Evidence of an Intelligent Creator ?

Go outside and scrounge around and pick me up something soft and squishy.

Tell yourself that that soft and squishy substance has remained that way
not for one year,
not for thirty years,
not for one hundred and thirty years,
not for one thousand years,
not for one hundred thousand years,
NOT EVEN FOR one MILLION years

But for SIXTY to SIXTY SIX MILLION Years!! - remained soft, flexible, and squishy.

I'd advise you to stay out of a Used Car Lot.

@sonship said
Go outside and scrounge around and pick me up something soft and squishy.

Tell yourself that that soft and squishy substance has remained that way
not for one year,
not for thirty years,
not for one hundred and thirty years,
not for one thousand years,
not for one hundred thousand years,
NOT EVEN FOR one MILLION years

But for SIXTY to SI ...[text shortened]... !! - remained soft, flexible, and squishy.

I'd advise you to stay out of a Used Car Lot.

Brought to you by Dime Store Apologists ™️.

@sonship said
@Kevin-Eleven

You're missing the point of the original illustration completely.

The lecture stated that DNA was so ingeniously arranged at times that it produces useful protein synthesis when read frontwards, and useful protein synthesis when read backwards.

The lecturer said entire long strains of DNA like book chapters can do this. The English words [b]D ...[text shortened]... on paper make it so when your manual is read in reverse you explain how to operate the cell phone."

Dear Sonship, I am not at all opposed to the possibility of a Cosmic Intelligence having set the parameters for all of this to occur.

But I do doubt and even reject the antique local stories of the Jews of Earth and the Hellenistic Christians related to "Intelligent Design" especially in light of the vastness of the Cosmos.

I do appreciate that some pipsqueaks of Earth might have thought they had things all figured out and wanted to share their perceptions with others, but they were not necessarily right, and they certainly were not in a position to see the whole picture.

@bigdogg said
Brought to you by Dime Store Apologists ™️.

That was The Emperor's New Clothes [edited] Apologetics.
" Bare science even a kid can understand."

@sonship said
That was The Emperor's New Cloths Apologetics.

"Cloth" is perhaps the most Jewish of words.

@Kevin-Eleven

Dear Sonship, I am not at all opposed to the possibility of a Cosmic Intelligence having set the parameters for all of this to occur.

Yes. Some acute thinkers have surmised something like that.

But I do doubt and even reject the antique local stories of the Jews of Earth and the Hellenistic Christians related to "Intelligent Design" especially in light of the vastness of the Cosmos.

An ancient Jew wrote this:

"He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
And He who formed the eye, does He not see?" (Psalm 94:9)

I think David is the author.
David lived (or reigned) around 1010 - 970 BCE

I do appreciate that some pipsqueaks of Earth might have thought they had things all figured out and wanted to share their perceptions with others, but they were not necessarily right, and they certainly were not in a position to see the whole picture.

And I want to hear what they think too.
Really I do, then and now.

Actually, there is a lot of ancient knowledge and wisdom we probably have lost.
Otherwise we wouldn't be wondering how very ancient peoples were able to do
some of the things they did.

@Kevin-Eleven
Thanks.
I did mean Clothes.

@bigdogg said
Why, Confirmation Bias, of course.

sonship seems to think that, in a world [and an America, especially] that's populated with Q-anon'ers, doomsday Christians, creationists, Stop The Steal Trumpists, anti-maskers, and 'personal reality' grab-anything fundementalist Christians, that the Dr. James Tours of this world ~ with their confirmation bias providing books ~ DON'T do very well for themselves.

@fmf said
sonship seems to think that, in a world [and an America, especially] that's populated with Q-anon'ers, doomsday Christians, creationists, Stop The Steal Trumpists, anti-maskers, and 'personal reality' grab-anything fundementalist Christians, that the Dr. James Tours of this world ~ with their confirmation bias providing books ~ DON'T do very well for themselves.

So many people begin with what they want to believe, then back fill the justification later.

It's an epistemological FAIL.

@sonship said
That was The Emperor's New Clothes [edited] Apologetics.
" Bare science even a kid can understand."

So, honest question, and no judgment as to the answer.

When you formulated this example, had you picked up a dog turd from your lawn?

@bigdogg said
So many people begin with what they want to believe, then back fill the justification later.

It's an epistemological FAIL.

Okay. Let's say I am backfilling justification for what I simply want.
Let's talk about what people not wanting to believe anything.

Look at Mt Rushmore in South Dakota.
Four faces of four men clearly appear on the side of a mountain.

Do you want to believe that someday people far removed from current times knowing nothing about Americans today, think its a 50/50 chance that the wind did that?

I mean thousands of years hence some future humans look at that mountain and say "We want to be objective here and have no preference. So lets see if in the lab we can get weather to work on a rock to do that."

@BigDogg

So, honest question, and no judgment as to the answer.

Did I miss your question?

Maybe you didn't like the soft tissue post because it makes the so obvious a point.

You believe what you want.
I don't think after 60 million years anything could remain in that state.

Its a testament to human desperation to hold on to some belief to insist soft tissue could remain so for sixty plus million years.

I made a peanut butter sandwich yesterday and thought about it.
"Where could I put this sandwich or what could I do to it so that in sixty million
years there is still some soft substance left to be found here?"

In sixty million years I can't think of anything that could cause that to happen.

@sonship said
In sixty million years I can't think of anything that could cause that to happen.

This makes it sound like you are admitting that you haven't followed the story.

@vivify

The major problem with Intelligent Design is when it's presented as an either/or alternative to evolution: either evolution is true or ID is true, but not both.

I would agree in that if macro evolution is true its a program that more likely came out of a goal seeking, purpose intending, error checking, quality assurance, trial and error [recording], re-run testing until success, planning, intelligent agent.

*IF* ID is true, there's no reason why evolution can't be true as well. There's no contradiction between the two. Evolution can simply be the mechanism used by an intelligent Creator.

You have to do something with the evidence.
I think IF macro evolution either intelligence was at work or I think one has
deified luck. Given infinite time nothing is impossible to luck.

The other alternative I think is that if macro evolution is true you take up Richard Dawkins' pseudo Buddhist philosophical belief that says life is only an illusion of purpose.

" Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." - Richard Dawkins

You can throw your hat in with Buddhism that its all an illusion.

The other issue is presenting ID as the work of only one intelligent Designer. If ID is true, it's more likely that there are many designers rather than just one.

So what?
Design is detected. And we're closer to the truth.
Maybe some other discipline can go the rest of the distance to grab more truth.

For example, just like how a skyscraper wasn't built by one all-mighty human, ID (if real) is more likely the result of many, perhaps millions or billions, of intelligent beings.

We're still closer to the truth. It wasn't an accident.
Maybe some other discipline can fill in the additional unknowns.

Also, just like with the Colosseum in Rome or Stonehenge, it could hold the creators may no longer exist.

A dead and gone intelligent agent works too.
That is with strict ID and less so with Creationism.

In short, ID is typically presented as idea meant to support Christian beliefs, just like creationism.

Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe - Yes and unashamedly so.
Dr. Stephen Meyer - No even though he is a confessed theist.
Although he has lately a book called "Return of the God Hypothesis".

No need to be ashamed to lean towards where the evidence leads.

Why is there such hype about exploring other planets?
Why so much hype about finding water elsewhere in the solar system.
Its because people so much want to believe that the accident of life and
evolution happened other places as well as here on earth.

Ie. They want so much to be able to support the Darwinian paradigm.
"There HAS to be water and life out there!"

Please drop the "We Evolutionists alone are neutral and objective."