Most Christians believe in “intelligent design.” That isn’t what you push.
[quote=“Eddie, post:40, topic:3249, full:true”]
@jahiddle
I was repeating the argument of many TE/EC followers, not giving my own view.[/quote]
My apologies for misunderstanding you.
No I’m new in this game so please excuse any ignorance on my part. I came here to ask questions and seek answers.
It would seem that the reason Theistic Evolutionists reject
Intelligent Design is because they are worried about the political
ramifications - - allowing the Camel’s nose under the tent …
where the Camel is Young Earth Creationists!
George Brooks
You’re the one who needs to get serious in understanding the papers you tout before touting them.
Let’s dissect:
ESTIMATED. Do you know what that means? You claimed it SHOWED. Huge difference.
Is PLAUSIBLE an expression one uses when showing something or when offering a subjective opinion?
How particular? Be very, very specific. Do the real enzymes in your real body have very particular functions, or do they catalyse the same reaction for multiple substrates?
IMPLIES. This is absurd, as people imply things. The author is inferring, which isn’t anywhere close to “showing” as you falsely claimed.
How specific, dcscccc? Be specific. 
He’s assuming far more specificity than existing specificity. This is the game the author is playing.
MAY BE AS LOW AS. Is that the sort of language people use when showing something? Did you even read the paper?
1 in 10^77 sequences doesn’t come close to meaning that something you don’t specify has to mutate.
eddie, the claim of bad retina design is now a bad argument:
do you think now that miller will change is mind about evolution?
joao. first- its a scientific papers (you know, with peer review). so if you have experiment that show something else you wellcome to publish it.
as for your the claim itself: the author gave another 3 experiments that get similar result. so we have now several papers by different authors with similar result. do you think that its just a coincidence?
even so- how much functional sequences do you think that exist in a space of 20^150?
[quote=“dcscccc, post:48, topic:3249, full:true”]
joao. first- its a scientific papers (you know, with peer review).[/quote]
The hypocrisy is amazing.
In another thread, you claimed that a paper that was not peer-reviewed proved that a peer-reviewed paper was wrong, so please stop pretending that peer review means anything to you.
I already have. Why didn’t Axe cite them?
Wow. Three? And how many experiments gave very different results?
I think it’s cherry picking. How many papers by other authors gave a different result?
How many proteins are there? How many would one need to sample before arriving at a global conclusion? Three?
[quote]even so- how much functional sequences do you think that exist in a space of 20^150?
[/quote]It depends on how you define function, of course.
These papers are meaningless to Christians who already
believe in Theistic Evolution.
God “jumps” the hard parts …
George Brooks
Why would I assume that God jumps the hard parts in evolution? I don’t make the same assumption about particle physics. In both cases, I look for physical explanations for physical phenomena.
Either that or I find ID arguments to be severely lacking as arguments.
“I already have.”
where?
“It depends on how you define function, of course.”
a biological function that help to the organism. if its a function that need no less then 150 amino acid. what is the chance to get it in a sequence space of 20^150?
Steve, you wouldn’t happen to think God had nothing to do with Evolution, would you?
George
Steve! LoL
If one thinks God is involved in Evolution, and one does not have a career in Evolutionary Sciences …
there’s no reason to worry about finding the hidden physical explanation.
Pro-Evolution Christians like science. But if they already accept God’s role in evolution too,
they aren’t going to sweat some of the details that Atheist Evolutionists have to sweat.
George
No, I wouldn’t happen to think that. Why do you ask?
Does this apply to pro-auto-mechanics Christians too? Since they accept God’s role in the functioning of automobiles, they don’t have to worry about finding hidden physical explanations when a car doesn’t work? Seriously, do you think in the same way about particle physics and auto mechanics as you do about evolution?
(In any case, since my job is finding physical explanations, I do have to sweat the details.)
1 Like
Well, why would someone who thinks God had something
to do with evolution be looking for 100% “physical phenomena”?
I suppose it depends on the level of analysis. In my working
scenario, I hypothesize Cosmic radiation. The radiation is certainly
a physical element of nature - - but how far back into the Universe
(physically and temporarily) would you have to go before you
said “Gee, this must be God…”
I would think you’d have to go PRETTY FAR and DEEP!
George
I assume you mean looking for physical explanations, not physical phenomena, since that’s what I said. I look for physical explanations because the track record of looking for physical explanations is excellent in terms of producing useful explanations, while other kinds of searches have not produced any successes that I can think of.
1 Like
I understand completely. But you can see that challenging other Christian supporters of Evolution
on the point of HOW MUCH of his or her view is physical phenomena, and how much is the hand of
God, is not really the point, right? . . . unless you are “testing” them, yes?
George