The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

But that is what you are doing in regards to evolution. The evidence is there that shows much more design than a computer.

What evidence is there for design? "It looks like design to me" is not an example of evidence. In the sciences evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory of hypothesis. The last time I checked there was not even a hypothesis of design, much less any evidence for it.

 

[Misunderstood]

How so? There is no scientific evidence for design, the articles that you have been supplying only mention the scientific evidence for evolution. Why believe in a concept without proper evidence?

Hello, Subduction zone.

Not sure if this is relative as this thread is so long, and hard to follow,. But I see the mention of design, I assume we are talking ID (Intelligent Design), so I have a thought and wonder what you think.

As far as I know, we do not know how life began. We have some ideas, and I will say some pretty good ideas. But as far as I know we have not been able to create life yet.

But lets just say someone did figure it out and was able to create a life form of some type. Would that help prove evolution or would it better prove ID? If we did create life and we set up the conditions to create life, and since man has a form of intelligence; it could be said life was created by ID.

I feel before we could put this to bed we would need to see life begin in a natural state, and even then, how do we prove the natural state of the earth when life did begin?

Anyway, I am amazed this tread is still going, I do not see how either side is going to win, so I for the most part stay out of it. And will again unless you have an interesting answer. You just make some decent arguments so I just wanted to know what you think.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello, Subduction zone.

Not sure if this is relative as this thread is so long, and hard to follow,. But I see the mention of design, I assume we are talking ID (Intelligent Design), so I have a thought and wonder what you think.

As far as I know, we do not know how life began. We have some ideas, and I will say some pretty good ideas. But as far as I know we have not been able to create life yet.

But lets just say someone did figure it out and was able to create a life form of some type. Would that help prove evolution or would it better prove ID? If we did create life and we set up the conditions to create life, and since man has a form of intelligence; it could be said life was created by ID.

I feel before we could put this to bed we would need to see life begin in a natural state, and even then, how do we prove the natural state of the earth when life did begin?

Anyway, I am amazed this tread is still going, I do not see how either side is going to win, so I for the most part stay out of it. And will again unless you have an interesting answer. You just make some decent arguments so I just wanted to know what you think.

Thanks in advance.

You seem to have an odd definition of ID. I cannot properly answer your question until you define ID.

As for the origin of life if that was figured out it would almost certainly support evolution. That should be rather clear if one understood the current research.

 

[Polymath257]

Point to or name one mutation that has increased the information in its genetic DNA code.

Below is Dawkins poor response to this question...

Like I said, every duplication and subsequent mutation is an increase of information. The problem is that people have a very simple-minded idea of what happens in mutation and evolution. Duplication of genes is common. We see it in a wide variety of protein families. And, when a gene duplicates and the two copies mutate differently, we have *two* abilities when we first had only one.

 

[Rapture Era]

It is very apparent that any one who has watched the movie with Ben Stein "No Intelligence allowed" and the you tube video I referenced with Dawkins are not part of the same movie or interview. Subduction Zone need only to watch the video he claims is dishonest and compare it with the Movie with Ben Stein. By the way, I personally enjoyed watching the movie as well as Dawkins interviews.

You know HhR, as I read all of these posts, dishonesty and lies are being tossed around. It seems that people in general would rather have truth about something rather than a lie. This is a very interesting video that addresses "The Death of Truth"

 

[ecco]

Outside the Bible, there is practically none.

But perhaps you have sources no one else has.

For more outside sources please click on the link on my post #253

No, I did not expect you to read it...although I hoped you would read it and look into the references it shows for yourself.

So, cutting to the chase...

You have nothing to support your contention that there are sources outside the Bible to support the historical existence of Jesus.

If you did, you would have presented it instead of just posting a link to a wiki page that does not support your assertion.

But you didn't, because you couldn't, because there are no sources outside the Bible to support the historical existence of Jesus.






ETA:

What clear errors? Please be specific and site your source or provide a link worthy of scholarly research.

The above comments are more than hypocritical coming from someone who has not provided any sources outside the Bible to support the historical existence of Jesus.

Why would you ask others to do what you, yourself fail to do?

 

[ecco]

Life simply defined from Google is...
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Definitions aside, there remains a lot of controversy:

Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?

"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky."

There is no single solid dividing line between life and non-life any more than there is a single solid dividing line between Red and Orange.

​

 

[ecco]

It is very apparent that any one who has watched the movie with Ben Stein "No Intelligence allowed" ...

Ben Stein is a well-known supporter of Creationism. Like most Creos, he has no problem with being deceitful. RE: The movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...

1. Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
2. Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup.
3. Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie.
4. The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there.
5. Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism.
6. Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution.

 

[He has Risen!]

You know HhR, as I read all of these posts, dishonesty and lies are being tossed around. It seems that people in general would rather have truth about something rather than a lie. This is a very interesting video that addresses "The Death of Truth"

This is a must see video Rapure Man...I love it, thanks for the link.

I am going to address you instead of "ecco" who does not acknowledge my posts or rather the information they contain. I thought if someone was interested enough to carry on a dialog, they would at least click on the information so easily given them.
As far as Luke's account of the census taken at the birth of Christ, F.F.Bruce has addressed this topic in his book "The New Testament Documents are they reliable?" Below is the link to his book in a pdf formate.
http://minnehahachurch.org/Library/06Writing/NTDocuments-Reliable-Bruce.pdf

F.F.Bruce has, in chapter 7 titled "The Writings of Luke" starting on page 4 of that chapter near the middle of the page, goes into detail why Luke's account is to be trusted as being accurate. I wish that anyone interested in knowing answers to such issues read this book. I love what he had to say at the end of this book...(chap.10 "The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers" page 5)

The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

 

[Bear Wild]

This is a must see video Rapure Man...I love it, thanks for the link.

I am going to address you instead of "ecco" who does not acknowledge my posts or rather the information they contain. I thought if someone was interested enough to carry on a dialog, they would at least click on the information so easily given them.
As far as Luke's account of the census taken at the birth of Christ, F.F.Bruce has addressed this topic in his book "The New Testament Documents are they reliable?" Below is the link to his book in a pdf formate.
http://minnehahachurch.org/Library/06Writing/NTDocuments-Reliable-Bruce.pdf

F.F.Bruce has, in chapter 7 titled "The Writings of Luke" starting on page 4 of that chapter near the middle of the page, goes into detail why Luke's account is to be trusted as being accurate. I wish that anyone interested in knowing answers to such issues read this book. I love what he had to say at the end of this book...(chap.10 "The Evidence of Early Gentile Writers" page 5)

The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

Sorry but can you give the evidence that any of the gospel before 125 AD which is only a fragment of the gospel of John - and I mean only a fragment. This makes the statements made in your link propaganda not factual.

 

[He has Risen!]

Sorry but can you give the evidence that any of the gospel before 125 AD which is only a fragment of the gospel of John - and I mean only a fragment. This makes the statements made in your link propaganda not factual.

Pleas take your time in reading these links.

The Case for the Reliability of the New Testament (Free Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

8 Ancient Manuscripts That Validate the Bible's New Testament - Josh.org

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Is the loss of the autographa an argument against biblical inspiration? (Part 1) - Randal Rauser

If the writings of Josephus and other ancient authors are to be reliable, why not the bibles?
Josephus Mail and FAQ

Christopher Hitchens disavowed everything when challenged. When presented with the fact that there was more historical evidence of Jesus than Socrates he responded " I don't believe in Socrates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pleas take your time in reading these links.

The Case for the Reliability of the New Testament (Free Bible Insert) | Cold Case Christianity

8 Ancient Manuscripts That Validate the Bible's New Testament - Josh.org

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Is the loss of the autographa an argument against biblical inspiration? (Part 1) - Randal Rauser

If the writings of Josephus and other ancient authors are to be reliable, why not the bibles?
Josephus Mail and FAQ

.Any source that cherry picks only the supposed wins and ignores the obvious losses is hard to take seriously. In fact the "prophesy" claim is the weakest one that they have due to that fault.


We have gone over why the nativity of Luke failed. The excuse to get Joseph into Bethlehem was clearly false. Why believe him?

 

[Etritonakin]

Life simply defined from Google is...
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I think Google has a better definition than what you believe it to be.

Absolutely -on that level -but all based on the most simple interactions and by complex arrangement thereof.

The same can be said for the word "aware" -there could not be complex awareness and self-awareness if not for very simple interactions (things being "aware" of each other by action and reaction) arranged in a complex system.

The definitions of words are somewhat elastic -so they may change as we understand things better.

These are also included in the definitions of "life" [bold type mine].... (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=life+definition)

1. 3.
   the period between the birth and death of a living thing, especially a human being.
   "she has lived all her life in the country"
   synonyms: lifetime, life span, days, duration of life, allotted span, course of life, time on earth, existence, one's time, one's career, threescore years and ten, this mortal coil;
   informalone's born days
   "I hadn't talked to my father for the last nine months of his life"
   • the period during which something inanimate or abstract continues to exist, function, or be valid.
     "underlay helps to prolong the life of a carpet"
     synonyms: duration, active life, lifetime, existence, functioning period, period of effectiveness, period of usefulness, validity, efficacy
     "the Parliament Bill introduced a limit of five years for the life of any Parliament"
   • informal
     a sentence of imprisonment for life.
2. 4.
   vitality, vigor, or energy.
   "she was beautiful and full of life"
   synonyms: vivacity, animation, liveliness, vitality, verve, high spirits, sparkle, exuberance, zest, buoyancy, effervescence, enthusiasm, energy, vigor, dynamism, go, elan, gusto, brio, bounce, spirit, spiritedness, activity, fire, panache, color, dash, drive, push; More

 

[Misunderstood]

You seem to have an odd definition of ID. I cannot properly answer your question until you define ID.

As for the origin of life if that was figured out it would almost certainly support evolution. That should be rather clear if one understood the current research.

This is a simple definition I would give to ID for this purpose. As it is actually rather difficult to define life in all aspects. But we can use this as a starting point and define other points if needed.

I would say ID would be any type of life or entity capable of conscious and reasoned thought (all life forms may not be the same as ours) that would be able to create or cause life to begin by taking inanimate elements and causing a biological life form similar to life here on earth to start.

I feel there would be many ways for life to start if it began in a natural state here on earth. I also feel if man was able to replicate the biological process of life, in the beginning it might not be able to work outside of a lab. I feel it would need to be refined over time to come up with a method that would be plausible to have developed in a natural state under condition available on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a simple definition I would give to ID for this purpose. As it is actually rather difficult to define life in all aspects. But we can use this as a starting point and define other points if needed.

I would say ID would be any type of life or entity capable of conscious and reasoned thought (all life forms may not be the same as ours) that would be able to create or cause life to begin by taking inanimate elements and causing a biological life form similar to life here on earth to start.

I feel there would be many ways for life to start if it began in a natural state here on earth. I also feel if man was able to replicate the biological process of life, in the beginning it might not be able to work outside of a lab. I feel it would need to be refined over time to come up with a method that would be plausible to have developed in a natural state under condition available on earth.

The way that scientists are studying abiogenesis is to see if they can cause reactions that would be replicated in nature. It would be pointless to create life in a way that could only be done in the lab. In fact I do believe that they have already done that.

As to your definition now that you have that now you need to find evidence for it. And to do that you would need to come up with a testable hypothesis, a test that would show your idea to be wrong if it failed. Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best.

 

[Rapture Era]

This is a must see video Rapure Man...I love it, thanks for the link.

I am going to address you instead of "ecco" who does not acknowledge my posts or rather the information they contain.

HhR, you need to realize that these people are not interested in what you have to say. No matter what you say, they will try to deny it's truth or try to rabbit trail you with "what about this and what about that" kind of stuff. They say they want evidence and when you give it to them, they tell isn't evidence and you go round and round. This is how they operate. When I came into this thread, and to this very post, my question of "where did the information in the cells come from" is still not answered. Why? Because there is no evolutionary process, meaning primordial soup to man. It doesn't
exist, and it never did. They gag every time this subject comes up. You can tell by the way they attack or insult or try and get you off the subject to escape the question. It's kind of funny in a way and sad at the same time. Anyway, I wont be surprised if any of them actually view the video I sent you and come back with some kind of insult. It's part of their makeup to elevate themselves to a higher and to a more "Intellectual" status. When people are generally interested in learning something, they behave in a certain manner. When they are not interested, they behave in a certain manner. It's easy to pick up on.
They have no absolute standard when it comes to the question, "What is life?" So the listen to professors, intellectuals with PhD's who give this kind of answer;
Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." So therefore, you'll get answers from his fans that mirror his thoughts like the rainbow of colors above. Now Chris Voigt is a really smart guy! But when you have lost your absolute standard concerning this subject of life, you'll get goofy answers like this...........Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life? "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." That's it? And we are criticized by those who say "Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best." You see, this is what I'm talking about, this makes no sense whatsoever!

 

[Subduction Zone]

HhR, you need to realize that these people are not interested in what you have to say. No matter what you say, they will try to deny it's truth or try to rabbit trail you with "what about this and what about that" kind of stuff. They say they want evidence and when you give it to them, they tell isn't evidence and you go round and round. This is how they operate. When I came into this thread, and to this very post, my question of "where did the information in the cells come from" is still not answered. Why? Because there is no evolutionary process, meaning primordial soup to man. It doesn't
exist, and it never did. They gag every time this subject comes up. You can tell by the way they attack or insult or try and get you off the subject to escape the question. It's kind of funny in a way and sad at the same time. Anyway, I wont be surprised if any of them actually view the video I sent you and come back with some kind of insult. It's part of their makeup to elevate themselves to a higher and to a more "Intellectual" status. When people are generally interested in learning something, they behave in a certain manner. When they are not interested, they behave in a certain manner. It's easy to pick up on.
They have no absolute standard when it comes to the question, "What is life?" So the listen to professors, intellectuals with PhD's who give this kind of answer;
Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life?
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." So therefore, you'll get answers from his fans that mirror his thoughts like the rainbow of colors above. Now Chris Voigt is a really smart guy! But when you have lost your absolute standard concerning this subject of life, you'll get goofy answers like this...........Life's Great Mystery: What, Exactly, Is Life? "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky." That's it? And we are criticized by those who say "Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best." You see, this is what I'm talking about, this makes no sense whatsoever!

This sort of denial of reality is why creationists always lose the debate.

If you ask questions one at a time I will answer them for you.

 

[Rapture Era]

The way that scientists are studying abiogenesis is to see if they can cause reactions that would be replicated in nature. It would be pointless to create life in a way that could only be done in the lab. In fact I do believe that they have already done that. You make this statement, but what facts can you provide to believe as fact, "that they have already done that."?

As to your definition now that you have that now you need to find evidence for it. And to do that you would need to come up with a testable hypothesis, a test that would show your idea to be wrong if it failed. Creationists tend to be afraid to take that step, which is why there is no evidence for their claims, there is only hand waving at best. What does this actually mean? What claims are you referring to? And what steps are creationists afraid to take?

 

[Rapture Era]

This sort of denial of reality is why creationists always lose the debate.

If you ask questions one at a time I will answer them for you.

What denial of reality?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Rapture Era , what exactly would you like to know? You goofed up a bit using the quote function.