The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

HAHAHAHAHA priceless!

Has it ever occurred to you to cite scientific literature to support your ludicrous claims?

Evidently not.

The interesting thing is that, at least for the citations he has posted, none of the authors agree with him! In fact, the majority of the references have nothing to do with the OP's statement. Not a single reference confirmed his speculative opinion that an intelligent entity was an absolute requirement for DNA/RNA. Not a single one - so where does that leave him? Speculative opinion based on zero evidence.

a reply to: neoholographic

You've quoted Hubert Yockey several times, but failed to consider the context of his statements from the same letter:

The whole purpose of science is to consider contending theories and discard the ones that are inadequate or invalid.I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion. I did not foresee that Dr. Thaxton and his fellow travelers would resort to techniques of propaganda when their theories failed in the scientific arena because that is not how scientists function.

and this:

Whenever I refer to materialism, I am referring to the dialectical materialism of MarxismStalinism. Whatever I may have believed then, I quickly came to reject Creationism and I certainly reject Intelligent Design. Religion and faith have no business in the public schools, especially in science classes. So it seems that I am a counterpoint to Antony Flew. However, it would be inaccurate to say that I arrived at this point of view by becoming an atheist.

Theism and atheism both are irrelevant to science because they address problems of faith and belief.

I concur with Socrates that science should limit itself to “counting, measuring and weighing.” Socrates gave the best explanation of what the methods and purposes of science should be:

Socrates: Every sort of confusion like these is to be found in our minds; and it is this weakness in our nature that is exploited, with a quite magical effect, by many tricks of illusion, like scene-painting and conjuring.

Glaucon: True.

Socrates: But satisfactory means have been found for dispelling these illusions by measuring, counting and weighing. We are no longer at the mercy of apparent differences of size and quantity and weight; the faculty which has done the counting, measuring or weighing takes control instead.And this can only be the work of the calculating or reasoning element in the soul.” The Republic, Book X, Plato (428-348 B.C.), translated by Francis M. Cornford, Oxford University Press.

and this:

6.

Evolution and the origin of life are separate questions. My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods.

All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded. There are many things in science and mathematics that are true, but unknowable. The earlier children learn about the scientific and mathematical concept of unknowability, the better they will be able to grasp the concepts that currently are re-shaping mathematics and science.

The statement that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods directly contradicts your assertion that an intelligent designer was a forfeit conclusion and an absolute requirement. He made that abundantly clear is this statement:

Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion.

So perhaps YOU should explain how selectively quoting Yockey supports your speculative opinion??? The man clearly and distinctly says that NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is required, as opposed to your opinion that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER IS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.

This letter was written in 2005, some 16 years ago. A lot has changed since then, making some of his other statements "old technology".

But we have a conundrum here, don't we

a reply to: Phantom423

NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is required

but an intelligent design is required the human organism has an intelligent design right ?
our nervous system it has an intelligent design like our lungs have

either way designer or no designer we as humans have intelligent designs that make us i.e circulatory system
how these designs came about is the crux of the debate right ?

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER is required

but an intelligent design is required the human organism has an intelligent design right ?
our nervous system it has an intelligent design like our lungs have

either way designer or no designer we as humans have intelligent designs that make us i.e circulatory system
how these designs came about is the crux of the debate right ?

No, No and No.

After 44 pages this is all we can say:

1. We DO NOT KNOW how the first DNA/RNA molecule came about on this planet.
2. We DO NOT KNOW how the first life form developed.
3. It's possible that the universe and life are infinite - had no beginning and has no end.
4. That the components of life came from space - phosphate sugars were found in tact in a meteor last year.
5. Life itself came in tact from another planet.
6. That the universe is a computer simulation being run by some alien race or the original designer.
7. That there is/was an entity that simply designed the whole thing and executed it.
8. Formed in the primordial soup of Earth without any interference at all - simply an environmental phenomenon.

We DO NOT know the absolute answers to these scenarios - regardless what the OP would like everyone to think.

a reply to: Phantom423

so the design that enables blood too pump around our bodies is not intelligent ? not a smart way too do it ?

a reply to: kibric

Define "intelligent" in the context you are using it.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

so the design that enables blood too pump around our bodies is not intelligent ? not a smart way too do it ?

No. It's part of a process. There are no little green men with hydraulic pumps in the circulatory system.

a reply to: cooperton

I still don't think they understand your argument. Great point regarding them being incapable of understanding the other perspective, whereas we can always empathize with their perspective.

You're right!
I put these on and I can finally see all the absurdities.

a reply to: GetHyped

intelligent an efficient and effective use of energy

example this machine has an intelligent design that enables it too .....vacuum your floor or keep your fuel consumption low etc

a reply to: Phantom423

3. It's possible that the universe and life are infinite - had no beginning and has no end.

...is it possible? is it really?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

3. It's possible that the universe and life are infinite - had no beginning and has no end.

...is it possible? is it really?

Why not? No one has proven that it isn't.

a reply to: Phantom423

The whole purpose of science is to consider contending theories and discard the ones that are inadequate or invalid.I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion. I did not foresee that Dr. Thaxton and his fellow travelers would resort to techniques of propaganda when their theories failed in the scientific arena because that is not how scientists function.

and apparently, neoholographic didnt foresee that you would turn his own source back on him. hahaha, this is great. the irony!

a reply to: kibric

Is water intelligent, then? After all, it follows the path of least resistance. Same goes for any object under gravitational pull.

However, your choice of definition has no bearing to any of the defined definitions of "intelligence". All you've done is redefined it to mean "efficient". And "efficient" is a relative term so your definition is not only wholly incompatible with any accepted definition but also so vague as to be utterly meaningless.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

The whole purpose of science is to consider contending theories and discard the ones that are inadequate or invalid.I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion. I did not foresee that Dr. Thaxton and his fellow travelers would resort to techniques of propaganda when their theories failed in the scientific arena because that is not how scientists function.

and apparently, neoholographic didnt foresee that you would turn his own source back on him.

Neo thinks he can make a blanket statement about an "absolute requirement" for anything without evidence. The guy simply won't discuss what research we do have i.e. what we know and what we don't know. And we most definitely DO NOT KNOW that an intelligent designer is an absolute requirement for DNA/RNA and life. There's an array of possibilities as I stated above. It's an open question that the physics gurus study.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: neoholographic

I still don't think they understand your argument. Great point regarding them being incapable of understanding the other perspective, whereas we can always empathize with their perspective.

I was thinking about the brain this weekend and the intricate circuitry involved in the organization of this immensely complex organic computer... Realizing the impossibility of self-assembly being involved in its creation. Even us intelligent beings fail to completely understand the intelligence involved in the structure and function of the nervous system.

Exactly,

They claim to be open minded but as soon as a Creationist or Creationist website is mentioned, they don't debate the issues they whine about the Creationist or Creationist website. On the other hand, we can talk about athiest and materialist in a way that's not a knee jerk reaction or in black and white terms.

You also make a good point about how this is impossible for chance and self organization as the atheist Yockey also says.

The Genetic Code gives us the raw materials to work with and the complex regulatory network which some Scientist have called an operating system constructs these raw materials into the organisms we see today. It's like a car factory. You have the raw materials but you need the instructions to make the car. You also need the person who mops the floors to the person who sells the cars. It's an entire ecosystem that works together and this is what we see in the genome. Can you say, irreducible complexity?

Even with the smallest genome to date which is synthetic and consist of 473 genes, 30% of it is unkown but they know if they remove parts of these unkown areas the organism dies.

So the idea that some simple something magically became a complex system that encodes and decodes information is preposterous!!

a reply to: Phantom423

this circulatory system has an intelligent (a efficient and effective process of using energy ) design that enables it too pump blood around the body

not that the circulatory system has sentient intelligence jeeez

originally posted by: cooperton
Great point regarding them being incapable of understanding the other perspective, whereas we can always empathize with their perspective.

I almost fell out of my chair just now reading this. This is the biggest load of donkey dung I've read on here in a long time. You do not empathize in the least, you blindly deny it. The dishonesty factor in this thread is insurmountable. I honestly don't think that anybody should even give this black hole thread the time of day anymore. It's pure dishonesty and ignorance repeated over and over. All his questions were answered and the answers were dismissed blindly with no rebuttal. That says all I need to know.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

The whole purpose of science is to consider contending theories and discard the ones that are inadequate or invalid.I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion. I did not foresee that Dr. Thaxton and his fellow travelers would resort to techniques of propaganda when their theories failed in the scientific arena because that is not how scientists function.

and apparently, neoholographic didnt foresee that you would turn his own source back on him. hahaha, this is great. the irony!

This makes no sense.

Yockey and Thaxton can debate Creationism all they want to. The important point is that Yockey agrees with me. It's impossible for science to explain the encoding/coding system in DNA therefore he says it an axiom of biology also agreeing with Dr. Sanford.

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

BINGO!

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: Phantom423

this circulatory system has an intelligent (a efficient and effective process of using energy ) design that enables it too pump blood around the body

not that the circulatory system has sentient intelligence jeeez

No. How do you come to that conclusion? The process is efficient and has evolved over millions of years to be what it is today. We know that from the fossil record. But that says nothing about a "designer" or anything else about the origin.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Phantom423

The whole purpose of science is to consider contending theories and discard the ones that are inadequate or invalid.I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded. Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion. I did not foresee that Dr. Thaxton and his fellow travelers would resort to techniques of propaganda when their theories failed in the scientific arena because that is not how scientists function.

and apparently, neoholographic didnt foresee that you would turn his own source back on him. hahaha, this is great. the irony!

This makes no sense.

Yockey and Thaxton can debate Creationism all they want to. The important point is that Yockey agrees with me. It's impossible for science to explain the encoding/coding system in DNA therefore he says it an axiom of biology also agreeing with Dr. Sanford.

When Dr. Thaxton asked for me to supply him with a blurb for the book’s cover, I gave him one that was limited to the point on which we agree: chance and self-organization theories of the origin of life are not scientifically valid.

BINGO!

And he's right - but that doesn't support your position. It only says that at this particular point in time - which was 16 years ago, chance and self-organization theories were not scientifically valid. That's it. No conclusion was drawn that an intelligent designer was an absolute requirement BECAUSE of the failure of the two theories. Get over it already. You're wrong, you're arrogant, you don't know science.

And BTW, just to repeat, NONE of your citations support your position unequivocally.