Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

It does make you think.

I am an IT guy, and a sometimes programmer.  I can tell you the inside secret ... if G-d were some programmer, it would explain why the world is such a mess.  Programmers aren't very intelligent about how they go about their business.  Otherwise Microsoft wouldn't have to constantly patch your stuff.  Since the term "spaghetti code" is suggestive, I would think that programming by humans or G-d, would validate the Flying Spaghetti Monster faith ;-)

[Unbeliever]

Just like 90% of science is all theory

Actually 100% of science is all theory. No matter how much confirmation the theory of relativity achieves, e.g., it's still the theory of relativity. A theory is a model, usually mathematical, that explains an aspect of nature in the simplest and least contradictory manner. A theory is not just guesswork on the part of scientists, but is what's left over after all other hypotheses have been tested and ruled out.

[Unbeliever]

    I CANT WAIT TO HEAR THE BLIND FAITH OF ATHEISTS TO COUNTER THIS EVIDENCE.

Why does neiswander  keep yelling at us?

[widdershins]

I know I'm late to the party, but I'll take a crack at this video.  I have a little time on my hands and it might entertain me for a bit.

In the very first sentence in this video it asserts (not proves, not gives evidence for, simply asserts) that DNA was designed with the term "design ingenuity".  To "assert" something certainly doesn't mean you've proved it.

The second sentence is little different, calling DNA the "densest information storage mechanism known in the universe".  While this statement is technically correct they certainly don't go out of their way to explain that the word "information", as used by science, does not mean the same thing it means in common use.  In common use the word "information" infers a purposeful arrangement of data.  So we've already started with an assertion followed by a lie by omission.

The third sentence goes on to reinforce that lie by omission by purposefully linking the word "information" to its common use.  We find "information" by its common use in books.  But the scientific use of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the common use, as is true for many words scientists use.

The fourth sentence, again, makes an assertion, calling "the program code and design" and, again, asserting that it "indicates a supremely intelligent designer".

Then Ken Ham says some shit, as Ken Ham often does.  But interestingly, he starts out with "The evidence TO ME..."  He accidentally says right off that this is his belief, his opinion, not a fact of any sort.  He says that DNA is "like books of information that's written by a language system".  Well, not, it is not.  He's using the imagery of "books" there again to bolster his misuse of the word "information".  He then goes on to say, "Scientists know today that languages or code only come from intelligence..."  Well no shit!  Voodoo priests thousands of years ago knew that too.  But the following bit is the interesting bit, the bit where he shows that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, so we'll do a new paragraph for that.

He says "Nobody has ever seen matter by itself give rise to a code."  True, but the idea that DNA is "a code" is an assertions, not a fact which was proved.  He then says, "Nobody has ever seen matter by itself give rise to information."  And THAT is the gotcha moment.  Matter by itself IS information, by the scientific use of the word.  When Stephen Hawking is saying that a black hole can lose mass over time without violating the "conservation of information", he's not talking about the DNA of the black hole.  He's not talking about the volumes upon volumes of books contained within that black hole.  He's talking about the matter "by itself".

He then says, "...as you look at DNA, it actually cries out 'In the beginning, God created...'"  Again, that is an assertion, not a proved fact, and, in fact, that assertion is false in this instance because even he can give NOTHING to suggest that the DNA is in any way indicating his God, specifically.  This is a conclusion he has drawn based on the crap between his ears the spews out of his mouth on a regular basis.

Now, I don't know who Dave Hunt is, but I can tell you he's a moron if he thinks a single cell is the size of a period at the end of a sentence.  I can also tell you he's a moron if he thinks a cell "knows" anything at all.  He hasn't bothered to educate himself on the most basic premises of biology.  And THIS is a man you would have me get my science from?  He goes on to make an argument from ignorance (We can't comprehend it, so it MUST be magic!) which is itself, an ignorant argument.  Then he, too, starts making assertions, saying, "...encoded is the instruction manual..."  Again, he's incorrectly and dishonestly linking scientific processes to human concepts of information, this time in the form of "instructions".  Though, to be fair, I don't think this guy is a liar, I just think he's really old and not that bright.  He goes on to use words such as "manufacture", "build" and "operate", again improperly linking complex biological processes to the human experience.

It then goes back to the narrator, who states that DNA is a "three dimensional molecule that is self-replicating", as if this were unique in nature.  ALL molecules are "three dimensional" because "the universe".  As for the self-replicating part, the narrator claims that "Each molecule is able to make an identical copy quickly and efficiently", suggesting the process is perfect and without flaw, which is very much not the case.  This is followed by the assertion that "The Lord has even programmed DNA...", once again a claim for which no evidence is given.

That was about all of this shit I could be bothered to watch.  Like all "evidence" of design, this video contains nothing but a pile of assertions which are not proved, never once giving any "evidence" which was not, itself, simply an assertion.  The only thing even remotely "evidenced" in this video, at leas to the 2 minute 34 second mark, is how desperate creationists are to convince themselves their mythology is real.  Because this crap disguised as science isn't going to convince anyone with half a brain.  I can only surmise that its total purpose is to strengthen the ignorance of the already ignorant.

Okay, it wasn't as fun as I thought.  More tedious than anything.  Why did I make myself listen to Ken fucking Ham?

[Baruch]

Sounds like Bible Code fantasy, only done with molecules instead of ink on paper.  People see patterns in nature, that aren't there, all the time.  Some of these patterns that we perceive, are more useful than others.  Whether or not the pattern is "there" is debatable.  The meaning isn't "there" until we ascribe it.

[stromboli]

I watched the video up to the point that Ken Ham popped up. Nope.

[PickelledEggs]

Oh man. I missed the party.... It all happened so fast...

[widdershins]

Sounds like Bible Code fantasy, only done with molecules instead of ink on paper.  People see patterns in nature, that aren't there, all the time.  Some of these patterns that we perceive, are more useful than others.  Whether or not the pattern is "there" is debatable.  The meaning isn't "there" until we ascribe it.

This isn't even that impressive.  The "proof" they offer is to just keep asserting over and over that it's true and misuse scientific terms to confuse what they're actually saying and make it sound more impressive than it is.  It's almost literally nothing more than an assertion with each sentence.

[Baruch]

Well the only cure for that is better science education ... and fewer R-party folks on school boards.

[widdershins]

Fair warning, this is a LONG post, presenting my evidence that ID is all bunk.

[spoiler]
Intelligent Design has many problems and, if you know what to look for, its flaws are obvious and monumental.  The problem people have with understanding why Intelligent Design is nothing like a scientific theory is a lack of understanding of how science works.  So, we’re going to start with a very basic understanding of science and the scientists themselves.

Simplistically speaking, there are three basic types of scientists.  I call them the Thinkers, the Tinkerers and the Doers.  This concept is very simplistic and, thus, not entirely accurate, but it’s a simple way to think about the concepts I’ll be discussing later.

Thinkers are the likes of theoretical physicists.  Their job is to think about what we know about the universe and think about what it could mean.  They propose ideas, many of them wild and crazy, that the scientific community may look into if the idea seems to have merit.  It is important to note that these ideas are not “theories”, which we will discuss later.

Tinkerers are the backbone of science and discovery.  They do the experiments, collect and analyze the data and actually develop scientific theories.  This is the group that makes the new discoveries and actually advances science.

The last type are the Doers, the people who take what we know about science and apply it to the real world.  A good example here are the computer sciences.  Computer scientists use existing theory on electricity and materials to build a better computer, design it to use less power or produce less heat, work faster and the like.

Now, it’s important to note that most scientists don’t actually fit neatly into a single one of these categories.  Again we’ll use the example of computer scientists.  By the description I gave you would think that they did nothing to advance science.  After all, they’re just applying someone else’s theories to the real world.  While that is true, computers are a separate field of science which rely heavily on other fields.  While computer scientists may not advance electrical theory normally, they do advance computer theories.  So the Doer is also a Tinkerer, and possibly even a Thinker.  As I have said, this concept is simplistic and not entirely accurate, but for the purpose of this discussion we’ll shoehorn the sciences into these three categories based on which category best matches what we’re talking about.

The reason I started thinking about this is because I had a friend recently complaining that scientists did not listen to “armchair scientists”, which is apparently how he likes to think of himself.  To him, you did not need any real training in any science to be able to evaluate scientific theories and ideas.  To him, if a guy was “smart”, scientists should sit down and listen to him on any scientific concept because, in his mind, he had something to offer the scientific world.  It occurred to me that what my friend was saying was that he wanted to have his ideas heard, he wanted to be a part of science, but without putting in any of the work.  He didn’t want to get a degree, he didn’t want to get a job in the sciences, he didn’t want to do any research, he didn’t even want to search the Internet for the knowledge he would need to build any equipment to run any tests.  He wanted to be seen as being just as “smart” as scientists, in this case physicists, without doing any of the work.  And it occurred to me, THIS is the Intelligent Design crowd.

Let’s start with why there is no such thing as an “armchair scientist” and why, even if I had the best idea in the world, they would be right not to bother to listen to me.  An “armchair scientist” is really nothing more than a self-important person who thinks very highly of their own intellect and wants to use the word “scientist” to describe themselves.  I’ve never met a person like this, my friend included, who was as smart as they think they are.  Yes, he’s an intelligent guy, but he’s not that intelligent.  He has nothing to offer the physics community.  He has some ideas which sound cool if you don’t know the science very well, but he doesn’t know the material, quantum mechanics, well enough to be advising quantum physicists.

Sitting down and listening to his ideas would be time out of their lives spent explaining why he was wrong that they would never get back.  They couldn’t get by simply telling him that he was wrong.  He would think they were idiots.  They would have to explain why he was wrong.  For that, they would have to teach him quantum mechanics.  Why would they do that?  There are schools to teach him that and if he wasn’t so smug and lazy he’d just go to one to earn his voice in the scientific community like they did.  While he thinks he would dazzle them with his amazing intellect, he would really be wasting their time.  And when they were done explaining that, the next “armchair scientist” would be waiting outside the door to have his voice heard.

Now, of course, there is the chance that one of them would have something intelligent to say; that one of them would actually advance scientific understanding with something brilliant.  But not only is that chance small, the advancement made would utterly pale in comparison to the research time lost by all the scientists in the world having to waste time talking to self-important lunes all day every day.  They simply don’t have time to entertain every crazy idea presented to them by untrained people who fancy themselves scientists but are too lazy to actually become scientists.

And that is the start of Intelligent Design, but nowhere near the whole story.  Intelligent Design was developed by “armchair scientists”, but not just any old armchair scientists.  These were armchair scientists with an agenda.  They wanted to disguise creationism as science.  Now, there are many who would object to this observation, but it has been proven in court.  The first book on Intelligent Design, Of Pandas and People WAS a creationist book in its original form and was modified to be a book on Intelligent Design immediately after the courts struck down teaching creationism in schools.  This is FACT and is indisputable, though that doesn’t stop others with an agenda from disputing it just the same.  Draft copies of the book had clear, undeniable evidence that the word “creationists” was replaced with the term “design proponents”.  Intelligent Design IS creationism relabeled.

So now Intelligent Design is not only put forth by “armchair scientists”, it’s also poorly disguise clearly un-scientific religious teachings.  So, what category does it fit into?  Well, “armchair scientists” fancy themselves Thinkers.  Tinkering and doing are work, but thinking, that’s pretty easy and can be done while you’re getting drunk.  And clearly no “science” was done on Intelligent Design because it is not a science (again, this is FACT proved in court).  But remember, these were armchair scientists with an agenda.  Because of this, Intelligent Design SHOULD fit neatly into the “Thinker” category, but it doesn’t.  That’s because it has be disguised to look as if it fits into the “Tinkerer” category.  In reality, since no science was done on it, Intelligent Design is purely “Thinker” territory, and remember, Thinkers don’t make theory.  They just have ideas.  But those with the agenda to get creationism back into schools called it Intelligent Design “Theory” because they wanted to disguise the fact that it was nothing more than an idea with no testing and no data to support it.  They manufactured the illusion of data with ideas like irreducible complexity, but there is no real “data” there at all.  Literally ALL the “evidence” to support Intelligent Design is not actually evidence “in support of” Intelligent Design, it’s nothing more than attacks on the Theory of Evolution.  Irreducible complexity says nothing of the merits of Intelligent Design, for instance.  It only says that evolution can’t explain this or that.  So let’s take a look at that for a moment.

What if science were to suddenly come across something that evolution simply could not explain?  What would happen?  Intelligent Design proponents appear to think that this would mean the end of the Theory of Evolution; that we’d just scrap the whole thing and simply accept the only other “theory” out there, their drivel.  Well, that’s not how it works.  Unlike religion, science is not “desperate” to answer questions.  Scientists don’t search and accept just any old answer that comes along.  They want the right answer, or at least as close as they can get with current understanding.  The Theory of Evolution works on so many levels and in so many ways.  It is used in medicine and biology every day, and successfully so.  The Theory of Evolution works, so if we found a chink in its armor, what happens?  What would NOT happen is to simply scrap the whole thing and start over.  Let’s look at a real-world example of two conflicting theories which are BOTH accepted, even though they don’t work together.

The Standard Model of physics works very well in some cases and is taken as a very solid scientific theory.  It predicted the quark, the neutrino and the Higgs Boson, all of which were confirmed.  But there are instances where it doesn’t work.  Then we need Quantum Mechanics to explain the behaviors which can’t be predicted or explained by the Standard Model.  Both theories work very well in a particular scope, but when you get out of that particular scope the theories fall apart and don’t work at all.  There are known flaws, known points where these theories are wrong.  But we’re still using both.  That is because they work in known areas and there’s nothing better to replace them with right now.  That is what would happen if someone found a problem with the Theory of Evolution.  The entire theory wouldn’t be scrapped and replaced by whatever else happened to be there.  In the case of the Standard Model vs Quantum Mechanics, when a Grand Unified Theory is found, both will be replaced, BUT components of both will be part of the new, and not small components either.  And the ONLY reason they will be replaced is because they are two distinct theories which have to be combined.  To get one theory out of two you have to replace them.  Normally the existing theory is simply modified to incorporate the new understanding.  So if we found a flaw with the Theory of Evolution, it would not be simply dismissed.  Science doesn’t work that way.  There would be new data collected, new experiments run.  Scientists would try to quantify this inconsistency and would in all likelihood modify the Theory of Evolution to incorporate the new understanding (as has happened with all scientific theories countless times, including evolution).  The only way the Theory of Evolution would be replaced is if there was a better theory out there, which is what proponents hope Intelligent Design will become, but it won’t.  It’s simply impossible because Intelligent Design is not science.

So, how can we know that Intelligent Design is not science?  I keep saying that, but other than showing that it IS creationism relabeled, I have not explained why it is not science.  So, let’s get the obvious thing out of the way first.  Intelligent Design breaks one of the cardinal rules of science, it defers to a supernatural explanation.  This is a big deal.  Why?  Because it’s a show-stopper.  It is the end of knowledge, the end of understanding.  If I ask, “Why does the sun rise every morning and set every night?” I can go about explaining it, for the sake of argument, in 2 ways.  I can use the scientific process to figure it out or I can simply say that it’s “God’s work”.  While the second explanation may make me feel better and give me a special sense of wonder, frankly, it doesn’t make me any smarter.  If it’s God’s magical powers doing it, it’s beyond explanation and I don’t need to do anything else because I couldn’t figure it out anyway.  I learn nothing.  And that’s actually just fine.  If I don’t really want to know how the sun works, if I’d rather comfort myself with thoughts of the sheer power of my deity then I have done what I set out to do.  But science isn’t about comforting us.  Science is about gaining understanding.  If what I really want is to understand it then I CAN NOT simply give a supernatural explanation, one which, let’s face it, I would be just guessing at anyway unless my deity sat down with me and told me that was true.  It may be what I believe, but I would still just be making up an answer as I would have no way to know that what I had said was true.  It wouldn’t be something I knew, it would be something I believed.  Contrary to the beliefs of many religious people, those two things are very much NOT equivalent.  Belief is fine, but it’s not knowledge.  And that’s why calling on a supernatural explanation is not science…EVER.

Next, no matter what you’ve seen, no matter what you’ve heard, there is not one scrap of evidence for Intelligent Design.  Not one shred!  Think about every “fact” (I use that word loosely here) you’ve ever heard in support of Intelligent design.  Really think about it and ask yourself one question: Does that “fact” support Intelligent Design, or does it only dispute the Theory of Evolution?  Let’s look at irreducible complexity.  It says that there are certain structures which “could not”…let’s stop right there.  “Could not”.  The word “not” tells us right there, this isn’t in support of something, it’s disputing something.  I don’t show my support for a politician by “not” supporting him.  I don’t tell you how much I enjoyed a meal by using the word “not”.  That is a negative word, used to do the OPPOSITE of showing support.  So, what could have “not” happened?  “…be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system…”  This quote is from TalkOrigins.org and it is describing evolution as what could “not” happen.  Irreducible complexity is not an argument FOR Intelligent Design.  It’s an argument AGAINST the Theory of Evolution.

That covers “most” of the arguments for Intelligent Design, but there is another type of argument, that certain aspects of nature show “clear evidence” of design.  What “evidence”?  Because that is a claim, not scientific data.  When asked for this “evidence” they will show you something and gain “claim” that it shows “evidence” of design, but when pressed can only give another negative argument trying to shoot down evolution.  The “evidence” they are talking about is either something they believe disputes evolution or a purely subjective analysis of what they’re looking at.  In reality they offer no “evidence” of any sort.

There are a few (VERY few) actual scientists who support Intelligent Design.  The biggest supporter is the Discovery Institute, the religious institution responsible for the creation of Intelligent Design and its push into the public.  Documents from the beginnings of this push show that they intended to get it accepted as a science and use it to replace the Theory of Evolution with a big push to get it into schools.  They used phrases like “teach the controversy” to try to push it into public schools, which is the next indication of a pseudoscience, take your argument to the public instead of the scientific community.  The idea here (and an idiotic one) is that every sixth grade student is as equipped as any scientist to debate the merits of any scientific theory and decide for themselves which one was correct.  Once again, that is not how science works.   The intention wasn’t to “further scientific thinking”, the intention was to get creationism back into schools (again, this was PROVED in court; it is a FACT).

Of the very few scientists who actually back Intelligent Design, fewer still are actually “working on” Intelligent Design, the next indication that it’s a pseudoscience.  Until recently ID proponents had published no papers and done no research.  Since the court case which proved it to be creationism they have begun working on this to bolster the appearance that it is science.  Not surprisingly these papers started showing up the very year Intelligent Design went to court, but even that isn’t exactly honest on the part of ID proponents.  At the time of the Dover trial, which was filed[/] October of 2004 but didn’t actually begin until almost a year later, it came up in court that there were ZERO peer reviewed articles in support of Intelligent Design.  Right now the Discovery Institute page lists at least two from that very year.  The principal author of one of those, Michael Behe, was the very man what had to admit on the stand about a YEAR LATER that there were “no” peer reviewed articles which supported Intelligent Design.  It’s more than a little strange that a scientist would say there were “no” peer reviewed articles in support of it when he, himself, had published one barely a year prior to that.  A much more plausible explanation is that in the scramble to come up with anything in support of this pseudoscientific nonsense they didn’t bother to check the dates; they didn’t bother to hide an obvious deception, which is what Intelligent Design really is.  It’s a lie, and its proponents know it.  By Behe’s own admission on the stand, by the definition one has to use for the word “science” in order to include Intelligent Design as an actual science, astrology is also a science.  Knowing the astrological sign you are born under and what that means for your life is every bit as “scientific” as Intelligent Design, again, by Michale Behe’s own admission under oath.

These people aren’t peddling “truth” and they don’t care one bit about any sort of “truth”.  What they are peddling is belief which they call truth.  Every Christian thinks his beliefs are “truth”.  Every Christian calls their beliefs “the truth”.  But when they talk about their beliefs we understand that it’s their belief that it is the truth, not a fact that it is truth, so at least there is some level of honesty there.  Intelligent Design is a “truth” built on a foundation of lies and deception.  They are pretending that it’s more than just their beliefs.  They are pretending that there is some proof, some evidence to support their claims, their beliefs that this is “truth”.  They are willing to lie to us in any way necessary, to manufacture any “evidence” necessary, to use any trickery necessary to get people to believe in Intelligent Design by misrepresenting a belief system as factual.  Intelligent Design is no more factual than any other form of creationism.  If you want to believe it, fine.  If you believe it’s the “truth”, fine.  But if you really have something special you wouldn’t need to lie to me constantly about it.  If you have to spend so much time disguising and polishing what you’re presenting to me, you’re probably holding a turd.  With Intelligent Design, you’re definitely holding a turd and I can smell it from here.
[/spoiler]

[RCnal]

"They wrote a whole book about god, why wouldn't he be real?"

LOL, This gets me every time!

[Hijiri Byakuren]

"They wrote a whole book about god, why wouldn't he be real?"

LOL, This gets me every time!

Harry Potter got 7.

[Unbeliever]

Euler's proof, to Diderot, that God exists.

[Unbeliever]

Therefore God?

It would've been a lot more interesting had the Curiosity rover found it on Mars, but still...

[TheVirtueOfTruth]

So, yes, I've made another thread to carry on from the archived one. What happens to this is up to the gods, but its here anyway, just in case. I've copied the OP from the original thread, so let the chat commence:

"We often get many theists claiming to have evidence for the god or gods they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim of allowing them to supply such evidence so that we may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions they have drawn, and so that we may respond in kind.

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"

If you have evidence
that supports your belief there is no God please post it here

" I often get many atheist claiming
to have evidence that God does not exist
that they hold dear. This thread is created with the aim
of allowing them to supply such evidence so that
I may debate with them knowing the facts and conclusions
they have drawn, and so that I may respond in kind.