A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

That may be why we have been frustrated all of this time with each other.

So you don't reject evolution? You don't reject common ancestry as long as an intelligent mind is involved. Interesting.

T_M posted a while back that 'code does not change' only to apparently change his mind about that later on!

I think what he believes to be the case may be quite elastic?

I do not reject evolution, nor can I reject common ancestry for the same reasons I have accepted life is designed, life looks designed and a mind is behind it. If a common ancestry is true, then it too had to come through programming into the system it would have arisen. The details that there are common and uncommon designs in life doing the same thing do not suggest to me mindlessness, surprise!

I have been very consistent, if is not my fault when I declare over and over mind over mindlessness is the main issue I have been speaking to for HOW LONG? I pointed out for years again that error checking in biological systems keeps them operating so replication can happen without errors creeping into life and causing a shift in results, that is good coding!

Mindlessness that would ever think to do that because there is NO thinking in mindlessness, why would it, if it didn't know it needed to, if there is no knowledge of needs, no desire to protect what is it doing!

YOU CAN NOT produce a cause that makes you THINK that something that does not think can and would do all of these things, your mind is still stuck some day someone will come up with a possible reason that something that cannot reason would do these things?

No one's talking about "mindless" causes. Yes, you've made that point over and over. Just about every post it seems for the past several years. Trust me, NO ONE is confused about your position on "mindless" causes. In fact, you don't even need to keep telling us, because we already know it so well. You've made it abundantly clear.

I'm talking about the evolution part. This is the first time I've EVER heard you say that evolution and common ancestry could be true.

(And btw, replication does not happen without errors. In fact, those "errors" are needed. Without those errors, there would be less variation which would reduce the chances of life's survival. And that’s a prime example of how the computer metaphor breaks down. "Perfect" error-free DNA replication would actually be very BAD coding when it comes to life, because it allows for no adaptability to changing circumstances. Those "errors" and "imperfections" are the "perfect" thing that life needs to survive.)

That is not true, I've always maintained if life was coded to do the things credited for causing life to change then it agrees with my points entirely.

Again, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your consistent rejection of evolution and common ancestry. And now you're suddenly telling us you don't have a problem with it? (@stephen_33 am I wrong or misremembering?)

Years ago one of the first exchanges we had was me pointing out the difference to you between the mechanism of evolution vs. evidence that evolution has happened. One of the first conversations we had I told you that even if you're right about a mindless naturalistic mechanism being insufficient to cause evolution, that the evidence still shows that evolution and common ancestry have happened. Even if we don't know the mechanism, it doesn't change the evidence for common ancestry. If evolution doesn't have a mindless cause then it would be a mindful cause, but it still doesn't change the evidence that evolution has still occurred and the lack of evidence for creation of life's diversity all at the same time. You rejected this back then. You have consistently rejected it for years. And I have raised the issue multiple times even more recently in the past year.

You've rejected the evidence for endosymbiosis. You've rejected the evidence for human-chimpanzee common ancestry from endogenous retrovirus, citing that a "mindless" process can't do that. I've said even of that's true the evidence still supports common ancestry so if it wasn't naturalistic then God directed evolution. You have rejected this, arguing that God created things according to a common design. I've repeatedly explained that that doesn't explain the endogenous retrovirus evidence because viral DNA from infections is not part of an original creation. You have consistently rejected this, still insisting separate create and no common ancestry....

And now you're suddenly saying that you can accept that humans and chimpanzees could share a common ancestry as long as it wasn't a mindless process and God directed, guided evolution? I mean that's fine if you have, but that would make this a new position for you.

I don't believe we share a common ancestor, I'm saying if it is coded it would be the only way it could occur. That is not a change in my stance, that is me being consistent in what I'm saying.

I don't believe the evidence points that way, from what we find in fossils, from what we see today in the life around us. If you told me that there are new injections of information into life's population each time a new life appeared that would be coding, and I don't believe that is what is occurring, that would be God reinventing life each time it occurred. There is nothing to support that at all, the changes all seem to happen immediately something new arrives, dies and something else shows up. It is much more reasonable to accept all life started at once and within each kind there were variations within each through time.

Search me! I'm no longer clear what he's claimed to believe as fact in the past or what he believes now.

I'm being consistent with what I believe, you've never been.

Oh come on TM, Stephen's been completely consistent. That was uncalled for. We've done a good job not making things personal, and you're starting to make things personal instead of just discussing.

If anything you're the one who made it sound like you've changed your position, but now in this latest post you've made it clear that you still reject evolution and common ancestry. Thank you for clarifying. That's all I was asking. Just for clarification.

Really, does he accept that there is no evidence, nothing in the realm of mechanisms that shows how abiogenesis is a real possibility, yet he accepts it and he makes claims about evolutionary evidence? When asked he says someone, someday will find it, meaning he has nothing, yet believes. He may be consistent in his claims, but he cannot apply them to what is and say he is always doing the same thing to accept the nature of his claims, he should acknowledge it is all faith-based, the abiogenesis/evolution of the gaps. I cannot change my stance on designed mechanisms because they could be used to justify evolutionary claims I don't find compelling.

You want my honest opinion? The last time we discussed abiogenesis, @stephen_33 acknowledged the problems and lack of evidence for abiogenesis to a greater degree than he ever has in the past. By contrast, you refuse to acknowledge the slightest bit of evidence for evolution and pretend there is absolutely no evidence at all.

It's this that's demonstrably false! Apart from also being rude.

You stated some pages ago that (quote) "code does not change" and yet you've recently altered your belief about this and accept that genetic code most certainly does change over time.

So don't accuse me of not being consistent - are you familiar with 'pots and kettles'?

I have NEVER denied evolution as a possibility, and I have denied command ancestor, but even have to acknowledge if programmed that too is possible, those two things are two different things though related. If evolutionary processes are there it isn't by chance, that has been my stance NEVER to deny it completely, you are board line calling me a lie by making that suggestion

Go back and search my words, and bring up a quote of mine that does what you say, this will be just another example of you not reading what I have said in the context I say them.

I've made my position crystal clear when it comes to the origin of life (OOL), so allow me to re-write this for you....

"Really, do they accept that there is no evidence, nothing in the realm of mechanisms that shows how abiogenesis is a real possibility, yet they accept it and they make claims about evolutionary evidence? When asked they say someone, someday will find it, meaning they have nothing, yet believe. they may be consistent in their claims, but they cannot apply them to what is and say they are always doing the same thing to accept the nature of their claims, they should acknowledge it is all faith-based, the abiogenesis/evolution of the gaps. I cannot change my stance on designed mechanisms because they could be used to justify evolutionary claims I don't find compelling."

* 'they' being the collective body of professional scientists involved in OOL research. If I've misrepresented anything that body has stated or published then shame on me but until then take it up with them!

Notice I am talking about the people, not the process. For crying out loud, saying you accept something that there isn't proof for in reality by the means by which you accept it, is not denying it outright, it is speaking to why you accept it without showing the ins and outs. I accept anything that is programmed to behave as it is programmed, that does not deny the possibility it simply speaks to I can see how it happens with cause. REPEATING mind over mindlessness, the mindless aspect of this is my complaint.

In the absence of sufficient evidence, we're not compelled to take a position on such an issue.

The question of life's origin is problematic to say the least but I'm under no obligation to state a considered opinion because the scientific community do not and they're considerably better informed about this than I am.

If it's finally accepted that a naturalistic cause of life is impossible (no idea how that conclusion might be reached) then we'll have advanced to exploring other 'options' but that's a long way off.

BS with cause things behave as they have been designed to! You ignore the information driving the process, it is right in front of you.