The creator did it.

[Truly Enlightened]

Hhr,
Are you starting to see the pattern here? I'm not going to comment on all of your responses but I will say they are all right on point. Subduction Zone, keeps saying we dont understand science and evolution And yet fails to have any meaningful answers to your or my questions other than we dont understand science and bla bla bla
Ravi Zacharias was dead on when he quoted Richard Dawkins when asked, how should we respond to religious people? He said, just mock them, just ridicule them. This is what you see here, no attempt to carry on an intellectual dialog (which I tried by asking where did the information in the cells come from). One more thing, and this is remarkable! When I posed the question:

Would you say this is correct?

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

One, answered: "Nope. Evolution is about the change of species over time. Abiogenesis is a completely separate area of study and theory."

ecco and subduction zone? Crickets

I took the above "Misconception/Correction off of an evolutionary web site devoted to instruct everyone of the proper understanding of evolution! Under the "Correction" it states, "Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins." You see, they make this statement but have ZERO to explain it!

I was asked to support my statement about atheists that say they are not interested in how life got started only after. Well, here it is! Right off of an evolutionary web site dedicated to that thinking! Restating the above quote: "Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."
"afterwards it branched and diversified" Total and complete speculation! Atheistic scientists have nothing meaningful to provide in this area! Nor do they have anything about the processes because HEY! IT DIDNT HAPPEN! As I have said before, it's pretty hard to prove something that never happened! And they call us intellectual misfits! Keep beating that dead horse boys and girls until there is nothing left of it! And when that happens, and it pretty much already has, they will keep swinging that bat hoping for a different result! And we know the name for that kind of thinking!

Maybe you can share with us your own views on how all life evolved on this planet? Your views might be 100% correct. After all, science doesn't know everything, right?

 

[He has Risen!]

All biological life forms are flawed in some way. Some more than others. Shall I point out all the flaws in our design that have produced vestigial organs, faulty genes, mortality, energy inefficiencies, poor immunity, catabolic processes, and unfavorable mutations? Certainly not a designed by any divine intelligence. More like a designed by natural forces, as a result of evolutionary and environmental trial and error. What do you think the fossil record of extinct species represent? Do you think they represent the success stories like the crocs, turtles, and sharks? Do you think the extinction of the Dodo bird, the wooly mammoth, the thylacine, the dinosaurs, and the 500 other species in the last century, were simply caused by designed faults? Do you think the ability to adapt to a changing environment should have been included in the design?

So, my question is simple. Name me ONE biological living system that you can demonstrate was designed by a supernatural intelligent designer? Just one, other than the humble jellyfish(it is immortal) will do? Otherwise, because man created a pocket watch, does not mean that God created man.

Look into the humble bombadier beetle post and my questions to ponder. As far as the "God did it" false line of reasoning, I see here the "evolution did it" as a false line of reasoning because it has not been supported by science. To dismiss an Intelligent Designer from the design we see in nature and all around us in the universe at large is limiting the scope of the scientific inquiry to a very narrow set of forced explanations...actually only one...evolution. So what I have been saying is that scientist should be allowed to defer to more than the just an materialistic explanation (i.e. evolution) when a much better scientific explanation, that is broader in scope, and has a rational that is inclusive of the natural and the supernatural (i.e.ID).
AS far as vestigial organs can you name any part of your antinomy you would say that you would be better off without? Faulty genes, mortality, energy inefficiencies, poor immunity, catabolic , all are part and parcel to the effects of a continual downward progression of all species genomes that with each successive generation accumulate more and more genetic mutations that are detrimental to its vitality, which includes the last thing you listed "unfavorable mutations".
As far as the extinction of previous life forms, it shows the opposite of Darwinian evolution, because we had more diversity in the past than we do today. Not only that but even your so called vestigial organs or appendages speak of devolution and not evolution such as the pandas thumb and the blind cave fish.

 

[Rapture Era]

Maybe you can share with us your own views on how all life evolved on this planet? Your views might be 100% correct. After all, science doesn't know everything, right?

You haven't been here on this thread very long have you? First of all you presuppose my views that life "Evolved." And I'm assuming by "evolved" you are speaking of molecules to man? Well, science only knows what it knows. To go outside of what science knows through the Scientific method, is speculation, would you agree? If something does not meet the criteria of the scientific method it should be abandoned, correct? Is it the duty of science to go wherever the truth leads?

 

[Rapture Era]

Look into the humble bombadier beetle post and my questions to ponder. As far as the "God did it" false line of reasoning, I see here the "evolution did it" as a false line of reasoning because it has not been supported by science. To dismiss an Intelligent Designer from the design we see in nature and all around us in the universe at large is limiting the scope of the scientific inquiry to a very narrow set of forced explanations...actually only one...evolution. So what I have been saying is that scientist should be allowed to defer to more than the just an materialistic explanation (i.e. evolution) when a much better scientific explanation, that is broader in scope, will do.
AS far as vestigial organs can you name any part of your antinomy you would say that you would be better off without? Faulty genes, mortality, energy inefficiencies, poor immunity, catabolic , all are part and parcel to the effects of a continual downward progression of all species genomes that with each successive generation accumulate more and more genetic mutations that are detrimental to its vitality, which includes the last thing you listed "unfavorable mutations".

Again HhR, you are right on point!

 

[Polymath257]

You haven't been here on this thread very long have you? First of all you presuppose my views that life "Evolved." And I'm assuming by "evolved" you are speaking of molecules to man? Well, science only knows what it knows. To go outside of what science knows through the Scientific method, is speculation, would you agree? If something does not meet the criteria of the scientific method it should be abandoned, correct? Is it the duty of science to go wherever the truth leads?

First, 'evolution' means how species change over geological time. That is different than abiogenesis, the development of the first life. The 'molecules to man' idea is a combination of the two.

 

[He has Risen!]

First, 'evolution' means how species change over geological time. That is different than abiogenesis, the development of the first life. The 'molecules to man' idea is a combination of the two.

The Darwinian theory, if it worth believing, has to include an idea of the origin of species instead of running and hiding from it. It must also be held to account for life from non life and something coming from nothing. If it is worth believing in it is worth putting to the scientific inquiry, unless it fails and falls short because it cannot answer such questions that ID can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Darwinian theory, if it worth believing, has to include an idea of the origin of species instead of running and hiding from it. It must also be held to account for life from non life and something coming from nothing. If it is worth believing in it is worth putting to the scientific inquiry, unless it fails and falls short because it cannot answer such questions that ID can.

This only demonstrates that you have no understanding of how the sciences are done. In the sciences one attacks the problems that one can solve now. During Darwin's time they really had no clue as to how life worked. Yet they were able to understand how life changed over time.

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. We know that life evolved regardless of what the first life was. The most likely source was natural abiogenesis, but we know that life evolved whether it arose naturally or unnaturally.

But congratulations. By moving the goal posts all the way to abiogensis you conceded the evolution argument.

 

[He has Risen!]

This only demonstrates that you have no understanding of how the sciences are done. In the sciences one attacks the problems that one can solve now. During Darwin's time they really had no clue as to how life worked. Yet they were able to understand how life changed over time.

There was a man who lived at the same time as Darwin. When he studied the simple pea plant his research and findings became what we know today as Mendel's laws. His research is a valid testimony to how genetics works and how science works. I agree whole heartedly with Mendel and I whole heartedly disagree with Darwinian evolution and its more modern neo Dawinism. True science has validated Mendel because it has not been falsified. Darwinism cannot get past being a scientific theory to being substantiated by a law of science because it is all conjecture and it is preposterous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was a man who lived at the same time as Darwin. When he studied the simple pea plant his research and findings became what we know today as Mendel's laws. His research is a valid testimony to how genetics works and how science works. I agree whole heartedly with Mendel and I whole heartedly disagree with Darwinian evolution and its more modern neo Dawinism. True science has validated Mendel because it has not been falsified. Darwinism cannot get past being a scientific theory to a law of science because it is all conjecture and it is preposterous.

Theories do not become laws. If anything theories outrank or at least replace laws. This is something that you should have learned in high school. In the sciences a scientific theory is as good as it gets.

 

[He has Risen!]

Theories do not become laws. If anything theories outrank or at least replace laws. This is something that you should have learned in high school. In the sciences a scientific theory is as good as it gets.

Theories do not become laws but they are supposed to be consistent with the laws of science. That is why I keep asking for the laws that would validate Darwin's theory and I keep getting a big fat 0.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theories do not become laws but they are supposed to be consistent with the laws of science. That is why I keep asking for the laws that would validate Darwin's theory and I keep getting a big fat 0.

First off your question is pointless. It only indicates a lack of understanding of what a law is. And the theory of evolution is consistent with all of the laws of science. If someone could find a law that it violated that would refute the theory.

 

[He has Risen!]

First off your question is pointless. It only indicates a lack of understanding of what a law is. And the theory of evolution is consistent with all of the laws of science. If someone could find a law that it violated that would refute the theory.

When put to the test we have not seen Darwinian evolution in the fruit fly or E coli. We do see harmful mutations that do not benefit happening to the genes of these test specimens. Harmful mutations happen when you copy and copy and copy and copy a stand of DNA. That is not evolution, that is DNA becoming more damaged as time goes by.


taken from Google...

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws (also known as natural laws) imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.

100 years of fruit fly tests show no evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

When put to the test we have not seen Darwinian evolution in the fruit fly or E coli. We do see harmful mutations that do not benefit happening to the genes of these test specimens. Harmful mutations happen when you copy and copy and copy and copy a stand of DNA. That is not evolution, that is DNA becoming more damaged as time goes by.


taken from Google...

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement. Scientific laws (also known as natural laws) imply a cause and effect between the observed elements and must always apply under the same conditions.

100 years of fruit fly tests show no evolution

Of course we have. You do not understand the tests. The long term e coli experiment confirmed the theory. You are merely parroting arguments that you do not understand at this point:

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Look into the humble bombadier beetle post and my questions to ponder. As far as the "God did it" false line of reasoning, I see here the "evolution did it" as a false line of reasoning because it has not been supported by science. To dismiss an Intelligent Designer from the design we see in nature and all around us in the universe at large is limiting the scope of the scientific inquiry to a very narrow set of forced explanations...actually only one...evolution. So what I have been saying is that scientist should be allowed to defer to more than the just an materialistic explanation (i.e. evolution) when a much better scientific explanation, that is broader in scope, and has a rational that is inclusive of the natural and the supernatural (i.e.ID).
AS far as vestigial organs can you name any part of your antinomy you would say that you would be better off without? Faulty genes, mortality, energy inefficiencies, poor immunity, catabolic , all are part and parcel to the effects of a continual downward progression of all species genomes that with each successive generation accumulate more and more genetic mutations that are detrimental to its vitality, which includes the last thing you listed "unfavorable mutations".
As far as the extinction of previous life forms, it shows the opposite of Darwinian evolution, because we had more diversity in the past than we do today. Not only that but even your so called vestigial organs or appendages speak of devolution and not evolution such as the pandas thumb and the blind cave fish.

The Bombardier Beetle is a product of evolution, just like the spitting cobra, or the firefly. They all have developed special adaptations to increase their chances for survival. How do you ponder on a point that was never made? The reasonings supporting evolution is based on the consistent and convergence of facts supporting its theories. For example, common ancestry(descent) is supported by the genetic evidence, biochemical markers, fossil lineages, microfossils and vestigial structures(to name a few). Evolution, or changes over time, is only questioned by those defending their religious presuppositions. Its explanations of how life evolved, makes the creation account in Genesis seem like the fairy tale it actually is. Even by using common sense alone, we can understand that when the mommy and daddy chromosomes join together to produce four cells, these cells are genetically different from the parent's cell. Unless you believe in a hybrid human gender. Therefore, it is not a stretch to understand that if there are 100's of thousands of genes on each of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes, that when they recombine during cell division, that some of them over time may not match-up perfectly. Thus, small changes over time will produce changes within the population(species), and eventually lead to the creation of new species. The evidence supporting Evolution is beyond doubt. Falsifying Evolution is very easy to do, but so far no one has been able to do so. All they can do is create doubt, cast insinuations, criticize the underlying science and its methods, or simply deny the results without understanding the process. Many ID proponents also love sending critical thinkers down one internet rabbit hole after another, beating your chests, and stoking each others ego in victory. Ignorance is truly more blissful when it is shared with others.

How would you suggest scientist investigate the existence of an Intelligent Designer? What divine tools would they use? Would the evidence be physical, logical, measurable, observable, testable, predictable, falsifiable, or verifiable? How would we be able to distinguish between what is natural and what is supernatural? Is there any examples of other events, that are supernatural, paranormal, or metaphysical, that we can compare the results to? If you can't answer any of these questions, then I'm afraid it is just more editorializing and more self-serving rhetoric.

So I'll ask you(or your friend) again to avoid you committing more category or ontological errors. If an intelligent mind/person is behind the building of a pocket watch(inanimate object), then what biological organism(living organism) can you demonstrate as being designed by Intelligent Designer? The two categories were highlighted. Secondly, are there any biological organisms that is NOT designed by an Intelligent Designer? And finally, what OBJECTIVE evidence supports either of your conclusion?

Even your conspiracy theory, although not well thought out, is completely self-serving. Do you really think that any scientist would not jump at a chance for a Nobel prize, if any supernatural claim could be verified or investigated? Why not do your own metaphysical investigation, and submit your metaphysical findings for peer revue? Surely you have faith in your own belief? Or, are you just another flea biting the back of an elephant?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You haven't been here on this thread very long have you? First of all you presuppose my views that life "Evolved." And I'm assuming by "evolved" you are speaking of molecules to man? Well, science only knows what it knows. To go outside of what science knows through the Scientific method, is speculation, would you agree? If something does not meet the criteria of the scientific method it should be abandoned, correct? Is it the duty of science to go wherever the truth leads?

I don't know why you guys are so fixated on science, that you can't answer even the simplest of questions. I do not presuppose your views, which is why I asked for your views. I am not interested in your warp explanation of the scientific method of inquiry. I'm only interested in your view of how you think life got here. Evolved or not. Maybe you should take your own advice, and follow the OBJECTIVE, VERFIABLE, MEASURABLE, TESTABLE, and OBSEVABLE evidence, no matter where it leads. So please, present this evidence that led you to your supernatural conclusion.

 

[ecco]

Would you say this is correct?

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.​

​

Yes, generally speaking, it is correct. However, you have completely slipped away from your original contention:

Secondly, "beginning" raises an unanswerable question to the atheist! This is why they avoid it like the plague! This is also why they always cop-out with, "well, we are not concerned with how life started, we only study how it changed over time through gene duplication and mutation.

My response was:

Are you unaware that there are many scientists, theists and atheists, who are working to understand how abiogenesis works? Or is it that you are aware and just intentionally misstate the truth to further your agenda?

So, again...
Are you unaware that there are many scientists, theists and atheists, who are working to understand how abiogenesis works?
-or-
...is it that you are aware and just intentionally misstate the truth to further your agenda?

​

 

[ecco]

! You have nothing to produce as usual for the origin of this magnificent life form but, evolution did it! Nice try! Why dont you just give up while you're behind!
BTW, this is the perfect example of design! But you dont see it What does this say about you?

If you could not understand it why didn't you say so?

I think he did say he didn't understand it. Perhaps not directly in words but...

There seems to be an inverse correlation between veracity of a post and the number of smileys in a post.

 

[ecco]

There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. Why would any rational person believe it?

No rational person does believe it.

 

[ecco]

Just to make you aware of the problems of evolution, below are links to articles that might educate you if you really want to understand the problems with evolution.

Evolution


The Biggest Problems for Evolution

Links to articles in ICR and AIG. The one in ICR is written by...

John D. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research

John David Morris an American young earth creationist. He is the son of "the father of creation science", Henry M. Morris, and after his father's death became the president of the Institute for Creation Research​

What are Morris' educational qualifications?

Morris has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), an M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering.
​

Source: John D. Morris - Wikipedia


I can understand why you have to go to AIG and ICR for your "knowledge". I can understand why you accept the writings of an engineering graduate over the writings of evolutionary biologists.

 

[Polymath257]

The Darwinian theory, if it worth believing, has to include an idea of the origin of species instead of running and hiding from it. It must also be held to account for life from non life and something coming from nothing. If it is worth believing in it is worth putting to the scientific inquiry, unless it fails and falls short because it cannot answer such questions that ID can.

Darwin *did* give an account of the origin of species. He showed that they form from previous species via natural selection.

What Darwin did NOT do is give a treatment on the origin of life. That is a different subject, and is definitely an interesting one.

ID, on the other hand, gives no actual answers. It simply claims some intelligence was involved. But it does no testing of this hypothesis. It collects no data to support this hypothesis. What tests it has proposed have failed to go the way IDers have predicted (irreducible complexity, anyone?0.

As an analogy, suppose we want to know how the pyramids were built. Science would go into the particular techniques used: ramps to get the blocks, where the quarrying was done, why the particular dimensions were used, etc.

ID would simply say that some intelligence was involved. Sorry, but that simply isn't an answer.