Here was my statementNils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:37 amIs this the way you cite !?DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 4:29 amHow about support from my buddy Nils?Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 2:47 pm
"Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago"
My whole paragraph was: "This only shows that you don't understand the evolution theory. Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago, but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment." #31
"because the current state of genetics actually supports the proposition that complex ordered information has been infused into our biosphere."
(notice that particular sentence does not speak to who or what process infused the information)
That is consistent with the portion of your statement that I quoted
""Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago""
Both of our statements agree that
Information has been added into the DNA of life in our planet over the last billion years.
And that is the key point
That's wonderful...Certainly, but I didn't talk about writing computer code. I was talking about what some algorithms/code can do, namely create new designs. A well proven fact.And the source of those industrial computer applications is what?I told you before that there are industrial computer applications of genetic algorithms to get complex information. I personally know a person that use them. You can also read about them on the net.And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence.
Yup... An intelligent programmer
I'm unaware of any example of functional operational computer code that was generated by anything other than an intelligent programmer or program.
But that does nothing to rebut my statement
Your example requires "industrial computer applications" which are the product of intelligent programmers.
So your example supports my statement that
"And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence."
Actually I presented a number of obseved empirical evidences in post #56Yes, he has done some experiments and analyzed some reports (evidence). The problem is that his conclusions aren't motivated by the evidence. I said this before but you haven't responded.Which is why Behe's work is so important.Yes, and that is in accordance with what Wikipedia says and most expert scientists.Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write.
They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?
So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors.
What Wikipedia (or anyone else) says about ID is irrelevant.
What is very relevant is how do the claims of ID line up with science, observable empirical evidence, and the real world.
Behe's work is based on the empirically observed behavior of the rate and scope of evolution in the real world.
Your response to that post was
"I haven't read the scientific articles where your points above are described but I don't have any reason to question the results."
I don't suggest you trust anyone blindly.Back to the subject of this thread. You think that I should trust Behe and Discovery Institute
If you have empirically observed data regarding the rate and scope of evolution in the real world that is inconsistent with Behe's work, then please share it.
And I believe I have addressed that directly... multiple times.I'm not sure that you understand my question in the OP. It's not about the truth of the evidence that seems most trustworthy to me, it's about which evidence that seems trustworthy.
I have presented two basic arguments regarding the trustworthiness of different evidences.
1. Which evidences are based on observed empirical data.
2. Which evidences are apparent to over 90% of humans on the planet
I consider evidences that are based on observed empirical data and are apparent to over 90% of humanity to be "trustworthy" evidences.
And these are the evidences that I have focused on in this thread.Digital Research?But the source of these "evidences" comes mostly from Digital Research, which I really don't trust.And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator.
So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.
(Why do you never answer my question, that I have repeated several times in my last posts, regarding DR)
I'm not sure what you are referring to there.
Do you mean Discovery Institute?
Regarding Discovery Institute, I agree with your observation that...
"all this isn't important to my original question."
These scientific evidences are not unique to the Discovery Institute. So I am more interested in addressing the evidences and science that directly relate to the OP than debating the accuracy of statements people make about Discovery Institute which, as you note, are irrelevant to your original question.
I think you should look at the evidences presented by all sides, and then see which evidences are based on observed empirical data, and see which evidences are based on unverified speculation.