LOL! This is a historic moment. You did RESEARCH! And, really interesting research, at that! Congratulations! I commend you on actually attempting to learn something new, and provide the information to others. Your smugness fails you again, there was no attempt to "learn something new." Nothing new was revealed, there is nothing new under the sun.... I suggest that (1) your research doesn't support your original claim, i.e., your predictive capabilities with regard to biological aging, and (2) proof that single-celled organisms age is not proof of intelligent design, but rather is merely proof that entropy exists even in such organisms. Your suggest, I disagree. That all organisms, even single cell organism age, after a birth, moving toward death is argument for programming, for a design, and a designer. You still have no scientific evidence of the existence of an intelligent designer. You have no evidence that there is not an intelligent designer, and no evidence that the nature of biological organisms are the product of non-design, ignorant, unplanned, random chance. From where I look, all I see is folks speculating based on insufficient data....but because they follow a "scientific modality" in gathering insufficient data then compiling that data to reach a speculative conclusion, they somehow think their scientific faith is superior or more accurate than a theistic or common sense faith. You have made a rather loose observation that the fact that all lifeforms apparently age, indicates design rather than evolution. Apparently age? Show me one biological organism that does not age.... This is not a loose observation, it is as tight as a drum. But, why is it any more a function of design that organisms age, vis-a-vis that they do not? Why isn't aging a demonstration of an imperfect design, from a designer widely believed to be incapable of fault? Who says the cycle of birth, lifespan, then death is not perfect? Perhaps your evidence provides greater weight to the argument in favor of evolution, with all of its accidental magic, than it does any intelligent designer's wizardry. I see no accidental magic, that is the point. If there were accidental magic of "evolution" randomly generating biological organisms to spontaneously or by interaction with the environment suddenly mutate new species, I would expect a progress in species of longer and long life spans, if not at least one that had achieved some condition of everlasting life. After all, don't we as God's favorite creation attempt to generally design things to be as long lasting as possible? Why wouldn't God do similarly. Thus, built-in obsolescence is as likely a product of chance as it is design. Our design would serve our own purpose. God's design would serve His purpose. I don't confuse the two. In summary, your research and your postulate does not favor either side of the argument. My goal really is not to favor either side of the argument actually, but to demonstrate that there really is an argument. If there is an argument, that argument should be presented to children in public school systems for them to weigh. I see both sides of this debate actually, I could argue either side, but the point is that a well rounded education should produce people who can see that there are many sides to an argument, and that when there is insufficient data or fact to reach a conclusion....no conclusion should be taught. However, it's certainly interesting information and I do thank you for your work. Sure, no problem.
Attempting to reason with Z10 re a subject about which he has already made up his mind is fruitless. I just use him to practice controlling a difficult witness. You'll feel better if you try to think of your posts as a means of satisfying yourself that you have thought your argument through. Because, if there's a hole in your argument, Z10 will definitely exploit it. And, if there isn't a hole, then Z10 will invent a frivolous one and then make fun of you for thinking him absurd.
Platitudes. I told you he'd try to counter a well stated argument with "I disagree". If you ask him "based on what evidence?", he would say "I don't need evidence. I believe, that is all". Tell me what you know for a fact is new, that has never existed, that was never on this earth, that was never known before. No, and a lack of any historical record of something is not evidence that something didn't exist previously. For you to claim that something is "new" you must exclude all possibility that it is new to this earth. It may be new to you, or new to someone who didn't know it before, but if something is new to this earth, then it never existed before. Prove it. That all organisms, even single cell organism age, after a birth, moving toward death is argument for programming, for a design, and a designer. What is the argument? Why is this an argument for a designer?? It is an argument against random and chaotic unplanned existence. Please be specific. I mean why is it so, other than your belief that it is so. That would just be an opinion. If the universe were random and chaotic then I would expect to see patterns that would not be so strong as to never change. Especially when the theory is that biological organisms are constantly evolving into something "new." Why all this evolution and random unplanned change, yet the cycle of birth, life span, then death remain unaltered. Why not have a cell that mutates into a condition where it eternally is programmed to regenerate? You have no evidence that there is not an intelligent designer. See? You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right. No, you can't prove me wrong. Science is supposed to be about being right, about effectively ruling out all other possibilities, about skepticism and achieving certainty via mathematical certainty. All theists have this stance - of course they must, because we can never disprove the existence of God. I have never seen anyone disprove God, no. I have never seen anyone prove God either. I have never seen anyone prove that biological organism "evolve according to random unplanned unguided forces. So teach neither, or teach both possibilities. That's why belief in God is a faith - it can't be disproved. The scientific methodology is based on certain intellectual faiths. Spores can remain inert floating through the universe for an undetermined amount of time. Show me a living spore that has lived forever. Who says the cycle of birth, lifespan, then death is not perfect? who says it is?? There are philosophies that do say it is perfect. I would expect a progress in species of longer and long life spans, if not at least one that had achieved some condition of everlasting life. but Z10... WHY would you expect this???? That's the question - what evidence do you have that would lead you to suspect this? Every normal organism seeks to live forever. They move in the direction of maintaining their own existence. If there were any opportunity for the organism to avoid death and live forever they would. The reason for aging is not really known. It is a programming in every species that they will age. If there was a random evolutionary force that promoted random change, it would be reasonable to expect the DNA programming would "evolve out" this tendency for aging. Sigh... For someone who is promoting rationalism there is much emotionalism in your comments.
"See? You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right." lol... Z10, I was not saying this, I was saying that this is what you will say!!! Again, I encourage you to read the posts carefully. Your entire argument comes down to this It is so because I believe it is so. WHich is fine man. As I said before, I envy you your faith. I believe that you must live a more stress free life than most, secure in the knowledge that God's plan for you is set. I am not kidding when I say that I wish I had this faith. Uncertainty can be a bitch. Thanks for an enlightening ... well, not debate, but sermon is more like it.
Show me a test that proves that biological change is random and unplanned. And no, just because you don't see a pattern or planning is not sufficient to state that biological changes are unplanned and random. If we stick completely to the facts of changes that are observed, we are left with no knowledge of the existence or non existence of an ID at work. So, when the child in a biology class asks the teacher why does such and such happens, should the teacher say: 1. No one knows. 2. Theists believe God planned it that way. 3. Scientists believe that a random process of adaptation is at work. See here is the thing. I am of the opinion that we should be teaching science, not what scientists think, or believe, or speculate on, etc. Just teach the facts of life, not the speculations of life by scientists. This issue is very much a philosophical issue, a societal issue, an educational issue, and a decision that we as a society need to make. It is a political decision actually. To push theories onto children without them really understanding how flawed theoretical thinking has been in the past, how flawed it may be right now is not producing anything but an imbalanced student who has traded theistic faith for scientific faith.
we almost sort of agree on something, but the problem is that there is nothing to teach on the ID side, because there is no proof for it. And no, the fact that biological organisms age is not proof for ID, except to you personally. Nor is the fact that sunsets are pretty. That is why I have spent the time discussing this with you. I agree that students should be shown the pitfalls of the scientific method, many of which have been highlighted by advances in theoretical physics since E=mc2. The proof for this or that scientific proposition may be up in the air or open for debate, but at least there is a system in place which we can use to try to figure out whether it's true or not. There is not nor will there ever be any system which will allow us to prove or disprove the existence of God. This has been been pointed out by at least 4 different people here, and it's the basis of the argument against teaching ID. It is why religion should not be taught in schools. Let them teach theology in a seminary or at church. Any parent has the right to expose their children to these faith-based beliefs if they so choose. Science, for all its flaws, is still based on evidence. Let it be taught where evidence is demanded. In schools.
This is good stuff . When Z uses a word, a sentence, it means precisely what he wants it to mean, nothing more, nothing less............. "Attempting to reason with Z10 re a subject about which he has already made up his mind is fruitless. I just use him to practice controlling a difficult witness. You'll feel better if you try to think of your posts as a means of satisfying yourself that you have thought your argument through. Because, if there's a hole in your argument, Z10 will definitely exploit it. And, if there isn't a hole, then Z10 will invent a frivolous one and then make fun of you for thinking him absurd."