The Flaw(s) in Intelligent Design...

rossum

Well-known member
If the poop is 65 myo what is undigested muscle tissue doing there? Seems to me that is falsifying evidence the T-rex was 65 MYO.

Get a load of this.......''Rapid burial of the feces probably was facilitated by a flood event on the ancient coastal lowland plain on which the fecal mass was deposited.''
---------------------
A flood event.....That is consistent with Noah flood!
Noah's flood was 65 myo? Better let Ken Ham know. On the other hand, if the flood was about 4,500 years ago then why don't we find a lot more undigested muscle tissue, as we do with Siberian mammoths? Your inconsistencies are showing here.

As for the undigested tissue, I suspect that the rapid burial was anoxic, so bacteria did not have a chance to digest it any further.
 

Temujin

Well-known member

Remarkable preservation of undigested muscle tissue within a Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurid coprolite from Alberta, Canada​


If the poop is 65 myo what is undigested muscle tissue doing there? Seems to me that is falsifying evidence the T-rex was 65 MYO.

Get a load of this.......''Rapid burial of the feces probably was facilitated by a flood event on the ancient coastal lowland plain on which the fecal mass was deposited.''
---------------------
A flood event.....That is consistent with Noah flood!
Of course! The only flood that ever occurred was Noah's flood. You might as well argue that every sunrise is consistent with a dung beetle rolling the sun across the heavens.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
We do have an explanation, it is just that "evolution and adaptation" you talk about. The environment contains information. For example, the information that white things are difficult to see against a snowy background. Evolution adapts organisms to their environment, so a lot of organisms living near or above the snow line are white. That information has been copied from the environment into the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Evolution is a copying process, it copies the available information into DNA. The copying process is not very efficient, but it does work. Natural selection picks the random mutations in DNA that best match the information in the environment. White fur survives better than light brown fur in snow. Light brown fur survives better than dark brown fur in snow. In some cases, where the environment is snowy in winter but not in summer, the animals change their coat colour. White in winter, which is then shed for a brown coat in summer. That is information about the seasons copied into DNA by evolution.

Evolution copies information from the environment into DNA. The information does not originate with evolution, but originates in the environment and is copied from there.
The information in DNA is the same problem as the OOL problem. Information in the environment is not the solution. You don't have an environment with trees and meadows and singing birds but rather solidified molten lava eroded into dust much like the moon or mars.
If you wish, your God created the universe -- the environment -- and evolution just copies the information placed in the universe into DNA. Genesis tells you that God did not create living organisms directly: "Let the waters bring forth..." and "Let the earth bring forth..."


Intelligent design is not an option for the first intelligent designer. That designer cannot have been intelligently designed, because it is the first intelligent designer. There was no earlier intelligent designer.

We agree that science does not automatically reject design, and the LGM hypothesis shows.

If life is intelligently designed then, logically, you have a non-living intelligent designer. A living intelligent designer cannot originate life because it itself is already alive. There is a perfectly good logical cause for that rejection unless you can show the existence of a non-living intelligent designer.
PRATT, The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob has always existed is Spirit and does not require a designer.

If SETI were to discover an intelligent signal, there would be no need to show the existence of the originators since the signal itself would be the evidence. Again, yet another example of hoops.
 

rossum

Well-known member
The information in DNA is the same problem as the OOL problem. Information in the environment is not the solution. You don't have an environment with trees and meadows and singing birds but rather solidified molten lava eroded into dust much like the moon or mars.
Molten lava and dust do not contain DNA, so there is no issue: zero DNA, zero information; zero problem. Any environment contains information. Even a single pebble contains information.

PRATT, The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob has always existed is Spirit and does not require a designer.
Then there is a complex intelligence that was not designed. Hence the ID claim that specified complexity requires design is falsified. The Abrahamic God is a counter-example which the great majority of ID proponents will support. ID is self-refuting.

You have still not shown us any double blind tests of any of ID's claimed design detection methods. The lack of such testing is becoming very obvious.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Noah's flood was 65 myo? Better let Ken Ham know. On the other hand, if the flood was about 4,500 years ago then why don't we find a lot more undigested muscle tissue, as we do with Siberian mammoths? Your inconsistencies are showing here.

As for the undigested tissue, I suspect that the rapid burial was anoxic, so bacteria did not have a chance to digest it any further.
So you believe it is more reasonable to deduce the undigested muscle tissue in the poop of a T-Rex is better explained by 65 (actually 80-90 million yrs to be more exact) myo date than an earlier date of around 4 to 5 thousand years. That is all anyone needs to know. I would be interested in your case for a far later date seeing as how none of this was predicted before the fact and your preposterous conclusion is a science-free post hoc. If it all is so obvious then why was it not all addressed before the fact? Falsifying evidence against your dating, which is off by millions of years, Mr science guy :eek:) is simply ignored, bounces off your head, (no surprise there) and the actual data is simply absorbed into the millions of years model.
----------------------------------
 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Of course! The only flood that ever occurred was Noah's flood. You might as well argue that every sunrise is consistent with a dung beetle rolling the sun across the heavens.
None of this is worth the bother. Go away until you come up with something more compelling than schoolboy sarcasm as a sub for brain power.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
Noah's flood was 65 myo? Better let Ken Ham know. On the other hand, if the flood was about 4,500 years ago then why don't we find a lot more undigested muscle tissue, as we do with Siberian mammoths? Your inconsistencies are showing here.

As for the undigested tissue, I suspect that the rapid burial was anoxic, so bacteria did not have a chance to digest it any further.
They were preserved differently.
Dino's died out when drowned and buried in the sediment. The mammoths were post flood. Mike Oard has some answers for you if you desire to study it.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Molten lava and dust do not contain DNA, so there is no issue: zero DNA, zero information; zero problem. Any environment contains information. Even a single pebble contains information.
You seem to have forgotten your initial goal of showing that the information in DNA/RNA resulted from the environment which your now claim is zero information.

Any environment has Shannon information which is not related to specified information but even then, there exists no mechanism for transferring any hypothetical information into DNA - so you are out of gas before you start.
Then there is a complex intelligence that was not designed. Hence the ID claim that specified complexity requires design is falsified. The Abrahamic God is a counter-example which the great majority of ID proponents will support. ID is self-refuting.
I like how you guys take an ID claim and then reform it to fit your criteria and then tear it down. If your pet theory were really legit there would be not need for such child-like tactics. The claim is that the specified complexity in life is best explained by intelligence rather than non-directed naturalism or materialism. There is no mention of the identity of the designer. But assuming it were the Abrahamic God who is spirit. Does spirit follow the same laws of complexity as matter? You are making assumptions on things you know nothing about.
You have still not shown us any double blind tests of any of ID's claimed design detection methods. The lack of such testing is becoming very obvious.
And you still have not shown why ID has to jump thru your hoops while everyone else gets off scott free.
 

rossum

Well-known member
So you believe it is more reasonable to deduce the undigested muscle tissue in the poop of a T-Rex is better explained by 65 (actually 80-90 million yrs to be more exact) myo date than an earlier date of around 4 to 5 thousand years.
There is no evidence of any living T. rex later than 65 myo. If you can find such evidence, as was done with coelacanths, then I will change my mind. Absent any such evidence then I will stick with the given dates.

I am still awaiting evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the genomes of kangaroos, armadillos and giraffes due to a recent worldwide flood.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
There is no evidence of any living T. rex later than 65 myo. If you can find such evidence, as was done with coelacanths, then I will change my mind. Absent any such evidence then I will stick with the given dates.

I am still awaiting evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the genomes of kangaroos, armadillos and giraffes due to a recent worldwide flood.
Well show us how a millions year old late date better fits the facts than an earlier date of thousands of years for undigested muscle tissue discovered in T-Rex poop. You can't. You punked out. What a joke. Mr science guy. it is two models in contention for age. Multiple millions or thousands. Now make your case since you opted for the later date and the greater the claim, the more the burden of proof.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Dino's died out when drowned and buried in the sediment.
Not all of them. Various pairs within 'dinosaur kind', at least one pair and possibly more depending on how many baramins there were within the overall dinosaur clade. Those dinosaurs survived the flood on the Ark. Where are their footprints in the mud left by the flood? Where are their bones? Either all dinosaurs were already extinct before the flood, or some survived on the Ark. Either way you are wrong here.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You seem to have forgotten your initial goal of showing that the information in DNA/RNA resulted from the environment which your now claim is zero information.
The environment you described was too hot for DNA, so there was no DNA, or RNA, in that environment. There was, however, information.

You need to start with an environment where DNA and/or RNA can exist.

Any environment has Shannon information which is not related to specified information but even then, there exists no mechanism for transferring any hypothetical information into DNA - so you are out of gas before you start.
There is a mechanism: random mutation and natural selection. RM provides a menu of information options. NS picks the options that better match the information in the environment. If you like, the information in DNA is specified by the environment the organism lives in. Marine organisms need to extract oxygen from water; land organisms need to extract oxygen from air. The environment specifies the requirement.

And you still have not shown why ID has to jump thru your hoops while everyone else gets off scott free.
Would you take an untested vaccine? I would not accept an untested design detector. A lot of science is tested and retested. ID needs to learn to do that if it wants to be science and to be taught in science classes.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Well show us how a millions year old late date better fits the facts than an earlier date of thousands of years for undigested muscle tissue discovered in T-Rex poop. You can't. You punked out. What a joke. Mr science guy. it is two models in contention for age. Multiple millions or thousands. Now make your case since you opted for the later date and the greater the claim, the more the burden of proof.
Show me a universal recent genetic bottleneck in all land tetrapod species. I will give you cheetahs for free. You have to show me the rest.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Not all of them. Various pairs within 'dinosaur kind', at least one pair and possibly more depending on how many baramins there were within the overall dinosaur clade. Those dinosaurs survived the flood on the Ark. Where are their footprints in the mud left by the flood? Where are their bones? Either all dinosaurs were already extinct before the flood, or some survived on the Ark. Either way you are wrong here.
Paleontologists have also uncovered: (1) quinones from sea lily fossils that date to 350 million years in age; (2) ink within the ink sacs of fossilized cuttlefish, dating to 160 million years in age; (3) chitin from 34-million-year-old cuttlefish and 505-million-year-old sponges; and (4) shell proteins from 15 million-year-old mollusk fossils.

Rana, Fazale. Dinosaur Blood and the Age of the Earth . RTB Press. Kindle Edition.

What better fits the facts for the ink still there. 160 million yr old date or 4 to 5 thousand-year-old date? And why and the greater the claim the greater the burden of proof.

You can google it for verification assuming to know how.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
I knew you would not be able to show me evidence
You asked to dodge. When push comes to shove you resort to schoolboy. You got nothing. Science is not your friend since it does not support your delusions. You might as well believe in fairies.

1629832179222.png
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The environment you described was too hot for DNA, so there was no DNA, or RNA, in that environment. There was, however, information.

You need to start with an environment where DNA and/or RNA can exist.
You picked the environment not me. If it's too hot to handle then stay out.
There is a mechanism: random mutation and natural selection. RM provides a menu of information options. NS picks the options that better match the information in the environment. If you like, the information in DNA is specified by the environment the organism lives in. Marine organisms need to extract oxygen from water; land organisms need to extract oxygen from air. The environment specifies the requirement.
What a croc. You need DNA before you can have RMNS or did you again forget your initial goal. That DNA has an explanation.
Would you take an untested vaccine? I would not accept an untested design detector. A lot of science is tested and retested. ID needs to learn to do that if it wants to be science and to be taught in science classes.
Avoiding that issue that you make up requirements for ID (jump thru hoops) but accept them with out question everywhere else. Your depth for deception continues to follow you.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You need DNA before you can have RMNS or did you again forget your initial goal. That DNA has an explanation.
Early life needed some form of information storage. It might have been DNA, it might have been RNA, it might have been proteins or it might have been something else. What we see today has been evolving for billions of years; it is not the same as the first life.

Initially you would start with random molecules, then the molecules with the better information would spread. See Ekland (1995) for more detail about functional random RNA molecules.

Avoiding that issue that you make up requirements for ID (jump thru hoops) but accept them with out question everywhere else. Your depth for deception continues to follow you.
I gave you a reference to a scientific paper above. Science has already jumped through the hoops. Unless ID jumps through the same hoops then it is not science and is, rightly, excluded from science classrooms.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Early life needed some form of information storage. It might have been DNA, it might have been RNA, it might have been proteins or it might have been something else. What we see today has been evolving for billions of years; it is not the same as the first life.

Initially you would start with random molecules, then the molecules with the better information would spread. See Ekland (1995) for more detail about functional random RNA molecules.
IOW, you have no explanation for DNA/RNA and RMNS is not the solution its existence. Why not simply start with that?
I gave you a reference to a scientific paper above. Science has already jumped through the hoops. Unless ID jumps through the same hoops then it is not science and is, rightly, excluded from science classrooms.
What you gave was a sciencey sounding reference with the claim that science has jumped through the hoops, without actually jumping through the hoops. How about archeological artifacts, the Rosetta stone, Stone Hedge. All of which are taken at face value without the need to show that their design detection is valid and specified complexity is all that suffices.

AT first you would not accept DNA/RNA as information and now you have a new criteria for eliminating design. Guess what! you will always come up with a method for eliminating design which goes along with my premise that secularists have eliminated design without cause. In the mean time, much of the public, is duped into thinking that Materialists have the answer. It is not us who are under the onus to show that life is designed because anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that we and the rest of Creation are designed. Your group may scorn this with statements like, "it looks designed to me", but it looks designed because it is designed and the new nano-technological discoveries in the cell and genome continue to demonstrate that we are designed.
 
Top