Intelligent design

[Boerseun]

Rings in trees - live ones, fossilized ones, doesn't matter - tells us a lot about the environment at the time; whether a summer was particularly hot, or a winter particularly cold. It tells us about average rainfall, general weather conditions at the time, the age of the tree, etc.

 

The rings can be very handy at telling us what happened at the time, and can be seen as a 'code', once we understand the language to interpret it.

 

Similarly, DNA can also be handy at telling us about what our ancestors had to go through to get to where we are today. Our DNA, which is the product of mutations which happened to be beneficial at the time, and selected for (those that mutated for the worse didn't contribute to the species' ability to survive and aren't around anymore for comparative purposes) can code for various things, even vestigial organs and limbs. A human foetus has to suffer gills for a while, whilst getting zero oxygen with it. It even has to suffer the humiliation of having a tail for awhile, whilst having no branches to swing from in the womb.

 

DNA is the result of approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years' worth of trial and error with a very versatile set of chemicals. The fact that certain individuals can see the code (the result of a feedback loop) as an intended language, implying an intelligent intent, points to the way our brains are wired (also via DNA, of course) to recognize patterns. Those patterns, the code under discussion here, was generated as a response to environmental variables. I can see no reason why an intelligent designer would add code to grow a tail for humans. We do have it, though. Once upon a time it was useful.

 

ID's big argument (Behe's, to be precise), about irreducible complexity, has been shown to be standing on very shaky ground indeed. It has been argued that a specific organ or cell or whatever you care to mention cannot be reduced at all without losing its total function. Therefore, it could not have evolved up to that point. But what ID forget to mention, is that the individual components of this specific organ most likely served other purposes before they happened (via mutation) to band together to form a new function.

 

And so on.

 

ID is in effect the Trojan Horse of Creationism, and offers nothing at all, scientifically speaking.

Another case in point - there's a certain bacteria that can metabolize nylon. So what, ID says. Here's the catch: Nylon didn't exist anywhere on planet Earth, our solar system (and to the best of our current knowledge anywhere else in the universe) till the 1930's. Did these nylon-munchers always have the capacity for nylon-digestion? Or was it accidently catered for via mutation and upon being an advantage passed on to future generations? Nylon in the modern world is a handy resource to metabolize, seeing as you'll have no competition. Or did the Intelligent Designer add that ability to the bacteria billions of years ago, in which case the little critters carried this useless gene around until somebody accidentally discovers nylon? I think this is very doubtful, and raises some questions towards the so-called 'intelligence' of the 'designer' in question.

 

If Intelligent Design makes you sleep better at night knowing that things were planned, great. If you're a serious scientist you wouldn't have bothered with it in the first place.

 

Accidentally here, unplanned and undesigned,

 

Boerseun

[C1ay]

First, here's a paragraph from one of the EIGHT links below, each of which either refers or compares DNA with language, which ought to sum it up for you.

So, they compare DNA with language. I can compare apples with oranges but it won't make them oranges. The dictionary lists a number of definitions for language:

1.

.....1. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

.....2. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.

.....3. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.

2.

.....1. A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra.

.....2. Computer Science. A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.

3. Body language; kinesics.

4. The special vocabulary and usages of a scientific, professional, or other group: “his total mastery of screen language camera placement, editing and his handling of actors” (Jack Kroll).

5. A characteristic style of speech or writing: Shakespearean language.

6. A particular manner of expression: profane language; persuasive language.

7. The manner or means of communication between living creatures other than humans: the language of dolphins.

8. Verbal communication as a subject of study.

9. The wording of a legal document or statute as distinct from the spirit.

Which one is DNA?

 

Even if it is regarded as a language of nature it would not mean that it was designed, it could have evolved.

[damocles]

Analogy to prove ID.

 

Rosetta Stone.

 

Because it exists and we see it, it proves that it was carved; therefore since the universe exists and we see it, it proves that it was designed.

 

Rosetta Stone=universe.

 

Let me put it another way.

 

Rock.

 

Because it exists and we see it, it proves that it has a physical presence.. therefore since the universe exists and we see it, that proves that the universe has a physical presence.

 

Rock=universe.

 

Now both equivalencies(analogies) are flat out wrong.

 

Kudoes to the one who can explain why.(See previous posts in this thread for hints.)

 

I'm letting somebody else have a crack at that.

 

What is this now, the twentieth or so false equivalence cited?

[TRoutMac]

So, they compare DNA with language. I can compare apples with oranges but it won't make them oranges.

 

Do think they compare DNA with language for a reason? Maybe you think they should have used a different metaphor like, say… chocolate ice cream? Or how about a riding lawnmower?

 

Of course, they use "language" as the metaphor because it's accurate. It works. Chocolate ice cream and riding lawn mowers are metaphors that don't work, so no one uses them with respect to DNA.

 

The dictionary lists a number of definitions for language: Which one is DNA?

 

Probably the closest definition was the one under computer science. Think of this comparison:

 

The source "code" for a web page is a set of instructions which determines the appearance, behavior and function of a web page. Those instructions are "read" by an inanimate, unintelligent computer to display a web page.

 

Similarly, DNA determines the appearance, behavior and function of a living organism. The instructions in DNA are "read" by elements that are themselves inanimate and unintelligent, in order to build a living thing.

 

It takes intelligence to write the source code for a web page, ergo it requires intelligence to write the source code (DNA) for living organisms.

 

Bill Gates once said that "DNA is like a software program, except far more complicated than anything we have been able to write."

 

If it requires intelligence to write the extremely complex software that runs on today's computers, and if DNA represents a level of 'programming' that is far more complex than any of our software, then how is it logical that DNA was not the product of Intelligent Design?

 

A fortiori logic would demand that if something of high complexity requires intelligence, then something of greater complexity would require even more intelligence.

 

Even if it is regarded as a language of nature it would not mean that it was designed, it could have evolved.

 

Even if? I thought you said there was "no evidence" of that. Refer to 'a fortiori' reasoning above.

[Erasmus00]

Of course, they use "language" as the metaphor because it's accurate. It works. Chocolate ice cream and riding lawn mowers are metaphors that don't work, so no one uses them with respect to DNA..

 

You are confusing the map for the territory. Analogies are useful as teaching tools and instructions, just as maps help you find your way. But the map is not the territory and the analogy is not the object.

 

Lastly, I again refer you to the wealth of information recorded in glacial ice-cores and tree rings. Ice core's can tell you information about violent sandstorms millenia ago, and more recent events, like Chernobyl. Tree Rings can provide a tremendous amount of information about the environment the tree lived in. None of this had to be specifically designed, it just is. Your claim that all "codes" had to be designed is now debunked, by two specific counter examples. Do you have another claim, or is that all you are going on?

-Will

[TRoutMac]

Lastly, I again refer you to the wealth of information recorded in glacial ice-cores and tree rings. Ice core's can tell you information about violent sandstorms millenia ago, and more recent events, like Chernobyl. Tree Rings can provide a tremendous amount of information about the environment the tree lived in. None of this had to be specifically designed, it just is. Your claim that all "codes" had to be designed is now debunked, by two specific counter examples. Do you have another claim, or is that all you are going on?

 

Are the rings in the tree the only thing about the tree that indicate things like age, health and history? No. Although you have to cut the tree to see the rings, they give you the same kind of information as other observable aspects of the tree such as height, etc. You can tell lots of things about the tree by observing it generally, including cutting it to expose the rings. You can identify the species, you can discern what the season is (if for some reason you don't already know!) and you can assess the general health of the tree. The tree cannot help but display this "information".

 

Again, you can make observations about the structure of a DNA molecule just the same. Such as number of nucleotide base pairs and what the individual components of the DNA's structure are. But the information that DNA carries goes way beyond that. You might say it carries instructions for building the next tree, a tree that doesn't even exist yet. What do the tree rings tell you about this next tree? Nothing.

 

You're making a fundamental error in equating the information in tree rings with the information in DNA. They are profoundly different. One is reactive… it describes what has happened to the tree. The other describes what will happen… it's predictive. It instructs cells to build certain proteins now and other proteins later. Tree rings don't do this.

 

DNA is just one part in an extremely complex information storage, retrieval and processing system. The tree rings are not part of a larger information processing system. It requires our intelligence to process the "information" in those rings. Apart from that, the information there serves no purpose… it just happens. That the rings are there is of no particular benefit to the tree. You might say the tree makes no use of that information the way it does the information in DNA.

 

I agree that you can say that there's "information" in tree rings. But it's an altogether different 'brand' of information than that in DNA.

[Buffy]

Are you actually going to try to make the case that, in my analogy, one fire carries exactly the same kind of information as the other? Now this I've gotta see. Do you seriously not see a distinction between the nature of the information in one fire and the nature of the information in the other fire?

Three puffs of smoke are three puffs of smoke. It could be an Indian, it could be a series of trees falling in the way. Are you saying there is no way to get three puffs of smoke without an intelligence?

 

Its seems in fact that your argument really simply comes down to "if *I* can perceive intelligence in a pattern, it must be caused by an intelligence, unless it can be *proven* that its naturally occuring." This is interesting because of the fact that you feel that the assumption of intelligence in the absense of data is the only reasonable conclusion, while science says that it is unknown until there is data. This method of argument is therefore not scientific, although it is based on faith.

Sorry, Buffy. But you obviously do not understand the I.D. argument and this "argument from ignorance" card that always gets played just reveals your own ignorance. My argument most certainly is not based on the "absence of data". Oh, sure… you'd love to think so, but it's not. We're discussing some of the evidence (data) right now, in case you hadn't noticed. (DNA)

I'm quite well versed with the ID arguments, and Argument from Ingnorance gets "pulled" because it is exactly the reason why ID is not scientific. While your arguments here do "include" data in the form of examples, you are providing no explanation of why these examples show intelligence other than "you're an idiot if you can't see that its obviously caused by intelligence." That's not scientific either. :)

No, I'm using the straight dictionary definition of "extrinsic". However, there is a connection between extrinsic information and design, and obviously you recognize that or you wouldn't equate the two.

ex·trin·sic adj.

1. Not forming an essential or inherent part of a thing; extraneous.
   
   
2. Originating from the outside; external.

You probably wouldn't agree that you mean that the extrinsic meaning is extraneous, and the only other part of the meaning is the "designed" part. Again, all you do in this particular argument is say that your examples "must be" and "are obviously" designed. You never get around to saying why, except occasionally to reference Behe, or Dembski's "computationally impossible" arguments, which all have flaws that the vast majority of the scientific community dismisses because of those flaws: not because they're all atheists or are closed-minded. Honest. :)

 

To sum up, here are your arguments back to me with a bit of emphasis added:

Surely you do not dispute the different natures of the two types of information I've described. Surely you see there is a profound difference between the two. ... The extrinsic information on a CD that's loaded with data came from an intelligence. It could not have come about any other way. ... DNA carries information which is above and beyond the physical properties of the DNA molecule itself. That an Intelligent Designer devised the universal genetic code and at a point in time sequenced the DNA according to that code to create instructions for building different lifeforms is the only rational conclusion you can draw. Everything else is pure fantasy.

You haven't said anything here other than "its obvious." The "two types of information" are not resolvable as different "types" without information about the source, as "extrinsic" means exactly "to define what the source is." You're saying nothing more than that they are resolved because its "obvious", although its really not obvious without information about the source itself. Sure DNA is a code: and a highly complex one at that, but we do have both the data and the theories that show its evolution has progressed remarkably over time using natural mechanisms. This is why it has become a part of the accepted body of knowledge in science. You are welcome to propose other theories, but the thing that's missing from any of your arguments is an explanation for how we prove that "the Indian is there." There's still no evidence of an Indian. Just because the smoke is complex does not show its provenance. Just because the DNA is complex does not show its provenance. It is not obvious. Nothing ever is unless you explain it!

 

Chimerically,

Buffy

[GAHD]

trout, you may want to google "evolving code" You'll get a lot of junk that doesn't fall in with what I'm about to say, so you might just want to go here and skip past the sarcastic stuff at the beginning to where 'The Game Of Life' get mentioned. that's the real meat and bones of it, mathimaticly speaking.

 

On how this and the game of life link up with DNA: 'messenger' proteins are a lot like 'gliders' in the Game Of Life, Viral strains a much more specific form of glider. The evolving computer code we deal with today is something like this patent here; an intelligently designed code that looks for something specific. But like many things, this type of coding is modeled of of something a lot less controlled. I'll again refer to that fisrt link, as it cronicles the events in much more detail than I.

 

Taking a look atTierra you you can do some interesting modeling, but this is ID at work that actually lends evidene to that naturalist side: the design is in the conditions of selection. Iin the real world, the factors are govered by the natural laws of the universe itself.

 

Assuming a dense enough medium and atoms behaving the way they do, forming molecues and such, the very chaotic nature of the atoms themselvs begins to act in much the same way as those simulations, but in 3 dimensions and with a much more intricate law structure. Given enough space (IE, the universe) and a dense enough cluster to allow lots of 'strong' interactions(IE the earth & solar system) it's not hard to see how patterns and shapes started to twist and something ordered would form. Life itself is an extension of this order, required by it's shear complexity.

[C1ay]

It takes intelligence to write the source code for a web page, ergo it requires intelligence to write the source code (DNA) for living organisms...

 

A fortiori logic would demand that if something of high complexity requires intelligence, then something of greater complexity would require even more intelligence.

You're still leaping to conclusions. You seem to forget, I said long ago that ID was as much a possibility as other theories. ID is not a theory though from which you have demonstrated even one possible prediction that can be tested and scientific method requires this.

[TRoutMac]

Three puffs of smoke are three puffs of smoke. It could be an Indian, it could be a series of trees falling in the way. Are you saying there is no way to get three puffs of smoke without an intelligence?

 

Come on now, Buffy. Read more carefully, would you please? First of all, in the illustration, I stipulated that there WAS a person creating the puffs of smoke. That was a known quantity. Now, let's say it was known to you, the observer, that three puffs of smoke from a signal fire means that, for example, "bring more water". That information is "extrinsic" to the puffs of smoke. The smoke is transmitting information that cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of the physical properties of the smoke itself. That message was assigned to the three puffs of smoke by an intelligence. Now, understand, this is only an illustration of what I (and guys like Steven Meyer) mean by "extrinsic" information. The color of the smoke, the speed at which it is rising, the direction it's drifting, what it smells like, etc. are all examples of instrinsic information, and does not require intelligence.

 

Now, relate this all to DNA. For a long time, we weren't even aware of DNA much less had we deciphered the genetic code. But now, we do know the code, we do know what "three puffs" mean. We can "read" DNA much like you were able to "read" the three puffs of smoke. And when we read DNA, we see information that cannot be accounted for in terms of the physical properties of the DNA molecules itself. Rather, we see instructions, much like the instruction to "bring more water". These instructions amount to a program which, when executed, produces and assembles different proteins into a living organism.

 

How do I know that the information in DNA falls into the "extrinsic" category? We all know that the number and sequence of nucleotide pairs is different from one organism to the next. (one DNA molecule might describe a goose, while another might describe a pine tree) Since the ordering and number of nucleotide pairs is the only thing different between the DNA in the two organisms, then obviously it's the numbering and sequencing that's important. That's where the "information" is.

 

Go back to the CD illustration. I might burn one CD with a set of plans which describe a 2-story house. I might burn another CD which carries plans for a simple storage shed. To the casual observer, the two CDs look identical to each other just as the DNA strands from the goose and the pine tree might appear identical. But when you actually "read" the CDs, you get different information, just as when you "read" the DNA from the goose and the pine tree, you get different information. This is the "extrinsic" information I'm talking about. Extrinsic information is extrinsic in the sense that it comes from outside the DNA. It has to… that's the only way to account for the unique and purposeful sequencing in a strand of DNA.

 

A few of you have tried the line that DNA is a "feedback system". The problem with that is, it presupposes the existence of DNA, but DNA is the thing we're trying to explain the existence of. You can't have a feedback system until you have a system to feed information back to. To say it's a "feedback system" is circular reasoning.

 

It's like the story of the guy who was trapped in a wooden crate, needed an axe to bust himself out, so he climbed out of the crate, got an axe and then climbed back in and broke out of the crate with the axe. That's what you folks are doing. I'm sorry if that's embarassing.

 

 

To sum up, here are your arguments back to me with a bit of emphasis added:You haven't said anything here other than "its obvious."

 

My argument has not simply been "it's obvious". Of course, I think it most definitely is obvious, but my arguments don't rest on "it's obvious". Instead, I've presented several excellent analogies to establish some basic principles which are undeniable, and these serve to explain precisely why it is so obvious.

 

We demonstrate in our every day experience a million times a day that "instructions" only arise from intelligence. Make a grocery list? That list is instructions which came from your intelligence, your mind. Various natural laws explain why the ink sticks to the paper, but natural laws cannot explain the sequencing of the characters and words on that list. Only intelligence can account for that.

 

If you can show me a grocery list that wrote itself, then I'll shut up.

[Buffy]

First of all, in the illustration, I stipulated that there WAS a person creating the puffs of smoke. That was a known quantity. ... That information is "extrinsic" to the puffs of smoke. The smoke is transmitting information that cannot possibly be accounted for in terms of the physical properties of the smoke itself. That message was assigned to the three puffs of smoke by an intelligence.

Great, but all you have done here is to provide as a *given* that there is intelligence behind it, and you're avoiding my point: If you say "an Indian created it" then we know from that fact that its source is intelligent. The great leap you keep making in all of your examples is that you provide no evidence equivalent to the evidence contained in the statement "an Indian created it." Sure, if we know that, then yes there is some "extrinsic" information, but you do not have evidence of provenance without the evidence of the existence of the Indian.

Now, relate this all to DNA. For a long time, we weren't even aware of DNA much less had we deciphered the genetic code. But now, we do know the code, we do know what "three puffs" mean. We can "read" DNA much like you were able to "read" the three puffs of smoke.

Great, so there's information in there and it can have "meaning." In the case of DNA there are physical mechanisms that cause that meaning to do something: they're indeed instructions. BUT, just because we now understand the code *still* has nothing to do with its cause or origin! As above, without *evidence/knowledge of the existence* of the Indian, it takes faith to say it was an Indian or it was a natural phenomenon. We then come to what appears to be the key element of your argument:

And when we read DNA, we see information that cannot be accounted for in terms of the physical properties of the DNA molecules itself. Rather, we see instructions, much like the instruction to "bring more water". These instructions amount to a program which, when executed, produces and assembles different proteins into a living organism.

So I think you're saying that anything with a set of "instructions" must be designed by an outside source, although as pointed to by GAHD's previous post, we've got all sorts of examples of how instructions can be generated by undesigned mechanisms. I know, I write code that rewrites itself all the time, and all I ever do is get it started so that it won't take 4 billion years to do what I want it to do. To say that it "cannot be accounted for" is completely unsupported by evidence in your arguments and is contradicted by quite a bit of existing experimental evidence. Now I guess you try to do this with this statement:

We all know that the number and sequence of nucleotide pairs is different from one organism to the next. (one DNA molecule might describe a goose, while another might describe a pine tree) Since the ordering and number of nucleotide pairs is the only thing different between the DNA in the two organisms, then obviously it's the numbering and sequencing that's important. That's where the "information" is.

All you have done here is say that there is information and "instructions" but you have not shown how these lead to the conclusion of an outside designer. You still need to do that, otherwise, you are only saying "its obvious."

This is the "extrinsic" information I'm talking about. Extrinsic information is extrinsic in the sense that it comes from outside the DNA. It has to… that's the only way to account for the unique and purposeful sequencing in a strand of DNA.

Why is it the "only way?" Why won't you tell us? Or is it just obvious?

A few of you have tried the line that DNA is a "feedback system". ... To say it's a "feedback system" is circular reasoning.

You really ought to do more research here, as there is indeed lots of interesting technology that uses "feedback" and it can be seen all over the place in evolution (especially the "micro" kind that is granted by ID). The mechanism for "bootstraping" systems is well understood, and there is growing body of evidence supporting the notion that DNA came from RNA which came from protiens and thus supports abiogenesis.

I've presented several excellent analogies to establish some basic principles which are undeniable, and these serve to explain precisely why it is so obvious. ... We demonstrate in our every day experience a million times a day that "instructions" only arise from intelligence. Make a grocery list? That list is instructions which came from your intelligence, your mind. Various natural laws explain why the ink sticks to the paper, but natural laws cannot explain the sequencing of the characters and words on that list. Only intelligence can account for that. If you can show me a grocery list that wrote itself, then I'll shut up.

Trying to get this across: without the evidence of the person with the brain scribbling it, you cannot prove that any physical phenomenon was indeed "caused by an intelligence." Just because it looks intelligent, does not mean it is. The grocery list does not have to write itself, it *could* be caused by natural phenomena which I could describe (a lump of coal hanging from a tree over a paper blowing in the wind), that while improbable still provides a methodology for gathering evidence to find the cause, as opposed to an outside creator for whom any direct evidence is said to be by definition unobservable. The examples you use are of course far out on the "implausible" scale in terms of it being caused by natural phenomena, but there's still *no evidence* that it is not. In the case of DNA, its had 4 billion years to evolve. Dembski-like, your CD and grocery list analogies are hard to generate by "chance" but his computations are highly misleading with respect to DNA.

 

To summarize what I have been able to gleen from your argument:

1. We can observe evidence that was created by intelligence (e.g. grocery list)
   
2. That evidence contains information.
   
3. We can observe evidence of complex systems with information with no known creator.
   
4. We conclude that those systems of unknown provence therefore must have been created by an intelligence.
   

While I've noticed that you've tried to label this as a fortiori reasoning, it fails to follow a fortiori at step 1, because you have not shown that the initial evidence *requires* intelligence. Further, "complexity" or "contains information" is an inexact, interpretive function whereby patterns or complexity can be observed when the actual complexity is quite low (e.g. amazingly complex Mandelbrot patterns that can be generated from a simple mathematical function of only two terms), therefore the requirement of a fortiori of a measurable "at least as" term is not easily definable.

 

Epistemologically,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

The great leap you keep making in all of your examples is that you provide no evidence equivalent to the evidence contained in the statement "an Indian created it."

 

That illustration was intended only to make a distinction generally between intrinsic information and extrinsic information. It appears that you do recognize the distinction now, and that's all I wanted to get across with that.

 

Sure, if we know that, then yes there is some "extrinsic" information, but you do not have evidence of provenance without the evidence of the existence of the Indian.

 

You do not need to prove the identity of an intelligence in order to conclude an intelligent origin. For many years crop circles were a big mystery… to some people they still are. The intricate geometric designs in crop circles place them well beyond the capability of any random or natural, undirected cause. Some people say aliens were doing it. Some people were saying hoaxsters were doing it. I heard that there was a pair of individuals who fessed up at some point, but still there are those who insist that aliens are creating the designs and to my knowledge, the source of all crop circles is still a topic of some controversy.

 

Now, I tend to believe that humans made them. Others may insist that aliens created them. But it seems that everyone agrees that an intelligence created them. While we're all curious as to who the intelligence is, it's not necessary to prove the identity of that intelligence before you can conclude that an intelligence created them. We conclude with absolute confidence that crop circles are the product of intelligent design because we know that nature and chance cannot produce such designs.

 

Even if you were to say that, still, there is some "theoretical" probability (however miniscule) of nature producing an intricate crop circle, you have no choice but to agree that the probability is astronomically greater (as in, a virtual certainty) that they are the product of intelligent design. In the case of the crop circles, that makes Intelligent Design a far better, and scientifically valid, explanation than random, natural causes, regardless of whether we can positively identify or directly observe the Intelligent Designer. Agreed?

 

What would you conclude about someone who told you that the crop circles were an accident of nature? Would you not conclude that they are stark-raving mad?

 

Great, so there's information in there and it can have "meaning." In the case of DNA there are physical mechanisms that cause that meaning to do something: they're indeed instructions.

 

And in the case of a CD, there is a physical mechanism (as well as a software mechanism) which is designed to read the data from the disc and put the information to some use. All of which is undeniably the product of Intelligent Design.

 

I know, I write code that rewrites itself all the time, and all I ever do is get it started so that it won't take 4 billion years to do what I want it to do.

 

Now, you know better than that. This only happens because an intelligence (us) has written another set of instructions (software) that can generate the necessary code for you. Just like when I use DreamWeaver to create a web page. I don't have to write the html directly, but the resulting html code is still the product of Intelligent Design because I'm using a tool, which itself is a product of Intelligent Design, that takes my intelligent input and writes the html for me. You could not say that this code "writes itself" literally. It is generated by another set of instructions which are also the product of Intelligent Design.

 

Also, 4 billion years is not nearly long enough. Without intelligent design, your code would NEVER get written. If you think it might, then I hope you're buying tons of lottery tickets.

[questor]

Oh, if we only knew the answers, we wouldn't be having such a tussle! the atheists would be pleased that God doesn't exist (if He doesn't ). the agnostics would finally be at peace, and the wife wouldn't bug them about going to church. and the evil 'believers' would have to eat their words. the only problem is that questions keep cropping up that science has not answered. we don't even know if there was a big Bang..one of our posters claims cold creation, another posits the universe was always here. Darwinism itself is under scrutiny, and doesn't abiogenesis seem just a bit too tidy? i know some experiments are going on now to create life... but it hasn't been done. it seems to me that further discussion on this subject carries no reward. neither side can provide scientific certainty that there is or isn't

Intelligent Design and neither side accepts the others arguments, so why don't we wait until more evidence is available to point us the way to truth?

[C1ay]

the only problem is that questions keep cropping up that science has not answered.

In and of itself, that's not a problem. The problem is the vast quantity of people that don't not want to accept or admit that there are questions without answers and some of them we will never have answers for. A percentage of mankind will invent answers if they can't find them honestly. How do you think the concept of the Fire God was born to explain fire? Or the Sun God to explain the rising sun each day? The Rain God that brought rain as a reward or drought to punish? Man has invented all kinds of gods because he just couldn't accept the fact that we don't have all the answers. Questions will surface for eternity that man won't be able to answer, honest men will accept and admit that.

[Buffy]

You do not need to prove the identity of an intelligence in order to conclude an intelligent origin. For many years crop circles were a big mystery… What would you conclude about someone who told you that the crop circles were an accident of nature? Would you not conclude that they are stark-raving mad?

Still trying to get this basic concept across to you: You can guess, you can conjecture, you can say "probably", but you still have no coherent evidence of intelligence! According to *science* the answer is still "we don't know." That's the scientific method! You're arguing here that since we don't know of any natural phenomenon that could have produced them, then they must have been designed, which is Argument from Ignorance. Nothing has been shown or proven. It doesn't really matter if you think someone is mad to conclude otherwise: 200 years ago you would have been considered mad to think that men would regularly fly. So what?

 

With crop circles, as with all these other examples, we don't know until we've got evidence. This does *not* mean we have to catch the perpetrators in the act: it does mean that we need to define a hypothesis of their methods and gather some concrete evidence that that hypothesis is correct, like the planks and measuring strings found near some of those crop circles and experiments recreating the circles with the found tools. That's a theory with evidence. What's the ID theory of how DNA was designed? What was the mechanism? How would you devise an experiment to replicate that process? Unfortunately, because ID wants to avoid these questions because they require theological answers, they are not addressed... Can you provide us with some of these answers? I know we'd be facinated to hear them!

 

This leads to a second issue: while its clear that your arguments are based on trying to draw inferences from examples, your examples all have a key intrinsic quality that makes them inappropriate for trying to define how to deduce "design": they are all things which we *know* have indeed been designed. Sure its easy to sit there and say, "you can't show a natural cause for *this*," but that does not show any sort of *definition* for an object/system/etc that was designed by an intelligence. Moreover you're only using inference--which is not necessarily bad--but it still leaves wide open the issue that you have not shown that any specific qualites *require* intelligence, so the inference is uselessly weak. As a result, your "analogies" are really unconvincing. If you were to define a theory that gives specific and testable attributes of a "designed" rather than a naturally occuring object, we might have something to talk about here, but you so far have not. Talking about circular, your definition of "extrinsic" is that its something thats designed, therefore if you say something has an extrinsic quality (defined by you as "obviously not inherent", with "obvious" not defined), then its designed. That's not really a useful definition that we can debate.

 

Thirdly, you do take as a given Dembski's arguments about the impossibility of evolution:

4 billion years is not nearly long enough. Without intelligent design, your code would NEVER get written. If you think it might, then I hope you're buying tons of lottery tickets.

Simply stated, Dembski conveniently ignores two key issues:

• Bayesian Probability says that probabilities are affected by discovery of knowledge about complex systems (this is horridly oversimplified, but I encourage all to investigate it further). Dembski forces all of his examples into a model in which all events are completely random, when in the real world they are not. Probabilities need to be adjusted based on what we know, not just be based abstract theoretical combinatorics. What we know is that these complex systems like DNA are not just long strings of bits, they're modular (see next bullet), and so coming up with astronomical numbers based on the notion that the *only* way to get DNA is to sit and deal cards until you get a royal flush is completely misleading and not representative of the actual world.
  
• Modularity of complex systems: Complex systems produce patterns. Efficiency wins out in evolution. Patterns that repeat are inefficient, and systems that figure out how to use one copy of a pattern for multiple uses becomes more efficient and survives. Modularity thus evolves naturally. As evolution progresses, modifications occur at higher and higher levels in the hierarchy of modularization. That is, its easy to bring along all the advances you have and change the modules as you evolve, and one bit-twiddle turns on or off whole modules: you don't need to create them from scratch each time. Dembski's numbers only work if you assume you're doing this recreation from scratch each time.

People who understand these concepts dismiss Dembski. You should look into it further.

Now, you know better than that. This only happens because an intelligence (us) has written another set of instructions (software) that can generate the necessary code for you....You could not say that this code "writes itself" literally. It is generated by another set of instructions which are also the product of Intelligent Design.

No, the Game of Life links that GAHD referenced are the simplest example of a system of 3 rules that produce very complex--indeed by your criteria, intelligent--behavior. These rules are simply based on evolutionary principles that occur in nature:

1. Too crowded: die of starvation
   
2. Too lonely: die of extinction
   
3. Between: reproduce or stick around
   

Throw feedback in the mix--and all that's meant here is change a rule when propagating and then testing for survival--and you get unbelievably complex systems out of it (most image recognition software today uses "self-programmed" neural networks). Thus, starting from "original instructions" that really come down to a simple "survival of the fittest" in combination with "self-replication" which can easily occur naturally, you get very complex systems over 4 billion years. The fact that you do not wish to investigate how these systems work does not make it go away!

 

You might also want to read up on Alan Turing and his Turing Test: it gets right to the heart of your issue. How does one test for "intelligent" behavior or qualities? Its not in the least bit obvious...

 

Adaptively,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

You're arguing here that since we don't know of any natural phenomenon that could have produced them, then they must have been designed, which is Argument from Ignorance.

 

Again, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims of Intelligent Design. You're simply spewing talking points here, and there's simply no support for what you're saying. Our argument most certainly is not based upon "since we don't know of any natural phenomenon that could have produced them, then they must have been designed." To suggest that this is the case is simply irresponsible and reflects a wanton disregard for truth on your part. Now, allow me to back that up:

 

First of all, we most certainly do know of a natural phenomenon that could have produced crop circles. That natural phenomenon is generally referred to as intelligence. And that is why sensible people attribute the creation of crop circles to an intelligent agent. It isn't because we can't think of anything else to attribute it to… it's because we already are aware of a natural phenomenon that is quite capable of producing the crop circles. Intelligence. You see? That's not arguing from ignorance, that's arguing from knowledge.

 

With crop circles, as with all these other examples, we don't know until we've got evidence.

 

Of course it's true that without any evidence, you cannot know anything about, well, anything. But you're implying that the crop circles themselves do not exhibit any evidence of Intelligent Design. I refuse to accept that you actually believe this. It would be akin to looking at Stonehenge for the first time and denying any appearance of Intelligent Design. Or looking down at the Nazca lines for the first time and saying "Gosh, no… I don't see any evidence of Intelligent Design". Now honestly… do you really believe there is no evidence of Intelligent Design in a crop circle? Stonehenge? Nasca lines? Great Pyramids? Statues of Easter Island? Need I go on?

 

This does *not* mean we have to catch the perpetrators in the act

 

Thank you. That is correct. Which means that all the ID bashers who complain about not being able to witness the Intelligent Designer are full of hot air and baloney.

 

What's the ID theory of how DNA was designed? What was the mechanism? How would you devise an experiment to replicate that process? Unfortunately, because ID wants to avoid these questions because they require theological answers, they are not addressed... Can you provide us with some of these answers? I know we'd be facinated to hear them!

 

I know you think you're being clever… you think you're going to bait me into stretching the Intelligent Design theory further than it goes. Sorry, no dice. The Intelligent Design theory only posits that there was, or is, an Intelligent Designer. What the Intelligent Designer's methods are is not within the scope of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. We don't need to offer additional hypotheses beyond that which we've already offered. All we need to do is suggest that there was an Intelligent Designer and give evidence to support that hypothesis. I realize that evolutionists like to "prove" their unproven hypothesis with other unproven hypotheses, but that's not scientific, and so I flat-out reject it.

 

Talking about circular, your definition of "extrinsic" is that its something thats designed, therefore if you say something has an extrinsic quality (defined by you as "obviously not inherent", with "obvious" not defined), then its designed. That's not really a useful definition that we can debate.

 

I could not possibly have made my definition of "extrinsic" any more clear and my usage of it is correct. You are plainly misstating the definition I used.

 

"Testing for survival" is something that intelligent agents do to prove a DESIGN. Modularity is something that intelligent agents employ in their designs for the sake of efficiency, economy and versatility. Systems and processes do not have intelligence with which to "figure out" (as you put it) what works and what doesn't. Intelligence, however, does. "Feedback" needs an existing system FIRST in order to feed information back to, and again, this is a technique employed frequently by intelligent designers. So, in effect, the balance of your post was an argument for Intelligent Design.

 

Now, while we're talking about "evidence", please cite for me a single example of macro-evolution which has hard, empirical evidence… that is "real-time" observation and documentation, where one organism with one body plan evolves into another organism with another body plan, and where it is known (empirically… no conjecture, no extrapolation, etc) to have resulted from natural selection. Note, I'm not talking about finches with different sized beaks. I want hard, undisputable evidence that an organism with, for example, 4 legs evolved into an organism with, for example, 2 legs and 2 wings. Something akin, perhaps, to a sundew evolving into a venus flytrap (which has been suggested, but for which there is no evidence). Cite for me just one example. No wiggling here, either. Do not use micro-evolution to support macro-evolution. If macro-evolution is reality, then show me the direct evidence of it… and remember, examples of laboratory mutations (intelligently directed, that is) that produced extra limbs, etc. do not qualify. No laboratory interference (where intelligence is able to direct things), just pure nature.

[damocles]

Again, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the claims of Intelligent Design. You're simply spewing talking points here, and there's simply no support for what you're saying. Our argument most certainly is not based upon "since we don't know of any natural phenomenon that could have produced them, then they must have been designed." To suggest that this is the case is simply irresponsible and reflects a wanton disregard for truth on your part. Now, allow me to back that up:

 

First of all, we most certainly do know of a natural phenomenon that could have produced crop circles. That natural phenomenon is generally referred to as intelligence. And that is why sensible people attribute the creation of crop circles to an intelligent agent. It isn't because we can't think of anything else to attribute it to… it's because we already are aware of a natural phenomenon that is quite capable of producing the crop circles. Intelligence. You see? That's not arguing from ignorance, that's arguing from [b[knowledge[/b].

 

 

 

Of course it's true that without any evidence, you cannot know anything about, well, anything. But you're implying that the crop circles themselves do not exhibit any evidence of Intelligent Design. I refuse to accept that you actually believe this. It would be akin to looking at Stonehenge for the first time and denying any appearance of Intelligent Design. Or looking down at the Nazca lines for the first time and saying "Gosh, no… I don't see any evidence of Intelligent Design". Now honestly… do you really believe there is no evidence of Intelligent Design in a crop circle? Stonehenge? Nasca lines? Great Pyramids? Statues of Easter Island? Need I go on?

 

 

 

Thank you. That is correct. Which means that all the ID bashers who complain about not being able to witness the Intelligent Designer are full of hot air and baloney.

 

 

 

I know you think you're being clever… you think you're going to bait me into stretching the Intelligent Design theory further than it goes. Sorry, no dice. The Intelligent Design theory only posits that there was, or is, an Intelligent Designer. What the Intelligent Designer's methods are is not within the scope of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. We don't need to offer additional hypotheses beyond that which we've already offered. All we need to do is suggest that there was an Intelligent Designer and give evidence to support that hypothesis. I realize that evolutionists like to "prove" their unproven hypothesis with other unproven hypotheses, but that's not scientific, and so I flat-out reject it.

 

 

 

I could not possibly have made my definition of "extrinsic" any more clear and my usage of it is correct. You are plainly misstating the definition I used.

 

"Testing for survival" is something that intelligent agents do to prove a DESIGN. Modularity is something that intelligent agents employ in their designs for the sake of efficiency, economy and versatility. Systems and processes do not have intelligence with which to "figure out" (as you put it) what works and what doesn't. Intelligence, however, does. "Feedback" needs an existing system FIRST in order to feed information back to, and again, this is a technique employed frequently by intelligent designers. So, in effect, the balance of your post was an argument for Intelligent Design.

 

Now, while we're talking about "evidence", please cite for me a single example of macro-evolution which has hard, empirical evidence… that is "real-time" observation and documentation, where one organism with one body plan evolves into another organism with another body plan, and where it is known (empirically… no conjecture, no extrapolation, etc) to have resulted from natural selection. Note, I'm not talking about finches with different sized beaks. I want hard, undisputable evidence that an organism with, for example, 4 legs evolved into an organism with, for example, 2 legs and 2 wings. Something akin, perhaps, to a sundew evolving into a venus flytrap (which has been suggested, but for which there is no evidence). Cite for me just one example. No wiggling here, either. Do not use micro-evolution to support macro-evolution. If macro-evolution is reality, then show me the direct evidence of it… and remember, examples of laboratory mutations (intelligently directed, that is) that produced extra limbs, etc. do not qualify. No laboratory interference (where intelligence is able to direct things), just pure nature.

 

Requirements for experiment.

1. Set of fast-lived life forms.

2. Micro-ecology that is isolated from contamination.

3. Ramdom events generator.

4. Time.

 

Best chance to see a naturally occuring site that meets these conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

 

Titan (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

Titan

Discovery

Discoverer Christiaan Huygens

Date March 25, 1655

Orbital characteristics

Semimajor axis 1,221,931 km

Eccentricity 0.028880 [1]

Orbital period 15.94542 d

Inclination 0.34854° (to Saturn's equator)

Is a satellite of Saturn

Physical characteristics

Mean diameter 5150 km (0.404 Earths)

Surface area 83×106 km2

Mass 1.345×1023 kg

Mean density 1.88 g/cm3

Equatorial surface

gravity 1.35 m/s2,

or 0.14 g

Rotation period (synchronous)

Axial tilt zero

Albedo 0.21

Surface temp. min mean max

?K 94 K ?K

 

Atmospheric characteristics

Pressure 160 kPa

Nitrogen 95 percent

Methane 5 percent

Titan (tye'-tun, Greek Τιτάνας) is the largest moon of Saturn and the second largest moon in the solar system[2], after Jupiter's moon Ganymede. It was discovered on March 25, 1655 by the Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens[3], and was the first satellite in the Solar System to be discovered after the Galilean moons of Jupiter. Titan is the only moon in our solar system to have a dense atmosphere[4]. Until very recently, this atmosphere inhibited understanding of Titan's surface, but the moon is currently undergoing study by the Cassini-Huygens mission, and new information about it is continuously accumulating.

(Read rest of article....D.)

 

Site candidate-unlikely;reason; high winds, lack of stable pools of liquid emulsifier, opaque atmosphere make sustained abiogenesis difficult.

 

Next candiate;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)

 

Io (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Io

Click image for description

Discovery

Discovered by G. Galilei

S. Marius

Discovered on January 7, 1610

Orbital characteristics

Mean radius 421,700 km (0.002819 AU)

Eccentricity 0.0041

Periapsis 420,000 km (0.002807 AU)

Apoapsis 423,400 km (0.002830 AU)

Revolution period 1.769137786 d (152,853.5047 s)

Orbital circumference 2,649,600 km (0.018 AU)

Orbital velocity max: 17.406 km/s

mean: 17.334 km/s

min: 17.263 km/s

Inclination 2.21° (to the ecliptic)

0.05° (to Jupiter's equator)

Is a satellite of Jupiter

Physical characteristics

Mean diameter 3642.6 km (0.286 Earths)

(3660.0×3637.4×3630.6 km)

Surface area 41,910,000 km2 (0.082 Earths)

Volume 2.53×1010 km3 (0.023 Earths)

Mass 8.9319×1022 kg (0.015 Earths)

Mean density 3.528 g/cm3

Surface gravity 1.79 m/s2 (0.183 g)

Escape velocity 2.6 km/s

Rotation period synchronous

Equatorial

rotation velocity 271 km/h

Axial tilt zero

Albedo 0.63

Surface temp. min mean max

90 K 130 K 2000 K

 

Atmospheric characteristics

Atmospheric pressure trace

Sulfur dioxide 90%

Io (IPA: /ˈaɪoʊ/, eye'-oe, Greek Ιώ) is the innermost of the four Galilean moons of Jupiter. It is named after the Greek mythological figure Io, one of the many lovers of Zeus (who is also known as Jupiter in the Roman mythology).

 

Although the name "Io" was suggested by Simon Marius soon after its discovery in 1610, this name and the names of the other Galilean satellites fell into disfavor for a considerable time, and were not revived in common use until the mid-20th century. In much of the earlier astronomical literature, Io is simply referred to by its Roman numeral designation as "Jupiter I", or simply as "the first satellite of Jupiter".

(Read rest of article...D.)

 

Site is unlikely. Reason? Very hot surface, very thin atmosphere, suggested basic chemeistry(sulphur in the place of carbon) is very difficult to extrapolate as a sustained system.

 

Third candidate;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

 

Europa (moon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

Click image for description

 

Discovery

Discovered by G. Galilei

S. Marius

Discovered on January 7, 1610

Orbital characteristics

Mean radius 671,034 km (0.004486 AU)

Eccentricity 0.0094

Periapsis 664,700 km (0.00444 AU)

Apoapsis 677,300 km (0.00453 AU)

Revolution period 3.551181041 d (0.0097226 a)

Orbital circumference 4,216,100 km (0.028 AU)

Orbital velocity max: 13.871 km/s

mean: 13.741 km/s

min: 13.613 km/s

Inclination 1.79° (to the ecliptic)

0.47° (to Jupiter's equator)

Is a satellite of Jupiter

Physical characteristics

Mean diameter 3,121.6 km (0.245 Earths)

Surface area 3.1×107 km2 (0.060 Earths)

Volume 1.6×1010 km3 (0.015 Earths)

Mass 4.8×1022 kg (0.008 Earths)

Mean density 3.014 g/cm3

Surface gravity 1.31 m/s2 (0.134 g)

Escape velocity 2.0 km/s

Rotation period synchronous

Axial tilt zero

Albedo 0.67

Surface temp. min mean max

85 K 103 K 125 K

 

Atmospheric characteristics

Atmospheric pressure 1 µPa

Oxygen 100%

Europa (ew-roe'-pa, /ju'ro:pa/ listen ▶(?), Greek Ευρώπη) is a moon of the planet Jupiter, smallest of the four Galilean moons. It is named after Europa, one of Zeus's many love interests in Greek mythology, after whom the continent of Europe is also named.

 

Although the name "Europa" was suggested by Simon Marius soon after its discovery, this name and the names of the other Galilean satellites fell out of favor for a considerable time, and was not revived in common use until the mid-20th century. In much of the earlier astronomical literature, it is simply referred to by its Roman numeral designation as Jupiter II or as the "second satellite of Jupiter".

(Read rest of article....D.)

 

This site requires urgent in situ investigation. It has an interesting combination of features that could support rampant speculation(not by me); but the FACT is, that nobody has decent surface data to make solid predictions that there was/is the right chemical precursor conditions for abiogenesis: or that it might have a (geo)thermal/solar(?) energy base to drive a bio-chemistry. Speculations on loose oxygen and liquid water are just that. Speculations.

 

Nevertheless this is a suitable candidate to examine. If life is found there(Most unlikely) then you have a possible uncontaminated experiment to observe directly to test-accordiong to the preposterous conditions demanded by the skeptic.

 

For you see; the model of punctuated equilibrium that would be tested for negation, takes TIME. The records for its possible occurence;(Fossils) here on Earth are unacceptable, because the skeptic demands direct eye/hand observation and no Human lives long enough to directly see the transition of one planform to another To see a horse change into a unicorn..That is what the skeptic, here, demands. The time-several huindred thousand years to several million depending on the average lifespan of each generation isn't amn excuse.

 

Bacteria in the lab, changing to adapt to induced environmental pressures is not proof either, because the observers(humans) are intelligently inducing it! It has to be the horse! Why? Because the horse is cited as a primary means of showing EVOLUTION!

 

We need direct evidence cries the ID skeptic.

 

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050415-1.htm

 

EVOLUTION: ON THE EVOLUTION OF HORSES

 

The following points are made by Bruce J. MacFadden (Science 2005 307:1728):

 

1) Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), an early advocate of Darwinian evolution, visited the United States in 1876 on a lecture tour. Huxley had planned to talk about evidence for evolution based on a fragmentary sequence of fossil horses from Europe. One of Huxley's first stops was at Yale, where he studied the fossil horse collection assembled by the paleontologist O. C. Marsh during expeditions to the western territories. Huxley was so taken with the definitive evidence provided by Marsh's fossil horse collection that he used this evolutionary sequence as the focal point for his subsequent talk to the New York Academy of Sciences (1).

 

2) Since the late 19th century, the 55-million-year (My) phylogeny of horses (Family Equidae) -- particularly from North America -- has been cited as definitive evidence of long-term "quantum" evolution (2), now called macroevolution. Macroevolution is the study of higher level (species, genera, and above) evolutionary patterns that occur on time scales ranging from thousands to millions of years. The speciation, diversification, adaptations, rates of change, trends, and extinction evidenced by fossil horses exemplify macroevolution.

 

3) The sequence from the Eocene "dawn horse" eohippus to modern-day Equus has been depicted in innumerable textbooks and natural history museum exhibits. In Marsh's time, horse phylogeny was thought to be linear (orthogenetic), implying a teleological destiny for descendant species to progressively improve, culminating in modern-day Equus. Since the early 20th century, however, paleontologists have understood that the pattern of horse evolution is a more complex tree with numerous "side branches", some leading to extinct species and others leading to species closely related to Equus. This branched family tree is no longer explained in terms of predestined improvements, but rather in terms of random genomic variations, natural selection, and long-term phenotypic changes (3).

(Read the rest of the article...D.)

 

This direct evidence won't do;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

Prediction 1.1: The fundamental unity of life

"OH JEHOVA, quam ampla sunt opera Tua."

- Carolus Linnaeus

at the beginning of Systema Naturae, 1757

 

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

 

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.

 

Confirmation:

The structures that all known organisms use to perform these four basic processes are all quite similar, in spite of the odds. All known living things use polymers to perform these four basic functions. Organic chemists have synthesized hundreds of different polymers, yet the only ones used by life, irrespective of species, are polynucleotides, polypeptides, and polysaccharides. Regardless of the species, the DNA, RNA and proteins used in known living systems all have the same chirality, even though there are at least two chemically equivalent choices of chirality for each of these molecules. For example, RNA has four chiral centers in its ribose ring, which means that it has 16 possible stereoisomers—but only one of these stereoisomers is found in the RNA of known living organisms.

(Read the rest of the article...D.)

 

 

By that criterion, hypermasses and collapsed matter are unproven concepts to an observer since evidence left by these conditions is inferred by the influence that condensed matter has on light.

 

Fossils-a rather direct chunk of evidence is not sufficient. There are gaps in the stratification, the skeptic cries; the geology is wrong; the interpretation of the ossified skeletons ius wrong. Never mind the results of the new DNA paleontology that is matching up well with the clading trees that the incompetent fossil hunters who couldn't analyze an animal to tell if it was a apadosaurus or a diploducus if you gave him an ouija board.

 

Now about those crop circles?

 

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc224.htm

 

Theories on the Formation of Crop Circles

Brian Hussey (Crop Circle Central)

 

original source | fair use notice

 

Summary: The following outline is a summary of theories and working hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of crop circle formation. What is presented here is a synopsis of published findings and theories, and in no way does it pretend to be the final word.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Forward

9 Basic Categories

Plasma-Gravitational Theory

Whirlwind (or Plasma Vortex) Theory

Earth Ley-lines and Gaia Hypothesis

Microwave Transient Heating

(Read the article....D.)

 

It should be obvious but I will write again what I wrote once before;

 

Insects form colonies(mounds and hives.).

Beavers dam creeks.

Spiders spin web.

Birds make nests

and we build cities.

So we are all evidence of intelligent design by the artifacts we leave behind.(Derision.)

 

Addendum;

If you want to negate macro-evolution, then propose a sensible test. I have given you a candidate setup for your test; therefore let's see you formulate your own test(here on Earth, I can't afford a space program), propose it, make a prediction of negation to disprove macro-evolution that you find acceptable on evidence that meets your criteria, and I WILL RUN IT FOR YOU.