768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
OMagain,
What other target do you propose for trying to figure out how it happened?
Outside of the bible itself, what evidence is there for the resurrection of Jesus?
And regarding the evidence in the bible, you can’t even say who was first at the tomb and yet you want us to take that same book’s word that the resurrection was real. The book is so reliable it convinced you that Jesus rose from the dead but so unreliable you pretend that the question of who was first at the tomb, among others, is somehow irrelevant.
If four witnesses tell Judge Judy four totally different, contradictory stories what do you think she’s going to say?
Your lack of imagination is showing.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/
There are lots of interesting ideas beyond that. None of them revolve around the concept of a cells pieces lying around waiting for a tornado to stick them together just so.
The idea of something like a modern cell being the origin of life is, to me, laughable. And yet it’s what you pin your hopes on, knowing that the only way such a thing could in fact be true was indeed if the first cell was designed.
I agree with you there. If we, somehow, find out that the first life was a modern cell then I’d agree it was Designed.
But I don’t think it was a cell. You do, for some reason, and that’ll never change. I accept that. No matter how much research is done into the origin of life you’ll cling onto the idea that something like a modern cell was it and such must have therefore required ID.
Wonder how that’ll all work out. Do you have to do much research to stay on the cutting edge of that?
Don’t you think that’s a bit rich coming from you? Under your proposal there are literally no avenues for research. How can we possibly ‘figure how it happened’ when a mind capable of making universes did it
What is on your table for ‘figuring out how it happened’? The claim is made that Intelligent Design is not a science stopper, so please do go ahead and note what your plan is for figuring it out.
I know you start with something like a modern cell. And now what? If you had infinite time and resources what is step two in Figuring Out How OOL Was Done According To Intelligent Design?
Any system catalyzing reactions and making copies of its genetic/catalytic systems. No matter how simpler than the “current” “minimal” “cell”. A few reactions would suffice. Better if they end up going into reaction cycles.
OMagain,
Female witnesses all who new Jesus saw the tomb empty. Variation in testimony is expected.
OMagain,
Thanks for the link.
OMagain,
ID solves the key problem. Accounting for all the simultaneous cellular material to be available and organized to obtain, process energy, and self replicate.
Its a purpose arrangement of parts. Just like we observe with all human designs.
1. That’s not a problem.
2. Fantasies aren’t solutions.
3. That’s not a proposal about how to figure anything out, it’s just a claim.
No, how on earth did you arrive at that idea? I am claiming that the authors of the Gospels were aware of the book of Isaiah.
That’s how my analogy worked: I claimed that Alan was descended from King David. I even avoided the whole “direct male line” problem that Jesus had by not stipulating which of Alan’s parents belonged to the Davidic line.
I also claimed that he was borne of a young woman, avoiding a famous mistranslation of Isaiah (almah –> parthenos) to make MY tale more credible.
I was able to make this awesomely accurate fulfilling of the prophesies because I am aware of Isaiah.
Even more awesome, because I am aware that parthenos is a mistranslation, I was able to avoid the goofy bit about a virgin birth that the writers of the Gospels fell for. Matthew was either fooled by the Greek mis-translation, or he was aware and was embellishing the tale. Take your pick.
colewd,
No it doesn’t, because in order to manoeuvre the parts into place you have to get molecules from a diffuse to an integrated state, but somehow turn physics off while you do so. These are reactive molecules, not the inert components of your intuition. It’s like trying to assemble a jumbo jet from components that dissolve in water, explode on contact with oxygen, or stick like iron to an industrial magnet.
The intuition fails because of a gross ignorance of chemistry. You can’t just move reactive species from one configuration to another without energy flow.
DNA_Jock,
Do you have evidence that Alan was:
Crushed for our iniquities?
Led like a lamb to slaughter?
Cut off?
Has Alan signed up for torture and death?
Fulfilling Isaiah is not for lightweights 🙂
Allan Miller,
Are you trying to prove it was a Divine event 🙂
The other Alan is willing to be tortured and die for us. You guys are beginning to impress me 🙂
DNA_Jock,
Or since he new Jesus mother and Jesus he may have gotten finer detail from the horses mouth.
Alma doesn’t mean “young woman who had sex already”.
Well, we all die, and he did volunteer to be a moderator here, so…
I’ll say.
I am curious about the whole
bit.
The Jews were expecting a military leader who would bring all Jews back to Judea and liberate them. Jesus was something of a disappointment.
Oh dear, you still don’t understand the problem. We have been discussing whether Jesus’s [allegedly] fulfilling the prophesies of Isaiah is evidence in favor of his Divinity. Let’s suppose (counterfactually) that Matthew gave Mary a gynecological examination and ascertained first hand that Mary was intacta whilst clearly pregnant with JC. You are still stuck with the problem that Matthew mis-represented Isaiah on the “young woman vs virgin” question, whether intentionally or not.
If intentionally, then that’s embellishment. If unintentionally, then that’s a failure of Divine inspiration. Even if Mary was a virgin. Which door are you picking?
ETA:
Are you also confusing Matthew the disciple with Matthew the Gospel author? Not that it matters.
No, an impossible one. Unless you can provide a proof of concept; the invoking of telephones shows nothing. This is the dodge at the heart of all ID: “It’s just like human design, apart from the bit where it is absolutely nothing like”. If you think cells are impossible below a certain level of organisation, but have to invoke something apparently physically impossible to get round that difficulty, you have solved nothing, even in principle.
.Alan’s mum says:
Hes’s not the Messiah – he’s just a very naughty boy!
I’ll get me coat.
That would seem to be a differentiator between our minds and the mind you claim created life.
If I can’t make divine events happen what % difference am I from that other mind? What sense does it make to say that life was created by a mind like ours when that life was created by a miracle and we can’t do miracles?
So his account of who was at the tomb first is true?
Thank you for demonstrating that under Intelligent Design the origin of life can be solved from your armchair. Or did you have further avenues yet to explore regarding the origin of life according to ID? If so, what are they?
Thank you for further demonstrating that it is impossible for you to shake the idea that a modern cell was the first life. Cellular material is only required by cells. By definition.
Do you genuinely think that you’ve now ‘figured out how it happened’?
Why don’t you put a press release out regarding how you have solved the mystery of the origin of life?
NEWSFLASH: ID solves the key problem of the origin of life. ID Accounts for all the simultaneous cellular material to be available and organized to obtain, process energy, and self replicate. So we can close all the labs now and go home.
I don’t know what “outside the reach” means.
I know what it would mean to say that abiogenesis is consistent with the laws of physics and I know what it would mean to say that abiogenesis violates the laws of physics, but it seems to me that you want to say neither.
Because you have not provided any basis for determining what “the power of the human mind” means. It’s just an empty phrase. Since it has no precise meaning, it is neither true nor false.
From my understanding, Paul’s philosophical brilliance here was to transform the very meaning of what the Messiah would be: from a political leader who, as the heir of David, would restore Jewish sovereignty and end tyranny to foreign occupation to a spiritual reformer who offers liberation from the tyranny of the Law itself.
Alan Fox,
I thought so. You passed the IQ test not signing up for playing out Isaiah 53 without something pretty special on the other side 🙂
Allan Miller,
You need a mechanism that as a minimum can arrange for a purpose. You also brought up that the mechanism must be a master of the laws of chemistry. Good point I must say.
Not sure how you got here>
Apologies if I missed something but which law? Mosaic law or Roman law?
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
I can’t make much sense of that Bill. What do you think it is supposed to mean?
I don’t think a debate over a single word will change the general conclusion. You are trying to narrow possibilities but as we stand I don’t think we can really do this 2200 years after the Greek translation. There may have been good reasons for the translation change in the septuagint.
The Bible has lots of redundancy to it so I don’t get hung up on single word discussions. The redundancy covers the ambiguity that exists due to translation.
The very interesting point you brought up was that some the Jews expected a military
leader.
Whats very interesting about this point is that without the Jews, especially some the Jewish leaders, misinterpreting scripture, the prophecies could not have been fulfilled.
This helps keep the Bible robust today as the controversy lends credibility to the prophecy.
You said: ID solves the key problem. Accounting for all the simultaneous cellular material to be available and organized to obtain, process energy, and self replicate.
The key problem being the origin of life. So, you have noted that ID has solved the origin of life, correct?
Either you have figured out how it happened (ID solves the key problem) or you have not.
If you have, congratulations.
If you have not, what further Intelligent Design avenues do you have to explore? How, in principle, can those avenues be explored.
In other words, show that Intelligent Design has something to proffer in discussions regarding the origin of life other then the statement that “Intelligent Design Did it” which has already been pointed out as meaningless.
Unless, of course, you can give it some meaning?
Can you?
If not, then it’s a somewhat hollow victory to believe that ID has solved “the key problem” when literally all that amounts to is saying the words “ID has solved the key problem”.
It’s a bit like I suppose Trump thinking that less tests mean less cases. ID has solved the key problem and if we all agree that it has then it has!
Such as who was first at the tomb? It seems your options there are well outside the bounds of a translation error. A mere translation error cannot explain that away, which is presumably why you are pretending the question does not exist.
You think that people have a materialistic filter that stops them seeing the truth of the bible, but I’m here demonstrating that it’s you with the log in your eye.
Hmmm! Young women give birth rather too often as nearly 8 billion of us attest. Virgins don’t give birth at all.
Alan Fox,
The meaning is that the Messiah will not be a warrior King as some of the Jews thought but a suffering servant. He will suffer and die for our sins and return to glory. Isaiah 53 gives us the model of the Jewish Messiah. He is the ultimate replacement for the sacrificial lambs of ancient Jewish tradition. The real enemy was not other Kingdoms like the Romans as God could take them out instantly as demonstrated in earlier chapters of Isaiah. The real enemy was sin which was separating the Jews from God.
The idea of suffering being a precursor to glory is a theme throughout Isaiah.
OMagain,
How does this change the overall meaning?
Kantian Naturalist,
The point I was trying to make is that the laws of physics alone do not explain abiogenesis. Where you can make the case that they explain gravity.
I got it thank you.
So, why is it written in the past tense?
Alan Fox,
Here is an explanation from a Messianic Jewish organization.
https://live.jewsforjesus.org/answers/are-the-messianic-prophecies-in-the-past-tense-so-not-about-a-future-messiah-at-all/
My question was, why is the passage in the past tens if it is supposed to be a prediction about the future.
How many of instances of life would indicate that the natural regularities of the universe do explain life? 2, 10, 100, 1000?
Isn’t your position the Laws of Physics are the result of Design?
Likewise he could have forgiven man for what his ancestor’s did in an instant.
Alan Fox,
Did you read the explanation?
newton,
Sure and science job is to model how those laws work.
newton,
Forgiveness was not the only issue.
Ezekiel 36:26
Bill, since you claim you’ve been convinced by Christianity because of this purportedly fulfilled prophecy, I’m sure you’ve done extensive research on the field and found that there are no other cultures/religions with similar claims of fulfilled prophecies, right? Because the last thing you want is to come across as someone who’s reasoning ad-hoc to rationalize a preexisting religious belief. Correct?
dazz,
I have, Dazz and will continue to look at other religions. I have read the Quran and looked into arguments about Joseph Smiths claims. I have also looked into Buddhism and Hinduism but don’t find their beliefs necessarily contradictory to Christianity. The Catholic Church disagrees with me here 🙂
The fulfilled prophecy is one issue and admittedly the most powerful evidence for me that the Bible is divinely inspired but not word for worn inherent in my opinion. The story of Jesus continues to become compelling evidence in my opinion as I learn more. Not only the evidence for his resurrection but who he was based on the Gospels and predicted by the Jewish prophets.
colewd,
OK, show your work. What are those prophecies outside of Christianity? What are the results of your extensive research on them?
dazz,
If you want to you can do this research on your own but to get you started here is the Deuteronomy 18 test for a prophet.
Started with the claim by Joseph Smith and Mohammad that Christians corrupted the Bible.
What is the prescribed time frame for a prophet’s claim to be judged to be true or not? One day? A week? A year? A hundred years? A thousand years? Where does the demarcation lie?
PeterP,
It depends on the claim. In the case of Daniel 9 the claim was specified to occur in a particular time. We now have the advantage of looking at claims made thousands of years ago.
The laws of physics don’t explain anything. The job of a good theory is to explain why the laws obtain, to the extent that they do. For example, the kinetic theory of gases explains Boyle’s law. General relativity explains the inverse square law of gravitational attraction.
In any event: if abiogenesis does not violate any known theories of fundamental physics, then there is no need to posit an “intelligent designer” (however specified).
Just a quick note: intelligent designers can only work within what fundamental physics/chemistry allows. No amount of intelligence can do anything without energy flows, etc. No amount of intelligence can assemble any information without the energy to do so. No amount of intelligence can even exist and operate just as intelligence, without the energy flows, etc. Intelligence is a very small, tiny, minuscule, part of nature, not something above and beyond it. ID is philosophically and scientifically backwards.