Why the theory of evolution is so important

MJFlores said:

View attachment 28324

and then we have an intelligent design?
Ah it happened just like that.

View attachment 28326

View attachment 28325

if not is this from an intelligent design?

Hebrews 3:4 New International Version (NIV)
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

Click to expand...

False comparison. Just because design exists doesn't mean that all formations are a result of design. Design is something you actually have to demonstrate.

MJFlores said:

Yes we are composed of Earth elements

But the thing, I am asking is if
I place these things in a bottle and
shake it to the left and
shake it to the right
Do the boogie woogie
would that produce life?

If it will, how come other planets are void of life
not even the singled cell microscopic organism

Click to expand...

That's just the point. We are not made of anything special that is different than the rest of the world. It is they way they are combined as the case for all of the different minerals in the earth. Life is made up of what we call non-living elements that became arranged in patterns that at some point could reproduce themselves. The theory of evolution starts when these non-living elements have gained the capacity to reproduce and change using DNA as the pattern to follow. Abiogenesis deals with how these elements combined to form more and more complex structures that would arise to form membranes and the elements for the structure of DNA. There is plenty of research documenting how this could happen but that is not the discussion here. We are discussing why the theory of evolution not abiogenesis is so important since it is the only theory that integrates our knowledge of what happens in ecology. No other creation story does that. If you reject the study of ecology too that can be discussed in another topic and I would be happy to explain my favorite topic in science.

MJFlores said:

That leads us to an intelligent design.

Click to expand...

No it does not. The theory of evolution contains the only evidence that can show how species changed in relationship to their environment and explain the clear fossil record. Intelligent design does not. All that is needed for evolution exists without the help of an intelligent designer getting into the cells of organisms (very small intelligent designer) to make the changes necessary. Of course the ID could always use the magic wand. Why would an ID make the changes which were not good enough and lead to extinction or is the intelligent designer only partly intelligent or sort of intelligent. It does not explain the interaction and changes found in ecology either. Finally why create an imaginary intelligent designer when natural processes explain everything. The only reason I can find is to make some people feel more special because they want to feel intelligent - although ignoring what we know about evolution is not so intelligent.

MJFlores said:

View attachment 28324

and then we have an intelligent design?
Ah it happened just like that.

View attachment 28326

View attachment 28325

if not is this from an intelligent design?

Hebrews 3:4 New International Version (NIV)
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

Click to expand...

Actually the house is not such an intelligent design because it is wasteful of energy, destroys the land that was productive into a non-productive structure with limited use, and wastes valuable recourses many of which are not recyclable. By the way most of our so called intelligent designs came from the natural world which did not need an intelligent designer. Maybe you should rethink what is really and intelligent design for our world and not just for someone's ego.

ImmortalFlame said:

False comparison. Just because design exists doesn't mean that all formations are a result of design. Design is something you actually have to demonstrate.

Click to expand...

Ok these things were not designed


And those who were not designed
were able to design





Maybe intelligence just developed by accident
or every "design" just pooped out by accident.
Maybe that makes sense.

Wild Fox said:

That's just the point. We are not made of anything special that is different than the rest of the world. It is they way they are combined as the case for all of the different minerals in the earth. Life is made up of what we call non-living elements that became arranged in patterns that at some point could reproduce themselves. The theory of evolution starts when these non-living elements have gained the capacity to reproduce and change using DNA as the pattern to follow. Abiogenesis deals with how these elements combined to form more and more complex structures that would arise to form membranes and the elements for the structure of DNA. There is plenty of research documenting how this could happen but that is not the discussion here. We are discussing why the theory of evolution not abiogenesis is so important since it is the only theory that integrates our knowledge of what happens in ecology. No other creation story does that. If you reject the study of ecology too that can be discussed in another topic and I would be happy to explain my favorite topic in science.

Click to expand...

That is true - we are made of dust.



Now how the elements arranged themselves
lined themselves in such uniformity

developed instincts, conscience and intelligence
while other living things like viruses, bacteria, plants do not have such



And these elements arranged themselves to form into nerve endings
And these elements composed themselves in an orderly fashion

Makes sense.

MJFlores said:

Ok these things were not designed

And those who were not designed
were able to design

View attachment 28358

Maybe intelligence just developed by accident
or every "design" just pooped out by accident.
Maybe that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Now you are starting to understand. Humans were not designed - humans evolved so that's a good start. The concept of design is a human concept and is based on understanding patterns of the natural world. Thus what you see as design is recognizing the patterns in nature that were not from intelligent design and finding ways to use those patterns to create new patterns that we call design. But intelligent design is a human centric view since we use attribute it to our behaviors. Our designs are based off of nature that needs no intelligent design to create the incredible diversity of life that inhabits our planet.

MJFlores said:

That is true - we are made of dust.

Now how the elements arranged themselves
lined themselves in such uniformity

developed instincts, conscience and intelligence
while other living things like viruses, bacteria, plants do not have such

And these elements arranged themselves to form into nerve endings
And these elements composed themselves in an orderly fashion

Makes sense.

Click to expand...

You are not correct, we are made of atoms arranged in patterns. dust is a nonspecific term and does not necessarily contain elements or compounds associated with living things.
The process of the development of the nervous system is well documented in evolutionary evidence as well as phylogenic evidence. If you pick the most complex example without all of the examples showing how the nervous system could develop then it might seem hard to believe. But we have all of the embryonic, phylogenetic and associated fossils as clear evidence. The trick ID believers use is pick the most complex example without the clear progression and make unsupported statements to mislead rather than show evidence. Your example is a perfect to show how ID people mislead and ignore all of the evidence.

Wild Fox said:

You are not correct, we are made of atoms arranged in patterns. dust is a nonspecific term and does not necessarily contain elements or compounds associated with living things.
The process of the development of the nervous system is well documented in evolutionary evidence as well as phylogenic evidence. If you pick the most complex example without all of the examples showing how the nervous system could develop then it might seem hard to believe. But we have all of the embryonic, phylogenetic and associated fossils as clear evidence. The trick ID believers use is pick the most complex example without the clear progression and make unsupported statements to mislead rather than show evidence. Your example is a perfect to show how ID people mislead and ignore all of the evidence.

Click to expand...

Ok
We are made of atoms
And when we die
We return to atoms

MJFlores said:

Ok these things were not designed

And those who were not designed
were able to design

View attachment 28358

Maybe intelligence just developed by accident
or every "design" just pooped out by accident.
Maybe that makes sense.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy. The choices aren't just between "it was designed vs. it was an 'accident'". Intelligence may simply be a natural, emergent property of physical forces interacting in space over time. Your logic is still faulty.

In order to assert design, you have to first demonstrate design. So how can you demonstrate that life is designed?

ImmortalFlame said:

False dichotomy. The choices aren't just between "it was designed vs. it was an 'accident'". Intelligence may simply be a natural, emergent property of physical forces interacting in space over time. Your logic is still faulty.

In order to assert design, you have to first demonstrate design. So how can you demonstrate that life is designed?

Click to expand...

I know a watch which tells time was designed by a watchmaker

If the watchmaker isn't intelligent, then we won't have watches to use now or in the past

If Intelligence is a natural, emergent property of physical forces interacting in space over time.
Then life should be much common in all planets and all moons in the known universe.
And should be on the edge of our solar system's habitable zone
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/life-on-mars.html



If you see patterns, I believe you see design.
Oh the above picture is just for pollens not other Earth's microscopic subjects.

MJFlores said:

Ok
We are made of atoms
And when we die
We return to atoms

Click to expand...

Now you are starting to understand.

Wild Fox said:

Now you are starting to understand.

Click to expand...

But I don't have an electron microscope



So I would settle for dust.



And the song from the band Kansas, that too.

MJFlores said:

I know a watch which tells time was designed by a watchmaker
View attachment 28385
If the watchmaker isn't intelligent, then we won't have watches to use now or in the past

Click to expand...

False. You only know watches are designed because you have seen watches being designed, and you are not currently aware of any natural phenomenon that produces them. You can't identify design independent of prior knowledge of the object's formation.

In other words, if you had absolutely no prior knowledge of how watches are made, you'd have no good reason to assume they were designed. Furthermore, if we discovered a tree on which watches grew like fruit, you would now have a good reason to believe watches aren't necessarily designed. Your logic is still faulty because you are comparing objects that we already know are designed with things that occur naturally.

MJFlores said:

If Intelligence is a natural, emergent property of physical forces interacting in space over time.
Then life should be much common in all planets and all moons in the known universe.
And should be on the edge of our solar system's habitable zone
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/life-on-mars.html

Click to expand...

Also false. Just because intelligence CAN arise doesn't mean it necessarily WILL arise. It can be considered an inevitable, emergent property of physical forces acting on elements in particular way, but that doesn't mean all physical forces and elements throughout the Universe are acting the same way. For example, if I kick a million balls and only one of them lands in a puddle and I leave them their for a long period of time, moss may grow on the ball I kicked into the puddle but not on any of other balls. Moss growing on one specific ball was an inevitable consequence of the specific situation the ball found itself in, but that doesn't mean it is anything other than a rare event in this specific model.

The fact that our planet happens to occupy a specific space that physically allows for life to exist is no more significant than the fact of the million balls I kicked, at least one happened to land somewhere that moss grew on it. All you need to do is reverse your perspective: the earth isn't in the situation it's in in order for life to arise on it, life arose because earth is in the situation it's in.

MJFlores said:

If you see patterns, I believe you see design.

Click to expand...

Then you are wrong. You need to demonstrate that a specific "pattern" is actually a result of design.

ImmortalFlame said:

False. You only know watches are designed because you have seen watches being designed, and you are not currently aware of any natural phenomenon that produces them. You can't identify design independent of prior knowledge of the object's formation.

Click to expand...

That would be strange matter.

ImmortalFlame said:

In other words, if you had absolutely no prior knowledge of how watches are made, you'd have no good reason to assume they were designed. Furthermore, if we discovered a tree on which watches grew like fruit, you would now have a good reason to believe watches aren't necessarily designed. Your logic is still faulty because you are comparing objects that we already know are designed with things that occur naturally.

Click to expand...

Watches are not designed, they grow naturally.

ImmortalFlame said:

Also false. Just because intelligence CAN arise doesn't mean it necessarily WILL arise. It can be considered an inevitable, emergent property of physical forces acting on elements in particular way, but that doesn't mean all physical forces and elements throughout the Universe are acting the same way. For example, if I kick a million balls and only one of them lands in a puddle and I leave them their for a long period of time, moss may grow on the ball I kicked into the puddle but not on any of other balls. Moss growing on one specific ball was an inevitable consequence of the specific situation the ball found itself in, but that doesn't mean it is anything other than a rare event in this specific model.

Click to expand...

Watches are not made by intelligent beings, there is no human is intelligent.

ImmortalFlame said:

The fact that our planet happens to occupy a specific space that physically allows for life to exist is no more significant than the fact of the million balls I kicked, at least one happened to land somewhere that moss grew on it. All you need to do is reverse your perspective: the earth isn't in the situation it's in in order for life to arise on it, life arose because earth is in the situation it's in.

Click to expand...

Man has no intelligence, just life like amoeba.

ImmortalFlame said:

Then you are wrong. You need to demonstrate that a specific "pattern" is actually a result of design.

Click to expand...

This is house is so old, nobody built it
A series of tornadoes and storms built it over the years
A freak case of natural phenomena

MJFlores said:

Man has no intelligence, just life like amoeba.

Click to expand...

I believe I am smarter than an amoeba, however don't ask my wife about that-- please!

MJFlores said:

That would be strange matter.



Watches are not designed, they grow naturally.



Watches are not made by intelligent beings, there is no human is intelligent.



Man has no intelligence, just life like amoeba.



View attachment 28397

This is house is so old, nobody built it
A series of tornadoes and storms built it over the years
A freak case of natural phenomena

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you've understood a single thing I've written.

ImmortalFlame said:

I'm not sure if you've understood a single thing I've written.

Click to expand...

I think so, too.

MJFlores said:

I think so, too.

Click to expand...

How can you debate something you do not understand?

I'm willing to call this one a spam troll due to all the games and random spammage of youtube links to support his inane arguments from incredulity.

ImmortalFlame said:

False. You only know watches are designed because you have seen watches being designed, and you are not currently aware of any natural phenomenon that produces them. You can't identify design independent of prior knowledge of the object's formation.

In other words, if you had absolutely no prior knowledge of how watches are made, you'd have no good reason to assume they were designed. Furthermore, if we discovered a tree on which watches grew like fruit, you would now have a good reason to believe watches aren't necessarily designed. Your logic is still faulty because you are comparing objects that we already know are designed with things that occur naturally.

Click to expand...

His post.

Darkstorn said:

How can you debate something you do not understand?

I'm willing to call this one a spam troll due to all the games and random spammage of youtube links to support his inane arguments from incredulity.

Click to expand...

Now try to understand Darkstorn.

Because I couldn't.