There Can be no "Intelligent Design"

[First Baseman]

Let's look at the score:

Statements by you:
"Well, evolution is 100% dependent on abiogenesis if there is no creator." FALSE
"Evolution is dependent on when, where and how abiogenesis occurred, if it did." FALSE
"Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution." FALSE
"The main reason macro-evolution cannot be properly proven is because the original organism cannot be identified - simply because abiogenesis did not happen." FALSE

It's fine if you want to go the whole "we have a different perspective on this issue" route, but that's not what you have been doing. You have repeatedly made claims that a more than just opinions - you are claiming them as facts, and the moment you do that you shouldn't be surprised when you run right up against a solid wall of reality.

All of the statements you have marked FALSE are in fact true.

I speak as though they are facts because I believe they are facts. If you don't think that what you believe is a fact then you have more research to do to discover the truth, friend.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All of the statements you have marked FALSE are in fact true.

Wrong, and I have repeatedly explained why. But here's a quick bit of revision:

Evolution
The process by which life diversifies over time via the alteration of allele frequencies in populations of living organisms through successive generations.

Abiogenesis
The process by which the initial form(s) of life arose through natural, chemical processes.

You can accept either without necessarily accepting the other. For example:

"Life started by abiogenesis, then developed through evolution."

Or:

"Life did not start by abiogenesis, but it did develop through evolution."

Or:

"Life started by abiogenesis, but it did not develop through evolution."

Unless you can somehow demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are necessarily exclusive, those statements you made are false.

I speak as though they are facts because I believe they are facts.

But they aren't, so your beliefs are false.

If you don't think that what you believe is a fact then you have more research to do to discover the truth, friend.

But what you believe to be true can still be false. And your beliefs (on this specific subject, at least) are.

 

[McBell]

You've got 2 choices and only 2. Either the first life form was created or abiogenesis. That's it.

says who?
You?
You do know there are other thoughts on the origins of life, right?

You are wrong, sir.

Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution. Sorry if you don't buy that but I have already shown that it clearly does.

You have not clearly shown any such thing.
That you think you have is most concerning.

 

[McBell]

"Flat out" statements by evolutionists that go beyond adaptive (micro) change within a species are pure supposition and conjecture. Anyone who claims differently hasn't read or listened to their arguments. "Might have" and "could have" or "this leads us to the conclusion that..." are not statements of scientific fact..they are guesses. "Comprehension" of guesswork and conjecture is of little benefit to anyone IMO. What happened to facts supporting truth? When did the definition of a "theory" have to change to make it sound like "fact"?

If there is a Creator, then his creation took place as he said it did...in the order that he said it did, in his word. It would shoot evolution down like the gigantic fraud that it is. This would greatly affect evolution...so how do you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't change anything?
If there proves to be an Intelligent Designer of all things then nothing will stay the same.

Organic (macro) evolution is a belief system which elicits as much emotion as the opposition demonstrates for creation. Neither side can "prove" anything, so why all the anger?

Isn't it because atheists NEED evolution to be true in order to justify their unbelief.....if there IS a Creator and they have been lobbying against him for all these years, what does that mean for them if he demonstrates himself to be real?

On the other hand, if creation is false and the Bible isn't its textbook, what will faithful believers do? Die happy in the knowledge that the life they lived was the best one possible in this world (love God and neighbor) and that this life is not all there is. (something to look forward to in the future) Why does make so many people cranky?

"Cause it makes me feel good" is not an argument.

 

[Etritonakin]

"Cause it makes me feel good" is not an argument.

Sure helps species survive, though

 

[First Baseman]

says who?
You do know there are other thoughts on the origins of life, right?

Care to present them?

 

[First Baseman]

Wrong, and I have repeatedly explained why. But here's a quick bit of revision:

Evolution
The process by which life diversifies over time via the alteration of allele frequencies in populations of living organisms through successive generations.

Abiogenesis
The process by which the initial form(s) of life arose through natural, chemical processes.

You can accept either without necessarily accepting the other. For example:

"Life started by abiogenesis, then developed through evolution."

Or:

"Life did not start by abiogenesis, but it did develop through evolution."

Or:

"Life started by abiogenesis, but it did not develop through evolution."

Unless you can somehow demonstrate how abiogenesis and evolution are necessarily exclusive, those statements you made are false.


But they aren't, so your beliefs are false.


But what you believe to be true can still be false. And your beliefs (on this specific subject, at least) are.

I'm done with you. We'll just have to agree to disagree. This argument is not worth the time spent. Have a good day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm done with you. We'll just have to agree to disagree. This argument is not worth the time spent. Have a good day.

You don't have to give up that easily. You could at least gracefully admit that you were operating under a misapprehension about what abiogenesis or evolution implied.

 

[First Baseman]

You don't have to give up that easily. You could at least gracefully admit that you were operating under a misapprehension about what abiogenesis or evolution implied.

Not going to happen and I'm giving up on trying to convince you that I'm right. We're not communicating when you think like you do in the post above.

Wasting my time is something I don't want to do on this subject with you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not going to happen and I'm giving up on trying to convince you that I'm right. We're not communicating when you think like you do in the post above.

Wasting my time is something I don't want to do on this subject with you.

And what way is that? Actually using and understanding the proper definitions of things? So far, your entire argument has been "x = y" and when I explain "actually x = x and y = y" you somehow believe I'm engaging in some bizarre form of mental gymnastics.

It's really very simple: you are wrong about this subject. The things you wrote were wrong, and I have explained precisely why they are wrong. Either you can demonstrate that I am wrong by way of a reasonable argument, or you can continue pretending that I'm being unreasonable in order to run away rather than admit you were mistaken. Those are really the only two options. I have no been unfair, I have not been unreasonable, I have not been offensive, so the only reason you see fit to exit the debate at this juncture is because you simply unwilling to admit that you are wrong when you have been shown to be. This shows a level of dishonesty and self-delusion. So, you can either do that, or you can continue trying to discuss this issue with me in a reasonable fashion, taking my comments on board and refuting them when you can.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate subjects. I have asked you to demonstrate why you think they are exclusive. Can you do that?

 

[McBell]

Can you do that?

If he could, he would.

 

[McBell]

Care to present them?

please be specific and define what exactly you mean by "abiogenesis".
Are you referring to the most popular "primordial-soup"?
Or perhaps to "metabolism-first"?

Most people do not understand that "abiogenesis", like "Intelligent Design", is an umbrella term that covers several schools of thought on the beginning of life.

 

[Desert Snake]

please be specific and define what exactly you mean by "abiogenesis".
Are you referring to the most popular "primordial-soup"?
Or perhaps to "metabolism-first"?

Most people do not understand that "abiogenesis", like "Intelligent Design", is an umbrella term that covers several schools of thought on the beginning of life.

You always get so vague when it comes to presenting any proof of abiogenesis.

 

[McBell]

You always get so vague when it comes to presenting any proof of abiogenesis.

I was not presenting evidence, let alone proof, of abiogenesis.
I am merely explaining that it is not the false dichotomy he claims it is.

 

[McBell]

You always get so vague when it comes to presenting any proof of abiogenesis.

I do not bother with presenting evidence or proof of abiogenesis.
I could just make bold empty wild claims, like theists, that everything is evidence, but my standard for evidence is much higher than that.

 

[Parsimony]

"Well, evolution is 100% dependent on abiogenesis if there is no creator." FALSE

This does actually seem to be a reasonable statement. Even the panspermia hypothesis leads back to either abiogenesis or creation, since microbes travelling between planets had to form somehow themselves. The only third option I could think of at the moment that might even possibly work would be that life has always existed and it travels from one universe to another with a lineage stretching eternally into the pasts of an infinite number of universes (with technologically-advanced life forms being responsible for carrying them from one universe to another). Really, however, evolution is just dependent upon the existence of life.

"Evolution is dependent on when, where and how abiogenesis occurred, if it did."

Well, it is, in some sense. If abiogenesis took place a million years later than it actually did (assuming it did), then evolution would have proceeded very differently (butterfly effect and all that).

"Abiogenesis without a creator absolutely affects evolution."

Hmm... only in the sense that a "first organism" created by intelligent design could have potentially been very different from one created by abiogenesis. Evolution could have proceeded differently in the two cases, but it would have still been able to occur.

"The main reason macro-evolution cannot be properly proven is because the original organism cannot be identified - simply because abiogenesis did not happen."

I agree that this one, however, is definitely false. Our inability to identify the very first human to arrive in North America doesn't keep us from knowing that humans did actually come to North America.

 

[Dante Writer]

The opposite of intelligent design would be chaos.

Where do we find chaos in our Universe?

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.

To test a chaos theory condition you would start an event and see if it results in something completely unexpected and significant happening and that event was able to self replicate.

That would be evidence of creation by chaos right?

The theory of evolution is based on chaos design and requires a mind boggling amount of random coincidences to produce something that functions and can reproduce itself.

A beach shoreline would be much more likely to happen from chaos creation as it does not reproduce itself and remains random. No two beaches the same.

However a living organism that can function, move, think and reproduce itself is such a massive step up from a beach or a watch that to believe it is the result of chaos creation is just not mathematically logical in my opinion.

So to answer your question: yes, in my opinion there is a creator for living organisms and some things in our universe are probably just the the product of chaos creation and required no creator or intelligent design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The opposite of intelligent design would be chaos.

Where do we find chaos in our Universe?

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.

To test a chaos theory condition you would start an event and see if it results in something completely unexpected and significant happening and that event was able to self replicate.

That would be evidence of creation by chaos right?

The theory of evolution is based on chaos design and requires a mind boggling amount of random coincidences to produce something that functions and can reproduce itself.

A beach shoreline would be much more likely to happen from chaos creation as it does not reproduce itself and remains random. No two beaches the same.

However a living organism that can function, move, think and reproduce itself is such a massive step up from a beach or a watch that to believe it is the result of chaos creation is just not mathematically logical in my opinion.

So to answer your question: yes, in my opinion there is a creator for living organisms and some things in our universe are probably just the the product of chaos creation and required no creator or intelligent design.

I agree, with a slightly different perspective though- it's not just the odds against random chance, but the odds FOR a better explanation.

e.g. if some rocks on a beach spell 'HELP' this result is no less likely than any other pattern being washed up with the same rocks- the odds are all the same right?

But ID is a far better explanation for it, even with no sign of anyone around. So too with life, we can't say it's technically impossible for life to have spontaneously appeared and evolved through millions of lucky random mutations for no particular reason, but we can deduce far less improbable explanations

 

[McBell]

The opposite of intelligent design would be chaos.

False dichotomy.

Where do we find chaos in our Universe?

Define for the thread in context "chaos".

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior and condition of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.

To test a chaos theory condition you would start an event and see if it results in something completely unexpected and significant happening and that event was able to self replicate.

That would be evidence of creation by chaos right?

The theory of evolution is based on chaos design and requires a mind boggling amount of random coincidences to produce something that functions and can reproduce itself.

A beach shoreline would be much more likely to happen from chaos creation as it does not reproduce itself and remains random. No two beaches the same.

However a living organism that can function, move, think and reproduce itself is such a massive step up from a beach or a watch that to believe it is the result of chaos creation is just not mathematically logical in my opinion.

So to answer your question: yes, in my opinion there is a creator for living organisms and some things in our universe are probably just the the product of chaos creation and required no creator or intelligent design.

Oh goody, a math claim!!

Please show your math, including where and why you chose the numbers you use.

 

[McBell]

I agree, with a slightly different perspective though- it's not just the odds against random chance, but the odds FOR a better explanation.

e.g. if some rocks on a beach spell 'HELP' this result is no less likely than any other pattern being washed up with the same rocks- the odds are all the same right?

Are you ever going to present your math?
I know I have flat out asked you before,

But ID is a far better explanation for it, even with no sign of anyone around. So too with life, we can't say it's technically impossible for life to have spontaneously appeared and evolved through millions of lucky random mutations for no particular reason, but we can deduce far less improbable explanations

Again, please show your math.
I mean, you did do the math, right?
Would you have to in order to make a math claim and not be a liar?