discard each “missing link” that they have supposedly uncovered over the years. All of them have either been frauds or cases of mistaken identity.

      “Second, RFID technology is a technology that, when employed legitimately, actually makes sense as does moving towards a more or less cashless society. The concept of a cashless society isn’t new…it’s been in the province of science fiction for a century now. Where do you think the idea sprang from? It makes complete sense…why would a society waste resources printing money when it can, far more efficiently and economically, simply be transferred as electronic data. ”

      You just have no skepticism whatsoever, do you? You think that the government is just all for the American people, don’t you? No matter how many scandals that are uncovered or how much our taxes have to go up to pay for our debt.

      “As far as RFID tech goes, it’s not some end times disaster. LIke all technology, some have employed it for good, some for ill. For example, the auto industry tried to get away with installing RFID devices without telling people and that blew up in their faces. This is ALWAYS going to happen when tech advances. It’s the price we pay for advancing our understanding. All we can do is stay vigilant and hold those who make ill use of tech responsible and punish them accordingly.”

      Wow, you really are an eternal optimist. You have so much faith in mankind, especially our government. The government has a long standing history of ill use of technology and they rarely are held accountable.

      “Third, RFID tattoos have, so far, only been used on livestock and NOT humans. So far, the human application ideas are for miltary personnel to make coordinating the efforts easier and for civilians to use it for the storage of medical data so that if someone is injured, detailed medical knowledge about them can be accessed instantly.”

      Yes, you are right! “So far” Have you not been paying attention to such things as the Patriot Act and Presidential Decision Directive 51? How that in the event of an emergency the executive branch can suspend the constitution? All it will take is a monumental disaster of the caliber of, or surpassing, 911. After that, all bets are off. You are so naive and so trusting. The buying and selling part is just a front for the real motives of the mark. It is so that there can be more control over our lives. Do you think the government, or more specifically the IRS, cares how convenient it is for us? Can you not see how this could be abused? Why would the IRS not want this form of commerce? It would make it so much easier to go after tax evaders and they could raise your taxes without you even knowing it. History has shown how ruthless the IRS can be when it comes to getting what’s owed them.

      “Unfortunately, despite what you think, this will never pass to be a mandatory tech for consumers to use. The vast majority of humanity will simply not permit itself to be branded like cattle and watched 24 hours a day. I know, that given the awful things some humans have done, it’s attractive to jump both feet into this conspiracy and think it’s really going to happen. It’s true that most humans are sheepish and do what’s necessary so as not to rock the boat…but there’s a limit. Humans are still humans and they still need some measure of freedom to function. The fear that you feel and create is pretty baseless.”

      Yeah, people are pretty sheepish aren’t they? And, yes there is a limit. The Bible never says that all people will submit to it. They will resist because that limit has been reached. But many will welcome it. They already have! Mainstream media have reported on it as special human interest stories. Some people, a small minority, have the implant already and have even gone so far as implement its use into every aspect of their life, such as locking and unlocking their cars with it.

      There is so much you don’t know. Unfortunately for me, Steve doesn’t like videos posted on his site or I would show you some, recorded from mainstream, non-conspiracy theory sources, that would shake your theory to the core.

      Do you think people would allow their cell phones to have mics built into them so that they can be listened in on at any time? Well, even after some major companies admitted to building listening devices into their cell phones because the government mandated it, do you see people en masse tossing their cell phones out the windows?

      “Finally, if you’re talking about the fence the Saudi government put up around the supposedly “rediscovered” Mount Sinai, then you really are reaching. There is no consensus on this at all. For every Biblical scholar that says Jebel al-Lawz is Mt. Sinai, there is one against it. Christians can’t even agree on LOCATIONS, much less anything of actual importance.”

      Who are these people who challenge it? I’m sure there could be someone, somewhere. But, either they are as determined to hold on to their established beliefs, like you are, or they just have never seen the footage of the location for themselves.

      I am as skeptical as anyone when someone claims to have found Noah’s Ark or the Ark of the covenant, which is why I don’t bother to use either of them, or other such supposedly found holy grails, in any of my arguments. But I have seen the footage of this place for myself and I can honestly not debunk the footage (and not because I wasn’t tempted). I told you I am a skeptic. By insinuating that I believe everything that I read and hear is accusing me of hypocrisy.

      “Sorry, but you’re going down the wrong avenue. You’re just acting like the stereotypical, Fundamentalist, conspiracy minded Christians…you’re just looking for things that you can fit into a prophecy…until you find out the fit isn’t so good, so you go looking for the next thing.”

      Sure, people have jumped on bandwagons, just like many have jumped on the bandwagon of evolution without approaching it with a skeptical mind. But for me to see any basis for using this in an argument, it means that I have looked at the evidence for and against it and looked at the history of it before settling on any conclusions.

      Oh, and speaking of looking for the next thing, how’s Ida going for ya? Looking for the next thing, yet?

  3. Melvin said,

    Brilliant! Hope you can make a YT video out of this new article.

    Evolutionauts make things so hard for themselves. Chasing after the wind.

    I’m sure it must take its toll on a person, a real crisis of conscience, to have to keep pretending / convincing themselves (lying to themselves) in denying the intelligent design which is so obviously seen in nature.

    I found it interesting to read recently an interview by Lynn Margulis, a world-renowned biologist. It appears she does not think NS + RM can create. Has Lynn been reading your stuff? It did not take long for the likes of PZ and Coyne to start the name calling and mudslinging… I think it was PZ who called her a “Crackpot”. Tsk, Tsk.

    See here…

    http://tinyurl.com/6kddr92

    Steve, I want to print out some of your articles, which I’ll probably just have to copy and paste one at a time, into Word. Do you already have your articles together in one document (Word or PDF), which you could upload to this site for downloading / easy printing? (I’m just being lazy).

    Thanks,
    M.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Thanks! And interesting article. An evolutonaut that can think? No wonder PZ doesn’t like her.

  4. ADParker said,

    Hi Stevebe.

    1. You used the wrong smiley in your quoting of my post there.

    2. You spelled “New Zealand” incorrectly.

    3. You checked my website?! How did you do that? I don’t have a website.

    4. If you mean my profile on rationalskepticism.org (as you linked to) then it is odd that you say “he/she doesn’t give his/her gender for some strange reason” because my gender is right there, bold as brass.

    5. No comments here either. Interesting. How can anyone have a conversation with someone who doesn’t bother to reply?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Damn, I knew it was Zea…. Zel….passed the spell check. So??? Oh well. I am almost perfect, but not 100%. The smiley didn’t fly on this blog, so I had to use what they had. Otherwise your argument is untouched by human hands. So you should be proud.
      Aren’t you from Palmerston North, NZ?

      http://brainden.com/forum/index.php?/user/5584-adparker/page__f__25

      Otherwise there are two ADParker’s in New Zealand! Both are 39! Funny, this Zealand says incorrect spelling. Blog glitch.
      Interests: Science, Philosophy, Reading (Science, Fanatsy), Comic Books That your interest list?

      • ADParker said,

        “Zeland” is a common misspelling. Don’t worry about it. Just noting that the correct one is Zealand. (My spell-check accepts “Zea” not “Ze”, I understand some dictionaries may differ on that, dictionaries are far from perfect either.)

        stevebee92653 said,:
        “Aren’t you from Palmerston North, NZ?”

        Yes. That isn’t my website either.
        As it happens it is a forum that I was invited to from RDF to help in a particular discussion. (Or possibly one I was invited to from another forum that I was in turn invited too from RDF for the same reason, in quick succession; I forget.)

        That “not telling” (for my gender) was a glitch. Looking at my profile there (I hardly ever visit any more – all the Christians ran away from the “Christian Discussion” Ha!) I had selected “male” but that is not what the profile read, it resorted to the default for some reason – refreshing fixed it (hopefully.)

        I have, on occasion, kept such information (gender, age…) private, for one simple reason; It should be irrelevant, and may (depending on the setting/topic) unduly sway some people in unwarranted directions.
        I have had people assume that I am homosexual or female due to my defending certain subjects, or not supporting their bigotry (because only women would support equality for women right?). And (frequently) that I am a fellow U.S.American – of course that happens even when my country is clearly displayed!

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Of course my question is why is my persona so damn important to you evolutionauts instead of my questions and thoughts? I DO know the answer, of course. But I am rather amazed at your desire to be anon while y’all frantically dig out my info instead of concentrating on what I say. I do appreciate you honesty on your school history. I wanted to introduce you on p. 41 so people who read it will have an idea about who you are. That is why I questioned.

      • ADParker said,

        I don’t know what you are talking about stevebee92653 .
        Unless you are conflating various questions etc. from various other people as if that was me.

        I admit that I did find it somewhat interesting to find that you were of an “engineer” bent. But that is just because I have noted what appears to be a correlation to that and belief in Intelligent Design Creationism. In that context you simply represent another statistic to add to the pile.

        The correlation appears to be that certain mindsets interpret reality in a way that encourages a tendency towards engineering [designing things] kinds of profession, as well as becoming attached to doctrines that assert intentional design behind nature/reality. The question is; the cause of the correlation -natural mental state (born with it or whatever) or indoctrinated in (childhood religion for example.) or what?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re:In that context you simply represent another statistic to add to the pile.
        Then what brings your here? I have a feeling I am FAR more than that, or you would have been gone long ago. And if you were not one of the identity raggers, I stand corrected. Not worth my time to check back, so I will take your word. Reality is NS and RM can’t design shit. Even “apparent design” shit. THAT is reality. On my side, I see the people that believe in evolution as the same mindset as the religious. I think there is a genetic tendency toward belief. Belief in what people tell them no matter how absurd. Theropods evolved into hummingbirds and chickens……”I believe it”. Noah got all the animal species in the world on a wooden boat……”I believe it”. Evolution followers must believe in the stuff told them by their trainers, no different than the way people in church believe the stuff told them by their revered leaders. You are religious, you just don’t know it.

  5. gene said,

    Poster on the RS forum said:

    “. A reason to believe that conscious observers are required for the existence of anything outside of the observer’s mind/head (including things which would appear to have happened or gotten there before being observed, which requires that this ability to create by observing can create stuff in the past”

    I recommend to readers understanding of delayed choice experiment:

    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm

    In quantum experiment detector doesn’t collapse wave function but our choice to know the output of the detector. Actually results are shocking to the point of disbelief. If we do an experiment with light, photons will adjust their behaviour in the past depending on what choice are we making now

    • Challagar said,

      gene, send me a message on Youtube. I’d love to hear what you think of that video series I recommended to you.

  6. gene said,

    Hi Challagar

    I watched few of the videos and than I forgot about it. I’m following few blogs/forums so it’s easy to get distracted. Great you reminded me. It was very interesting, I’ll have to finish watching the series now.

  7. gene said,

    Challagar

    I watched most of the videos you recommended. Is it possible all the artifacts mentioned are real but somebody wants to keep them hidden from public?

    • Challagar said,

      Message me in Youtube. I am wanting to make a video about this and I don’t want to turn it into a debate here.

    • Challagar said,

      And, to answer your question: Yes, some of it is hidden away, but most of it is well known and can be seen on documentary based channels such as The Discovery Channel et al. The problem is that they are generally attributed to aliens, if there is any speculation at all. Seldom do they consider that people were ever actually that intelligent back then since it doesn’t fit the caveman hypothesis.

  8. gene said,

    Challagar

    I subscribed to this thread but I’m not getting updates. Strange, usually wordpress is very reliable.

    Pardon, but how do you message on Youtube? The channel you recommended…is it yours?

    • Challagar said,

      No, it’s not my channel. You can message me at my channel. Same user name as here. Challagar. Be sure and not mispell it cuz many people do and get confused.

  9. Jack0707 said,

    Steve science will never accept the possibility of a creator(and this for psychological reasons).If science accepts that we are something artificial then she will have to admit that the planetary system is also something artificial.That we are alone in the universe and that some aspects of Life like death that are taken for granted, exist because this is how we are made.Quite mind boggling.Better avoid this scenario and claim that Life is a natural phenomenon

    • Dane said,

      Jack, science will not put forth the possibility of a creator until there is observable, testable, empirical, rationally objective evidence for one. See, science has no problem advancing ideas when credible evidence presents itself.

      Unfortunately, all the so-called ‘evidence’ for ID is based purely on inference and supposition and that’s not nearly enough.

      • allan3141 said,

        “Jack, science will not put forth the possibility of a creator until there is observable, testable, empirical, rationally objective evidence for one. See, science has no problem advancing ideas when credible evidence presents itself.

        Unfortunately, all the so-called ‘evidence’ for ID is based purely on inference and supposition and that’s not nearly enough.”

        (1) So why is the positing of the existence of an infinite number of “other” unobserved universes in order explain this universe allowed?

        (2) Why is the idea of abiogenesis considered science? Indeed considered to be truth but just not worked out yet?

        (3) Why are a myriad of mini “theories” within the general theory assumed true yet have little to no support and many contrary indicators? For instance it is taught as scientific fact that, by means of random mutations acted on by natural selection, some ancient reptile population(s) gradually evolved mammary glands and all that go with them.

      • Dane said,

        “(1) So why is the positing of the existence of an infinite number of “other” unobserved universes in order explain this universe allowed?”

        Because quantum mechanics allow for the postulation. Postulations are not facts nor has any scientist ever said so. In fact, the scientific community has already stated this will never extend beyond postulation until such a phenomenon is actually observed. Your point is very ill-made.

        “(2) Why is the idea of abiogenesis considered science? Indeed considered to be truth but just not worked out yet?”

        Abiogenesis is NOT considered a fact by any credible scientist or institution. As above, it is mere postulation. Until there is more data to support it into being a theory, it will never extend past the idea stage. There are a number of hypotheses but none are confirmed to the point of abiogenesis being labeled an undeniable fact.

        “(3) Why are a myriad of mini “theories” within the general theory assumed true yet have little to no support and many contrary indicators? For instance it is taught as scientific fact that, by means of random mutations acted on by natural selection, some ancient reptile population(s) gradually evolved mammary glands and all that go with them.”

        Because the current data based on examining current species coupled with what has been found in the fossil record bear the idea out?

        Your points are incredibly ill-made. I suggest you try credible science rather than regurgitate nonsenical ID rhetoric.

      • ADParker said,

        allan3141 said:
        “(1) So why is the positing of the existence of an infinite number of “other” unobserved universes in order explain this universe allowed?”

        “Positing” anything is fine, yes even magical beings and whatnot. The various level, and varieties therein, of multiverses however are a tad more significant than that (some of them at any rate, a few are just wild ideas – little more than science fiction fodder, and are treated as such), as they are extrapolations from insights from Quantum physics. They actually come out as plausible results of such work. As opposed to being thrown in as ‘quick fixes’ to problems. Some even manage to explain more things than the problems they bring with them; resulting in less required to explain if they are true, but of course there’s the run; are they true? How can we test to see if they are, or are not?
        Because they are however still just that; postulations, weak hypotheses at best. Just interesting ideas that may or may not bear fruit if or when we are able to test them. A part of the reason for them being taken at all seriously is twofold: 1) If found to be correct they clear up some number of current problems and areas of ignorance, and 2) in the hopes that such investigations will throw up means by which they can be tested; and therefore ether falsified and discarded, or added more fully into the ongoing science (note: NOT accepted as “The Truth”, never that.)
        In a way; theistic ideas are in the same boat. EXCEPT for a few important differences:
        They are not coming as a result of scientific investigation.
        They were not postulated as carefully reasoned explanations of investigated-in-detail observations, instead they appear to be the products of pre-scientific, pre-philosophical (i.e. largely pre-rational) imagination based of practically complete ignorance of the reality around them.
        They are in effect, the OLD postulations made, and subsequently (mostly) discarded, of far far earlier attempts to understand the universe around us. The postulations that failed (and continue to fail) to bear any fruit whatsoever, in terms of discovery of ontological truth at any rate.

        allan3141 said:
        “(2) Why is the idea of abiogenesis considered science? Indeed considered to be truth but just not worked out yet?”

        It is considered science, because it is science. A field of science investigating the origins of life, of biological systems. I think you are confusing the field of study with existing and established hypotheses in that field. Even scientifically worked out hypotheses that are subsequently falsified and discarded are “considered science”, because they are. Science is a system of investigation into what can be known about the universe, the search for knowledge, it is NOT a mere set of claimed truths, at all.
        Which brings us to:
        Considered to be truth? That is pre-scientific religious talk. Nothing is truly, fully, considered “Truth” in science, nor in any reason based investigation.
        It just so happens that abiogenesis (the origin of life from a prior time when there was none on this planet) as occurring as a matter of biochemistry (chemical reactions and bonding of biochemical molecules (those containing carbon, and often oxygen)) is a very active field of study at the moment. And as a consequence of the results of those thousands upon thousands of man-hours of investigation and experiment, it has been established that such an “abiogenesis” progression (natural chemistry resulting in Self-Replicating-Molecules in turn becoming, through the earliest random variations and ‘selection’ pressures, fully fledged biological organisms) is now known (as far as knowledge is obtainable) to be quite possible. That is not to say that we yet know how it happened, or indeed for certain that it did happen in that (biochemistry) way. But it IS to say that that is by far the most reasonable, albeit tentative, explanation at the present time. And that is what ALL scientific theories, and hypotheses are; the most plausible explanation as an approximation of reality and truth known at any particular time.

        Too many people demand “The Truth”; assertions of absolute truth, of proof. And then make the mistake of assuming that this is at all what the scientific methods provides, or is claimed to provide. It doesn’t. In fact one of the realisations in epistemological philosophy (science’s precursor) is that such “ultimate knowledge” may well be beyond us (except in those extremely limited purely conceptual contexts of mathematics and formal logic) or at least ‘devilishly’ hard to achieve. What science, and the scientific method embodies this, has since taught us is that, while that be the case, we CAN still achieve remarkable Approximations of knowledge and truth, and notably improve upon those approximations, to who knows what limits, if any! (Or would you deny that our understanding of the world, while all still less that absolutely certain, is vastly superior to that of our ancestors…oh say 350 years ago? That, for instance our understanding of “why things fall down as they do” is leaps and bounds beyond what it was at that time, even though we know that even our current theory of gravity is truly a “theory in crisis”?)

        allan3141 said:
        “(3) Why are a myriad of mini “theories” within the general theory assumed true yet have little to no support and many contrary indicators? For instance it is taught as scientific fact that, by means of random mutations acted on by natural selection, some ancient reptile population(s) gradually evolved mammary glands and all that go with them.”

        Ah, now you have leaped from abiogenesis to evolutionary theory without bothering to stipulate this change in content, I see.
        For starters “The Theory of Evolution” is a broad umbrella term for the general explanation of how life evolves (the known facts of evolution, some realised for centuries now.) And under that umbrella there are indeed a number of more refined and narrowly focused theories, hypotheses and areas of research. You could call that ‘umbrella’ a “Meta-Theory; scientists don’t call it that though, as they are familiar enough with how science works to be comfortable with the two differing contexts in which the word “theory” can be used within science.
        I know of no areas that are labelled “theory” yet “have little to no support and many contrary indicators” as you assert. If there are (it is possible, too many scientists act a little to fast and loose with that label “theory”, slapping it where it does not yet apply – in part this is because there is little need for such care among their fellow professionals who “get it”.)

        Taught as scientific fact?! Okay perhaps some things are in lower education. There are reasons for that; the primary one is that such “lying to children” is deemed appropriate by some, in order to get children over those early hurdles. Allowing later (tertiary etc.) education to disabuse them of those over-simplifications. I know that in my university studies, no small part of it involved learning that long thought “truths” were far less solid and fixed as I was once taught. And if done right one becomes better for it, it is a simple matter of expediency. And some of that goes right back to Plato, and perhaps his teacher Socrates, who made efforts to teach us that many of the things that we think we know, we do not know nearly as well as we might presume; this is an important aspect of growing up. In childhood we are often told things as simple truth; this helps us to lean more, rather than fixating on the tiny details which we are not yet rationally competent to tackle (if we tried at that point in our lives we would most likely never progress any further at all!). Only through, and after, which we may gain sufficient tools to tackle the trickier aspects of those things we were once taught to assume as true.
        Anyway: The only things in REAL science that are called “scientific facts” are those things they call facts, actually observed and measured occurrences, events and objects etc. on which laws (descriptions) and theories (explanations) are then built upon. In science; facts are minor things, compared to laws and theories. Laws are descriptions of sets of facts, theories are explanations of sets of facts and the laws that spring from them.
        As to your claimed example, setting aside how naively simplistic and confused it is; the answer is simple: that is what the evidence (fossil, genetic, morphological…) leads too. No other attempt at an explanation even comes close to fitting with and explaining so many of those little observed “facts” in biological nature, none. And there are ZERO “contrary indicators” that I am aware of, not real evidence supported ones at any rate. And those are the only ones that count.

        I’m sorry allan3141, but all you have done here is demonstrate how woefully ignorant you are on the subject. Which would be fine of course, everyone is ignorant on many subjects, if it weren’t for your blatantly confrontational manner; acting as if you had something that truly challenged the prevailing science at all. You don’t.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Anything in my writing that says life isn’t natural, as well as it’s source?

      • ADParker said,

        I think he was making the distinction of Natural / Artificial in the same context it is used in “selection”:

        “Natural Selection” is a biological process, a matter of how biological systems survive (or fail to) given the conditions they face. While “Artificial selection” usually refers to humans (or any sentient beings) deliberately selecting with intent. The very distinction between Evolution through natural selection (etc.) and intelligent design.

        In that sense at least, yes; Life being the product of intelligent intentional design would make life fit under the label “Artificial.”

        And no stevebee92653, like almost all ID proponents you have doggedly avoided addressing the nature of this purported intelligent source, which contrary to all evidence existed before the formation of complex organisms, including that of cognitive systems.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        ADParker, you’re not interesting. Asking dumb questions that you repeatedly ask and that have no answer is…..well, dumb. Anyone who believes that natural selection+ can initiate and build heart lung systems is just as religious as any religious person.

      • ADParker said,

        What the hel are you blathering about stevebee92653? I didn’t even ask a question!

        Well Excuuuse me for clarifying a rather basic point. Sheesh! What crawled up your skirt?!

  10. Challagar said,

    I know this is a science forum. But, I want to hear from all you skeptics on this matter. What do you all think about Maitreya?

    • Dane said,

      There’s not much to think about. This is the Buddhist version of the ‘end of the world’ scenario, although the ‘end’ in this regard is the ending of one time period and the beginning of another. Of course, the events that predicate the coming of Maitreya are themselves circumspect. The oceans of the world are to literally and physically grow smaller, humans are supposed to have reached a point where their lifespans are thousands of years and the quality of the human experience is supposed to be at an all-time low.

      There’s the school of thought that Maitreya reveals himself to different people in different manners. For example, for Christians, Maitreya is represented as Christ; for Hindus, he is represented as Krishna; for Muslims he is represented as Imam Madhi, etc. etc. Apparently, this school of thought believes this is all the same individual and when this entity finally makes itself known, then all religions will be as one under the guidance of Maitreya The Teacher.

      Of course, since there isn’t anyone around like that and the events leading up to Maitreya’s arrival haven’t manifested, I’d categorize Maitreya as every other supernatural savior: not really worth considering until there is some credible reason to give it consideration.

    • ADParker said,

      Firstly; what an odd comment Challagar. As is your questioning about Maitreya.

      On that; what Dane said. Only to add the further interesting comment that while the Buddhist (or more aptly version/sect/denomination therein) concept of Maitreya is one of being “The One” over which all others, including Jesus of Nazareth, Imam Madhi and Krishna are but representations. Likewise (and yet in complete contradiction to it) there is the very same concept in Hinduism (again a sect therein) of Krishna being “The One”, with Maitreya being relegated to just one of the representations along with the rest.

      Which one should we possibly believe? Any of them? Not without good reason. And all we have thus far are fanciful stories, as far as I can tell.

      You asked for the opinion of skeptics, when surely you already know the answer there; we are skeptical, expecting more than mere stories before anything will impress us.

      • Challagar said,

        I was just asking because I must confess that I was ignorant of him up until yesterday. I know, don’t let your jaw hit the floor. I went through a phase for a few years where I didn’t really give a rip about current events and only chatted or played games online. I knew you guys would be skeptical, and so am I.

        There will be many false prophets in the end, and as far as I can see, he is just one of many.

      • ADParker said,

        Oh you were referring to an actual guy (this one? : http://www.share-international.org/maitreya/ma_main.htm )
        And not the ‘original’ religious prophecy of one in Buddhism then.

        I was ignorant of him until you brought him up. I hardly consider yet another of these clowns (assumed as so until evidence to think otherwise – it’s the only practical and rational way to start, we can’t take every wild claim that seriously, there simply isn’t time – and it is trivially easy to make such empty assertions) as “current events”, more like current non-events.

        And there have always been “many false prophets.” There were certainly many at the purported time of Jesus (many claiming to be the Judaic messiah themselves) and innumerable since. So yeah; unless all people finally grow-the-hel-up, I would expect that if there is an “end” in some way, then there will probably be “many false prophets” then as well. Hardly a profound prophecy or anything.

        I would add the rather flippant remark that by all rational accounts; the number of “false prophets” will most probably equal the number of “all prophets” precisely!
        You do the math.

      • Challagar said,

        I found this article about Benjamin Creme, Matreya’s supposed disciple.

        http://the2012deception.net/?cat=95

      • ADParker said,

        What a wackadoo.
        No different from innumerable other delusional and/or dishonest wack jobs over the centuries.
        Nothing to see there.

  11. George Keith said,

    It occurs to me that intelligent design in living things is so pervasive, and obvious, from the smallest single cell component, to the largest whale or tree, that we should simply treat it as a fundamental assumption, like the existence of integers. The discovery and unraveling of DNA, with its many incredible features, is more than enough to convince most people who are familiar with it.

    Suppose we did that? What dreadful thing would happen to all science? What marvelous inventions would never have been born? What critical research would have fallen by the wayside? How would things be done differently, than they are now? I suspect very little would change. Most of the interesting research in biology, especially microbiology, is figuring out how the existing systems work. Ironically, this does assume they are designed – as they must work according to principles that can be identified. And they do. Biologists just don’t talk about that part.

    Who would the losers be? Natural history museum directors? Not at all. Replace those evolution displays with the incredible discoveries in microbiology. Atheists? They might feel somewhat abandoned if their creation story is ignored, but it won’t slow science down. And they have many other lines of attack for why this or that conception of God is inadequate, so it doesn’t really hurt their business. Grants to study evolution? Easily replaced by grants to study the limitless number of living systems that we don’t understand. Textbook publishers? They would benefit the most of anyone, by requiring changes in all those textbooks. Education? No one talks much about evolution anyway. So few people truly understand it, that it would be a relief to all those who have tried to explain it over the years. Religion versus science? That battle can still be waged with young earth creationists over the age of the earth, how light arrived from stars, and whether there really was a universal, global flood, and an ark. As Forest Gump said about money, it would be “one less thing”.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Gad, George. This is a great comment, so thanks! I wrote a book on the subject. (Evo-Illusion). In it I have a chapter on “what should be taught in schools”. Of course it’s what we humans know for sure. Why jam kids brains with fables? There is nothing wrong with not knowing, and admitting that fact. I wish I had your comment before I published. It would have been a great addition to the book. As it is, this comment will go straight to my favorite comments page.

  12. George Keith said,

    As you quoted from Wikipedia, their definition of design is:

    A specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.

    I find the Wikipedia definition of design quite interesting, because of the use of the word “agent”. When you click on “agent”, they basically say, a person (man or woman). God was included as an afterthought, but only in philosophy, not science. Hmm. So, doesn’t that rule out any living thing as being designed, because it wasn’t done by a person? Yes, it does. The same is true for any part of the material world.

    If you leave out “manifested by an agent”, then you can associate design with any living thing, as it is a trivial exercise to identify the specification, goals, environment, components, requirements, and constraints. For example, let’s take a fish. The specification is the fish itself. As a goal, we could say it is a creature (oops, there’s that create word) intended to live, feed and reproduce in the environment of the sea. Its primitive components (ok, they aren’t primitive, but who has the time for the real detail) consists of mouth, scales, gills, fins, skeleton, internal organs. I’m not sure what the intended difference is between goals and requirements. Or between requirements and constraints. But an example of a requirement would be that it be able to ingest oxygen from water. An example of a constraint would be that it be able to live in salt water.

    You can take this a step further, and claim that, as long as “agent” is not viewed as necessary to the definition, anything in all of nature would meet this definition (stars, elements, minerals, dirt). Indeed, it is almost as if all this stuff has been placed there for us, just lying around, waiting for us to do something creative (oops, the create word!), with it. Wow. Could it have been designed for us to make use of? Gosh.

    It is so odd. Design appears to be everywhere, in everything. And yet for some reason, our definition of design doesn’t include it, since WE didn’t make it. Hmm. Who is making up these definitions?

  13. George Keith said,

    The Appearance of Design

    Wikipedia definition of design:
    A specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.

    Definition of agent:

    In philosophy and sociology, agency is the capacity of an agent (a person or other entity, human or any living being in general, or soul-consciousness in religion) to act in a world.

    Looking at this definition of design, something else becomes clear. The difference between “appearance of design”, and “design”. And what is the difference? Something with only “the appearance of design” has no identifiable “manifesting agent”. Given that the only possible manifesting agent in the material world has already been limited to man (or something else we can identify as living, like a monkey), anything not designed by man, like, a living thing (we can’t do that, YET), must therefore, by definition, have only the appearance of design! This means that NO scientific explanation, based only in the material world, can possibly be used to justify that a living thing has been designed. By this definition.

    It is, of course, rather odd that creatures which formed without the benefit of design, somehow achieved the ability to design things themselves. Hmmm. Well, if you can believe that something more complex, can evolve from something less complex, you can believe pretty much anything.

    And for anyone out there who believes that a jumble of sticks represents complexity, it doesn’t. Complexity can be defined as the number of components, subcomponents, and communications between components, required to achieve the function of the given object. In the case of a jumble of sticks, there is one component, the sticks, and no identifiable relationship between them (hence the term, “jumble”).

    One final point. Suppose I find a shard of pottery in an archeological dig. Eureka! Evidence of man, the designing agent! Can I identify which man? Hmm, maybe, if he signed it. Otherwise, no, it could be any man. Most people would accept that a man, some man, made it. But what if I was hard headed about it, and said, unless you can SHOW ME THE ACTUAL MAN THAT MADE IT, I will not believe a man did this! This seems somewhat unreasonable, given that men still make pottery today, and we can observe them at it.

    Now, suppose we come across a living thing, and, to the best of our ability, come to understand as much as we can about what makes it tick. The organs, the blood, eyes, mouth, digestive system, even down to the cellular and micro-biological level. And we say, goodness, this is far more complex and wonderful than anything any man has ever made. In our better moments we can imitate, and even replace, some parts of it. But the original, wow, priceless. Yet for some reason, even though WE CANNOT SEE THE AGENT, we must deny that such an agent exists! In many ways we can show that whoever was responsible for this, was far more intelligent than we are, indeed, more intelligent than we can even comprehend. But simply because we cannot see it, we pretend it isn’t there? Is this any more reasonable than the man who refused to believe the pottery was made by someone, unless they saw the actual person that did it?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: