The Miracle of Water.

[nPeace]

???

Those were links.

Oh really? There are?
What I can't figure out, is why you linked them.

So circular an argument is not often seen.

 

[Bear Wild]

In the simplest terms, as science already knows with certainty..."all life comes from pre-existing life". This well known and well documented fact cuts evolution down at its very beginnings. Unless science can produce evidence to correct Genesis 1:1, then it is all built on the flimsiest of foundations.



OK...let's talk about morphology....it seems to be a magical word that allows science to relate creatures based on similarity of structure and other characteristics. The thing is, as shown in the second video, they will search to find a specimen that "looks like" one already in existence (although fossilized) millions of years apart and bingo! there is your ancestor. This is assumption at its best.

In simple terms, what does science know about macro-evolution?

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.


It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

What is macroevolution?

Now how much of what is written there in basic form is assumption, rather than actual fact? How much does interpretation of their evidence facilitate their conclusions?
Whale evolution is my favorite because it demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what is suggested. Whales were once four legged furry land dwellers......who said?

What does this indicate......"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

So how does science "figure out" what evolutionary events have taken place? How then do they try to "figure out" how it happened? They must fit all their findings into one box. (no matter how silly it sounds)

If scientists (no matter the branch) are all looking for the same conclusions because, to their way of thinking evolution has been indoctrinated as a foregone conclusion, then what do you suppose the "evidence" is going to suggest to them?

All I see is people who want evolution to be true, pointing to assumptions as facts, and making other people feel stupid if they don't fawn all over science for their wondrous suggestions.

I have learned, after many years of debating with evolutionists, that the impressive edifice they have constructed has no real foundations. You guys come unstuck at the very beginning......where did life originate and how did do so? The complexity of even a single cell is mind boggling and yet science presents it as if it could just pop up out of nowhere, by "natural" means. That is where your own 'fairy tale' begins. It is swept under the rug as if it was inconsequential...it isn't. Answer that question and you have an answer for everything that science is scratching its head about.



Yes....LIFE itself is a miracle (for want of a better term) The fact that any intelligent scientist can imagine that it arose by chance is a mystery to me.

You make assumptions about creation that are not true. If there is a sole Creator of life in all its diversity, then the structure of biological life and the materials used would of necessity be the same. He is the Creator of matter, something science has only come to terms with relatively recently (taking the age of the earth and the universe into account.)

I see science as something the Creator gave us to 'play' with....to challenge our natural curiosity and need to answers about everything. But due to the nature of fallen humanity, they ended up using it to eliminate the very one to whom they owe their existence. Like toddlers refusing the hand of a parent and falling down repeatedly. I guess they figure that they will learn to walk by themselves eventually. They haven't made it yet...by a long shot.



Evolution is the best suggestion if one is determined to eliminate an Intelligent Designer who started the process through stages of carefully planned creative activity over millions of Earth years. Unconstrained by time, the "days" in Genesis may well have been millions of years in length leaving him to experiment with lifeforms of infinite variety. Some were 'keepers' and some were obviously not. Ask any artist if they are satisfied with every work they have created. Each of the creative "days" in Genesis was concluded with a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had accomplished in that allotted period. That tells us believers that when the time allotted concluded, that his refinements within that period were completed to his satisfaction.

The "default" position of science is colored by their own prejudices....it must at all costs (credibility included) EXCLUDE the need for a Creator.....a "bogey man" to science. I blame the YEC for a lot of this. Their scenario is just as ridiculous.
The "best explanation" for science is accepted only within their own definition.

Those who believe in a powerful Creator do not need to dissect him and question his work, his authority, or his accomplishments. They have an actual relationship with this Being that atheists will never comprehend because you need the faculty of spirituality to even entertain it. That faculty is ridiculed by science because it isn't something that can show up on a lab test......although medical science is actually making headway on that score with the ability to map the brain to see where humans differ on their approach to things. It may well have implications that we need to understand. I believe that a scary future awaits the human race if its "science" is not reigned in.

Brain scanners allow scientists to 'read minds' – could they now enable a 'Big Brother' future?

Science is a wonderful thing IMO...a gift from the Creator to allow us to delve into his creation and discover what is deliberately not obvious. He planned it that way...but when things went wrong and humans wanted to map their own course...he allowed them to see where it would take them.....do you like the direction that science is taking us, when they have eliminated the one entity who can warn them of the outcome? I see them continuing on in their merry way....gods unto themselves.

Your posts are so long which I know is a technique to appear as if there is an overwhelming argument but we can start with life from life.
1. Science knows that life originally came from non-life originally called abiogenesis but what this means is that organic molecules formed which we would not consider life then became more complex then self replicating. Is a prion alive, is a virus alive? There was some point when the complexity of the organic structure where we then call something alive. So your first point is not correct about science.
2. morphology - the fossil record is more than enough evidence to show a progression in the development of current life forms.
3. How much of evolution is fact? The theory is built on evidence which creation stories completely lack.
4. Whale evolution? More than enough to see progression more evidence then you can produce for a creation by intelligent design which you have no evidence other than what you believe
5. No one has to fawn over science but realize it has the best explanation to explain life on Earth.
6. No foundation in science? The amount of evidence is available to anyone to read but it is considerable considering the number of journals publishing research all of the time. If you want to talk about evidence look at the evidence for Intelligent Design/Creationist belief. All these people can do is criticize what does actually have evidence since they do not have their own.
7. You can talk about the creator day and night but you will remain without the evidence which you demand from science and at least science is willing to show. But this does not matter to you since you are indoctrinated into a belief that you will not question and never accept the real evidence from the real world.

 

[Kenny]

There was some point when the complexity of the organic structure where we then call something alive. So your first point is not correct about science.

????

This is empirically verifiable... how?

 

[Bear Wild]

????

This is empirically verifiable... how?

There is scientific evidence present already for the generation of complex organic molecules. Proteins such as prions that do exist show how proteins can catalyze development of other proteins and replicating RNA enzymes have been demonstrating which show the possible stages in which higher levels of complex organic material could develop and replicate. Do we have the complete picture of how life developed? No but we are consistently finding supportive evidence with time. This is more evidence than any other explanation has unless you have verifiable evidence for a different explanation which I would like to know about.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

In the simplest terms, as science already knows with certainty..."all life comes from pre-existing life". This well known and well documented fact cuts evolution down at its very beginnings. Unless science can produce evidence to correct Genesis 1:1, then it is all built on the flimsiest of foundations.



OK...let's talk about morphology....it seems to be a magical word that allows science to relate creatures based on similarity of structure and other characteristics. The thing is, as shown in the second video, they will search to find a specimen that "looks like" one already in existence (although fossilized) millions of years apart and bingo! there is your ancestor. This is assumption at its best.

In simple terms, what does science know about macro-evolution?

"Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.


It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history."

What is macroevolution?

Now how much of what is written there in basic form is assumption, rather than actual fact? How much does interpretation of their evidence facilitate their conclusions?
Whale evolution is my favorite because it demonstrates the ridiculous nature of what is suggested. Whales were once four legged furry land dwellers......who said?

What does this indicate......"Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

So how does science "figure out" what evolutionary events have taken place? How then do they try to "figure out" how it happened? They must fit all their findings into one box. (no matter how silly it sounds)

If scientists (no matter the branch) are all looking for the same conclusions because, to their way of thinking evolution has been indoctrinated as a foregone conclusion, then what do you suppose the "evidence" is going to suggest to them?

All I see is people who want evolution to be true, pointing to assumptions as facts, and making other people feel stupid if they don't fawn all over science for their wondrous suggestions.

I have learned, after many years of debating with evolutionists, that the impressive edifice they have constructed has no real foundations. You guys come unstuck at the very beginning......where did life originate and how did do so? The complexity of even a single cell is mind boggling and yet science presents it as if it could just pop up out of nowhere, by "natural" means. That is where your own 'fairy tale' begins. It is swept under the rug as if it was inconsequential...it isn't. Answer that question and you have an answer for everything that science is scratching its head about.



Yes....LIFE itself is a miracle (for want of a better term) The fact that any intelligent scientist can imagine that it arose by chance is a mystery to me.

You make assumptions about creation that are not true. If there is a sole Creator of life in all its diversity, then the structure of biological life and the materials used would of necessity be the same. He is the Creator of matter, something science has only come to terms with relatively recently (taking the age of the earth and the universe into account.)

I see science as something the Creator gave us to 'play' with....to challenge our natural curiosity and need for answers about everything. But due to the nature of fallen humanity, they ended up using it to eliminate the very one to whom they owe their existence. Like toddlers refusing the hand of a parent and falling down repeatedly. I guess they figure that they will learn to walk by themselves eventually. They haven't made it yet...by a long shot.



Evolution is the best suggestion if one is determined to eliminate an Intelligent Designer who started the process through stages of carefully planned creative activity over millions of Earth years. Unconstrained by time, the "days" in Genesis may well have been millions of years in length leaving him to experiment with lifeforms of infinite variety. Some were 'keepers' and some were obviously not. Ask any artist if they are satisfied with every work they have created. Each of the creative "days" in Genesis was concluded with a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had accomplished in that allotted period. That tells us believers that when the time allotted concluded, that his refinements within that period were completed to his satisfaction.

The "default" position of science is colored by their own prejudices....it must at all costs (credibility included) EXCLUDE the need for a Creator.....a "bogey man" to science. I blame the YEC for a lot of this. Their scenario is just as ridiculous.
The "best explanation" for science is accepted only within their own definition.

Those who believe in a powerful Creator do not need to dissect him and question his work, his authority, or his accomplishments. They have an actual relationship with this Being that atheists will never comprehend because you need the faculty of spirituality to even entertain it. That faculty is ridiculed by science because it isn't something that can show up on a lab test......although medical science is actually making headway on that score with the ability to map the brain to see where humans differ on their approach to things. It may well have implications that we need to understand. I believe that a scary future awaits the human race if its "science" is not reigned in.

Brain scanners allow scientists to 'read minds' – could they now enable a 'Big Brother' future?

Science is a wonderful thing IMO...a gift from the Creator to allow us to delve into his creation and discover what is deliberately not obvious. He planned it that way...but when things went wrong and humans wanted to map their own course...he allowed them to see where it would take them.....do you like the direction that science is taking us, when they have eliminated the one entity who can warn them of the outcome? I see them continuing on in their merry way....gods unto themselves.

I guess we could just say that science simply Works. It is repeatable, observable, accurate, dependable, verifiable, intuitive, predictable, and logical(most of the time). If I throw a ball into the air, or jump out of a two storey window, the outcome would be observable, accurate, dependable, intuitive, predictable, verifiable, and logical, right? In other words, the underlying science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Now let's apply these attributes to miracles, Gods and Goddesses, the spiritual, the supernatural, the paranormal, the power of prayer, or any resurrections. What facts can you use to justify any valid assumptions? So, I choose to make assumptions based on the evidence, and you choose to make assumption based on faith and subjective experiences. Trying to equivocate assumptions with beliefs is just dishonest. If I think that I will be held up by the hand of God, then that is a belief, not an assumption. There are no verifiable examples, or experiences to justify making that assumption.

No matter how many ways you try to misrepresent, berate, deflate, or trivialize science, you will need to make a few absurd assumption to dismiss it's logical foundation. All you, and other ID/creationists seem to do, is dismiss any aspects of science that is not absolute. Of course nothing in science is absolute. But it does embody a very high degree of certainty. Of course, science does not prove anything, it is simply descriptive. If you disagree with its descriptions, lets hear yours? Other than, "God did it all", what are your best explanations for Gravity, the Germ Theory, the Cell Theory, Electromagnetism, Nuclear Forces, the formation of Suns, Planets and Galaxies, Black Holes, Abiogenesis, the Quantum Theory, or the Theory of Relativity?

Evolution does not need your approval or acceptance. It will continue to support itself on its "merry way", regardless of your presuppositional ignorance. Before we started learning the relationship between cause and effect, we too were mentally stuck in the Dark Ages. If you want to say that all of science is a gift from God, then you should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of certainty. You can't and you don't. So it is just another irrelevant and unfalsifiable claim.

There are thousands of Genesis stories. I dismiss them all, since they all can't be right, but they all certainly can be wrong. There is no evidence to support any violation of the laws of nature. No cessation of the physical laws. No new fundamental forces. No evidence of anything supernatural or paranormal. Nothing at all but personal beliefs, and an apparent need to believe in anything supernatural.

Let me ask you, is Evolution based on any facts at all? Are all the scientists from different disciplines basing their hypotheses on the assumption that Evolution is true? Can Evolution be falsified? What are your spiritual assumptions based on? Can you prove that anything in science is false? It is always easy to infer, insinuate, misrepresent, dismiss, or imply something. But, it much harder to directly demonstrate the validity of something. It doesn't take a genius to reason that before life there was no life. Therefore, life must have come from non-living components, that when combined produced an independent and self-sustaining form of life. But, to believe that an Intelligent Designer(God) poofed everything into existence, would require reality itself to have changed.

So, rather then listen to your condescending and dismissive attitude about the very science that allows you to exist, let's hear the ID/creationists-specific evidence that supports your claims? Demonstrate any supernatural or paranormal event, and stop making excuses why you can't? This is not about any scientific claims of absolute certainty. This is about making unfalsifiable claims, without any certainty at all.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You have no idea as to whether I have any idea what the proper function of life is. You can't only have ideas about it, but like everything else you said here, you have no idea as to if these ideas are anything more than just ideas.

We say there is evidence God is.
You say there is evidence for LUCA, and other CAs.
What is the difference. Can you show me?
I can't show you God. You can't show me any of those CAs.
You prefer to believe one thing for whatever reason. I have reason for believing in God.
So perhaps that's the part you are not getting.

And yes, wasting our mind it foolish, but even more foolish, imo, is wasting our life.

I have a very good idea, that you have no idea of what the proper function of life is. Unless of course, you are a God. You stated that, "The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design". This is probably the silliest thing I have ever heard. We can't mismanage or misuse your own Genes period. We are only the expression of our genes. Can you mismanage or misuse how our genes express eye colour, gender, personality, race, internal metabolism, etc. Of course not. Since you have not a clue of the proper functions of even you own genes, you certainly don't have a clue of the proper function of life itself. At best, you have your own biased indoctrinated opinions. At worst, you think that your self-serving opinions are actually true. Do you think that all ideas, and opinions merit the same value? Do you think a belief in the evidence supporting Unicorns, is the same as a belief in the evidence supporting quantum mechanics? Do they both merit the same value?

Regarding LUCA,

We know that all life that we have ever observed uses DNA to carry and to pass on its genetic information.
We know that life changes through the non-random accumulation of its genetic material in the form of DNA.
We know that the Last Universal Common Ancestor must have used DNA to carry and pass on its genetic information.
We know that all life ever observed on Earth transcribes its DNA to RNA, and is translated to chains of amino acids(proteins).
We also know that a specific set of amino acids is biologically common to all life observed. Therefore LUCA must have also utilized this same set.
We also know that the stereochemistry of all the biological macro-molecules is consistent across all of life. This also provides evidence that life must have a singular pre-biotic origin, as well
We know that our ancestral prototroph had a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, polysaccharide metabolism, sulfur oxidation and reduction cycles, and nitrogen fixation

I would strongly recommend a study in prebiotic chemistry for a start, if it is evidence that you are really looking for. Supplement this with genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology, biochemistry, cell and microbiology, might also provide even more evidence to support LUCA. It is not a question of finding evidence to support LUCA. It is a question of avoiding and dismissing any evidence supporting LUCA, for believers.

I'm afraid that any high school biology student can provide evidence to support a Common Ancestor. We can clearly see the common ancestor between apes and humans, by their genetic links. in fact, the other biochemical, anatomical, physiological, and behavioral evidence is overwhelming.

So I believe in things that can be support by the convergence of objective evidence. So, again, what objective evidence from anything other than your belief and need to believe, can you present? It is fallacious to equate the total lack of objective evidence for belief, to the lack of absolute certainty of evidence. Because I can't be absolutely certain that a God does not exists(although I am), it does not mean that I can't be almost absolutely certain that gravity does exists. It is almost childish, in comparison.

I agree, A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste. But when it is self-imposed, the mind is a tragic thing to waste.

 

[ecco]

Are there persons being born to atheist and evolutionist? Yes.

Atheist and Evolutionist? What about people being born to Protestant and Evolutionist? What about people being born to Catholic and Evolutionist?

Are you still under the impression that all people who believe in Evolution are Atheists?

The real reason ancient people believe in gods, is because of their knowledge and experience.

Wrong again. The real reason ancient people believed in gods is because of their ignorance. They did not know what really caused things like crop failure and volcanoes.

Their children were born into these, myths and believed them.

You finally got something right. The children of the ancients were born into these myths and believed them just as children today are born into these myths and believe them.

 

[ecco]

Did you know that the current state of the world was foretold by Jesus two thousand years ago as evidence that the way this world is governed would experience a drastic change? The 'one world government' that has been mooted for decades now, will be mankind's last attempt at governance that will bring things under control.....it will be offered as a solution that will bring "peace and security" to this troublesome system of independent nations in conflict, but it is totalitarian in its structure. Be prepared...it is coming, 'jack boots' and all.....and nothing will stop it.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201211/the-end-will-come/

.

God’s Kingdom will bring an end to all false religion, corrupt governments, and greedy commerce.​

Trying to discuss science with someone of this mindset is a complete and utter waste of time.

These beliefs are similar to the beliefs of Jim Jones and David Koresh followers, people smiling in the face of the complete destruction of the earthly world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution on a large scale is not a fact.

The theory of evolution is considered settled science in the scientific community. There is no further debate about whether the tree of life seen today and the extinct forms dug up from the earth all derived from a common ancestor due to genetic variation and natural selection. The remaining work is to uncover the as yet unseen forms, determine which are ancestral to which and which are cousins, work out the timelines, and the like.

We are each free to believe the scientists or not, but they are indifferent to the opinions of those not expert in the field. I happen to believe that the theory is correct, but science doesn't need my assent, nor yours.

It requires hundreds, or thousands of miracles.

Miracles are not a fact, if by miracle you mean the suspension of natural law. As far as we know, that never happens.

It never happened.

As I stated, you're free to think whatever you like.

Let's suppose that the theory was falsified tomorrow. Suppose that something was discovered that convincingly upended the theory. The mountains of evidence that we have today don't go away. It would just need to be reinterpreted in the light of the fact that Darwin's theory was wrong. What could replace it consistent with the physical evidence, such as fossils found in strata arranged with deeper forms being more primitive and having radionuclide ratios consistent with being older, and their morphologies transitioning through a series of steps to more shallow, more recent, and more modern appearing forms? How do you account for that if the theory is incorrect?

I'd say that one would be forced to conclude an elaborate ruse has been perpetrated on humanity by a powerful intelligence that went to great trouble to deceive us, going so far as to place ERV's into genomes in a manner that suggests evolution, having embryos go through stages where they resemble their distant ancestors (human embryos have tails), and more.

There really are no other possibilities, unless you can think of one. Either the theory is correct, or some extraterrestrial agency has gone to great trouble to deceive us for no apparent reason. Clearly, this theory will never be falsified, just like the germ theory of infectious disease. Darwin's theory is too well established to not be considered confirmed, that is, settled science.

 

[nPeace]

I guess we could just say that science simply Works. It is repeatable, observable, accurate, dependable, verifiable, intuitive, predictable, and logical(most of the time). If I throw a ball into the air, or jump out of a two storey window, the outcome would be observable, accurate, dependable, intuitive, predictable, verifiable, and logical, right? In other words, the underlying science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Now let's apply these attributes to miracles, Gods and Goddesses, the spiritual, the supernatural, the paranormal, the power of prayer, or any resurrections. What facts can you use to justify any valid assumptions? So, I choose to make assumptions based on the evidence, and you choose to make assumption based on faith and subjective experiences. Trying to equivocate assumptions with beliefs is just dishonest. If I think that I will be held up by the hand of God, then that is a belief, not an assumption. There are no verifiable examples, or experiences to justify making that assumption.

No matter how many ways you try to misrepresent, berate, deflate, or trivialize science, you will need to make a few absurd assumption to dismiss it's logical foundation. All you, and other ID/creationists seem to do, is dismiss any aspects of science that is not absolute. Of course nothing in science is absolute. But it does embody a very high degree of certainty. Of course, science does not prove anything, it is simply descriptive. If you disagree with its descriptions, lets hear yours? Other than, "God did it all", what are your best explanations for Gravity, the Germ Theory, the Cell Theory, Electromagnetism, Nuclear Forces, the formation of Suns, Planets and Galaxies, Black Holes, Abiogenesis, the Quantum Theory, or the Theory of Relativity?

Evolution does not need your approval or acceptance. It will continue to support itself on its "merry way", regardless of your presuppositional ignorance. Before we started learning the relationship between cause and effect, we too were mentally stuck in the Dark Ages. If you want to say that all of science is a gift from God, then you should be able to demonstrate this with some degree of certainty. You can't and you don't. So it is just another irrelevant and unfalsifiable claim.

There are thousands of Genesis stories. I dismiss them all, since they all can't be right, but they all certainly can be wrong. There is no evidence to support any violation of the laws of nature. No cessation of the physical laws. No new fundamental forces. No evidence of anything supernatural or paranormal. Nothing at all but personal beliefs, and an apparent need to believe in anything supernatural.

Let me ask you, is Evolution based on any facts at all? Are all the scientists from different disciplines basing their hypotheses on the assumption that Evolution is true? Can Evolution be falsified? What are your spiritual assumptions based on? Can you prove that anything in science is false? It is always easy to infer, insinuate, misrepresent, dismiss, or imply something. But, it much harder to directly demonstrate the validity of something. It doesn't take a genius to reason that before life there was no life. Therefore, life must have come from non-living components, that when combined produced an independent and self-sustaining form of life. But, to believe that an Intelligent Designer(God) poofed everything into existence, would require reality itself to have changed.

So, rather then listen to your condescending and dismissive attitude about the very science that allows you to exist, let's hear the ID/creationists-specific evidence that supports your claims? Demonstrate any supernatural or paranormal event, and stop making excuses why you can't? This is not about any scientific claims of absolute certainty. This is about making unfalsifiable claims, without any certainty at all.

I don't think @Deeje would mind me slipping in a word here.
I don't think anyone is against science. In fact the best videos I have seen that discuss real science are those done by ID scientists. I love them.
They go into the engineering of the organisms, and allows one to see clearly, without any brainwashing methods used by desperate souls driven by forces they can't see, determined to place their faith and trust is a different god - you know, the one that created nothing.

So there is real science, and then there is the science, that presents myths, and then refer to it as science.
The latter is what many people are not buying. Continue here.
By the way, we don't care how happily evolution and its props and supporters skip along.
Gay marriage is skipping along too. Probably incest, and bestiality may soon follow, as well as pedophilia.
However, everything has its day.
Have you not heard? The bigger they are the harder they fall.

I have a very good idea, that you have no idea of what the proper function of life is. Unless of course, you are a God. You stated that, "The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design". This is probably the silliest thing I have ever heard. We can't mismanage or misuse your own Genes period. We are only the expression of our genes. Can you mismanage or misuse how our genes express eye colour, gender, personality, race, internal metabolism, etc. Of course not. Since you have not a clue of the proper functions of even you own genes, you certainly don't have a clue of the proper function of life itself. At best, you have your own biased indoctrinated opinions. At worst, you think that your self-serving opinions are actually true. Do you think that all ideas, and opinions merit the same value? Do you think a belief in the evidence supporting Unicorns, is the same as a belief in the evidence supporting quantum mechanics? Do they both merit the same value?

Regarding LUCA,

We know that all life that we have ever observed uses DNA to carry and to pass on its genetic information.
We know that life changes through the non-random accumulation of its genetic material in the form of DNA.
We know that the Last Universal Common Ancestor must have used DNA to carry and pass on its genetic information.
We know that all life ever observed on Earth transcribes its DNA to RNA, and is translated to chains of amino acids(proteins).
We also know that a specific set of amino acids is biologically common to all life observed. Therefore LUCA must have also utilized this same set.
We also know that the stereochemistry of all the biological macro-molecules is consistent across all of life. This also provides evidence that life must have a singular pre-biotic origin, as well
We know that our ancestral prototroph had a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, polysaccharide metabolism, sulfur oxidation and reduction cycles, and nitrogen fixation

I would strongly recommend a study in prebiotic chemistry for a start, if it is evidence that you are really looking for. Supplement this with genetics, comparative anatomy, palaeontology, biochemistry, cell and microbiology, might also provide even more evidence to support LUCA. It is not a question of finding evidence to support LUCA. It is a question of avoiding and dismissing any evidence supporting LUCA, for believers.

I'm afraid that any high school biology student can provide evidence to support a Common Ancestor. We can clearly see the common ancestor between apes and humans, by their genetic links. in fact, the other biochemical, anatomical, physiological, and behavioral evidence is overwhelming.

So I believe in things that can be support by the convergence of objective evidence. So, again, what objective evidence from anything other than your belief and need to believe, can you present? It is fallacious to equate the total lack of objective evidence for belief, to the lack of absolute certainty of evidence. Because I can't be absolutely certain that a God does not exists(although I am), it does not mean that I can't be almost absolutely certain that gravity does exists. It is almost childish, in comparison.

I agree, A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste. But when it is self-imposed, the mind is a tragic thing to waste.

Fortunately, I was reminded just recently I need to behave like the Christian I am, so you actually should thank that person for reminding me, because the animal behavior from some members on RF has really been been tugging at that part of me that I need to keep in check.

First. You have indeed - not once, but twice, show that you don't have any idea that the ideas you have are anything more than ideas. Since when is the misuse of life the misuse of genes?
Obviously, your ideas are not mine, so you are mistaken if you think you know what I have in mind.

Second. I did not say show me all you think 'we' know. I said I can't show you God. You can't show me LUCA, or any other CA. Did you? I'm afraid not.

Wow. Long post though.

@It Aint Necessarily So
No need to tell me what I already know.
I have seen the holes in the theory, and the filling put in them. In fact, not just I, but millions of people have.
Each person chooses his road. That was from the beginning of humanity.
I don't see Creationism ending either. In fact, it's getting even stronger.
So I guess that only leaves one question... In the end, who will be left standing?

 

[ecco]

I don't think anyone is against science. In fact the best videos I have seen that discuss real science are those done by ID scientists.

You just pleaded guilty to the crime of being ignorant of science.

 

[ecco]

I don't see Creationism ending either. In fact, it's getting even stronger.

Yep. It's been getting stronger and stronger ever since the Scopes Trial.


Oh. It hasn't?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I don't think @Deeje would mind me slipping in a word here.
I don't think anyone is against science. In fact the best videos I have seen that discuss real science are those done by ID scientists. I love them.
They go into the engineering of the organisms, and allows one to see clearly, without any brainwashing methods used by desperate souls driven by forces they can't see, determined to place their faith and trust is a different god - you know, the one that created nothing.

So there is real science, and then there is the science, that presents myths, and then refer to it as science.
The latter is what many people are not buying. Continue here.
By the way, we don't care how happily evolution and its props and supporters skip along.
Gay marriage is skipping along too. Probably incest, and bestiality may soon follow, as well as pedophilia.
However, everything has its day.
Have you not heard? The bigger they are the harder they fall.


Fortunately, I was reminded just recently I need to behave like the Christian I am, so you actually should thank that person for reminding me, because the animal behavior from some members on RF has really been been tugging at that part of me that I need to keep in check.

First. You have indeed - not once, but twice, show that you don't have any idea that the ideas you have are anything more than ideas. Since when is the misuse of life the misuse of genes?
Obviously, your ideas are not mine, so you are mistaken if you think you know what I have in mind.

Second. I did not say show me all you think 'we' know. I said I can't show you God. You can't show me LUCA, or any other CA. Did you? I'm afraid not.

Wow. Long post though.

@It Aint Necessarily So
No need to tell me what I already know.
I have seen the holes in the theory, and the filling put in them. In fact, not just I, but millions of people have.
Each person chooses his road. That was from the beginning of humanity.
I don't see Creationism ending either. In fact, it's getting even stronger.
So I guess that only leaves one question... In the end, who will be left standing?

No one cares what your idea of science is. There is no such thing as an ID scientist. There are only scientists. What is the science of Intelligent Design, "God did it all"? What is the difference between real science, and science? How are human organisms engineered? Do you really think that scientists place their trust and faith in Gods, or in the data? What is the name of this God that creates nothing? Is it called cause and effect, or probability? What are these forces that only brainwash non-ID scientists? Maybe you can present just one creation-specific research, that was submitted for peer review? Never mind, you are just another cognitive dissonant, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh, who's ideas and beliefs are solely self-confirmed. Even God Himself couldn't effect your fundamentalist biased views. I'm still waiting on any facts, that would support any of your silly claims and assumptions. I also find it odd and contradictory, that anyone with the tag "nPeace", would resort to internet posturing, bullying, and veil threats. Especially, when their intellectual security is threatened.

First. You have indeed - not once, but twice, show that you don't have any idea that the ideas you have are anything more than ideas. Since when is the misuse of life the misuse of genes?
Obviously, your ideas are not mine, so you are mistaken if you think you know what I have in mind.

Your statement was, "The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design". You clearly stated that the misuse and mismanagement of genes contribute to the mismanagement of the proper function of life. I agree this is worded so badly, that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. But this is how I have interpreted it. Also, since your ideas are certainly not mine, it would be a fair guess that your ideas are the opposite of mine? Or, maybe you DO believe in Evolution, LUCA, and CA?

You are also correct. I can't show you the first descendent of all life on the planet. Nor, can I show you all the common ancestors of the different classifications of todays life forms. But there is a legitimate, rational, scientific, and obvious reason why that would be impossible. What would be the exact point of biodiversity of each clade, to satisfy your scientific criteria? Evolution is gradual, and non-specific. But there is enough physical evidence to suggest a pattern of evolution, that can at least be falsified. Find a modern rabbit buried with dinosaur. Show me the same DNA sequence that codes for two different amino acids. Show me the same allele that express one colour in one life form, and a different colour in another life form. Do this, and Evolution is falsified.

So why can't you show me God? Why can't you at least demonstrate God as a logical possibility. Show me a "kind", that is not really a part of a clade. Maybe you could demonstrate the power of prayer, or an example of someone rising from the dead, or an example of any supernatural or paranormal event. Maybe a verifiable miracle or prophesy, or even a time when the laws of physics were violated, or ignored? All these things could easily be verified and observed. Why do we not see any evidence at all? Because it is a culture-specific, man-made, socially-reinforcing, ritualistic, gap-filling unfalsifiable belief, that provides irrational answer to irrational questions, that are based entirely on ignorance. In other words, we believe, because we want to believe at first, and believe that we need to believe later.

You will always be just a flea biting the back of an elephant. And all the other pseudo-scientists, pseudo-sophists, and all the fringe-dwelling scientific parasites, will amount to only a ripple in the ocean, and contribute even less.

 

[nPeace]

No one cares what your idea of science is. There is no such thing as an ID scientist. There are only scientists. What is the science of Intelligent Design, "God did it all"? What is the difference between real science, and science? How are human organisms engineered? Do you really think that scientists place their trust and faith in Gods, or in the data? What is the name of this God that creates nothing? Is it called cause and effect, or probability? What are these forces that only brainwash non-ID scientists? Maybe you can present just one creation-specific research, that was submitted for peer review? Never mind, you are just another cognitive dissonant, like Jim Jones, or David Koresh, who's ideas and beliefs are solely self-confirmed. Even God Himself couldn't effect your fundamentalist biased views. I'm still waiting on any facts, that would support any of your silly claims and assumptions. I also find it odd and contradictory, that anyone with the tag "nPeace", would resort to internet posturing, bullying, and veil threats. Especially, when their intellectual security is threatened.



Your statement was, "The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do, and the misuse, or mismanagement of the proper functions of life, by humans, contributed to the problems in that design". You clearly stated that the misuse and mismanagement of genes contribute to the mismanagement of the proper function of life. I agree this is worded so badly, that you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. But this is how I have interpreted it. Also, since your ideas are certainly not mine, it would be a fair guess that your ideas are the opposite of mine? Or, maybe you DO believe in Evolution, LUCA, and CA?

You are also correct. I can't show you the first descendent of all life on the planet. Nor, can I show you all the common ancestors of the different classifications of todays life forms. But there is a legitimate, rational, scientific, and obvious reason why that would be impossible. What would be the exact point of biodiversity of each clade, to satisfy your scientific criteria? Evolution is gradual, and non-specific. But there is enough physical evidence to suggest a pattern of evolution, that can at least be falsified. Find a modern rabbit buried with dinosaur. Show me the same DNA sequence that codes for two different amino acids. Show me the same allele that express one colour in one life form, and a different colour in another life form. Do this, and Evolution is falsified.

So why can't you show me God? Why can't you at least demonstrate God as a logical possibility. Show me a "kind", that is not really a part of a clade. Maybe you could demonstrate the power of prayer, or an example of someone rising from the dead, or an example of any supernatural or paranormal event. Maybe a verifiable miracle or prophesy, or even a time when the laws of physics were violated, or ignored? All these things could easily be verified and observed. Why do we not see any evidence at all? Because it is a culture-specific, man-made, socially-reinforcing, ritualistic, gap-filling unfalsifiable belief, that provides irrational answer to irrational questions, that are based entirely on ignorance. In other words, we believe, because we want to believe at first, and believe that we need to believe later.

You will always be just a flea biting the back of an elephant. And all the other pseudo-scientists, pseudo-sophists, and all the fringe-dwelling scientific parasites, will amount to only a ripple in the ocean, and contribute even less.

Seeing that you are "truly enlightened", I'll leave you 'n peace.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't think @Deeje would mind me slipping in a word here.
I don't think anyone is against science. In fact the best videos I have seen that discuss real science are those done by ID scientists. I love them.
They go into the engineering of the organisms, and allows one to see clearly, without any brainwashing methods used by desperate souls driven by forces they can't see, determined to place their faith and trust is a different god - you know, the one that created nothing.

So there is real science, and then there is the science, that presents myths, and then refer to it as science.
The latter is what many people are not buying. Continue here.
By the way, we don't care how happily evolution and its props and supporters skip along.
Gay marriage is skipping along too. Probably incest, and bestiality may soon follow, as well as pedophilia.
However, everything has its day.
Have you not heard? The bigger they are the harder they fall.


Fortunately, I was reminded just recently I need to behave like the Christian I am, so you actually should thank that person for reminding me, because the animal behavior from some members on RF has really been been tugging at that part of me that I need to keep in check.

First. You have indeed - not once, but twice, show that you don't have any idea that the ideas you have are anything more than ideas. Since when is the misuse of life the misuse of genes?
Obviously, your ideas are not mine, so you are mistaken if you think you know what I have in mind.

Second. I did not say show me all you think 'we' know. I said I can't show you God. You can't show me LUCA, or any other CA. Did you? I'm afraid not.

Wow. Long post though.

@It Aint Necessarily So
No need to tell me what I already know.
I have seen the holes in the theory, and the filling put in them. In fact, not just I, but millions of people have.
Each person chooses his road. That was from the beginning of humanity.
I don't see Creationism ending either. In fact, it's getting even stronger.
So I guess that only leaves one question... In the end, who will be left standing?

Sorry I may have misunderstood. Not going against science? I am sure you love the intelligent design scientists, but they have absolutely no scientific evidence for and intelligent design so they find fault with real evidence of science that supports evolution. That is clearly against science and scientific reasoning that ID people do not like. The irony is to call science such as evolution as myth when intelligent design beliefs can only be seen as myth without any sound, not made up, evidence at all.
By the way humans are animals or do you not believe in biology too, thus human behavior is animal behavior. As for your comments about skipping along with its trailing comments is truly a ridiculous commentary about those who believe in evolution which includes Christians as well as those from many other religions. Another desperate comment in face of the overwhelming evidence you cannot refute.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry I may have misunderstood. Not going against science? I am sure you love the intelligent design scientists, but they have absolutely no scientific evidence for and intelligent design so they find fault with real evidence of science that supports evolution. That is clearly against science and scientific reasoning that ID people do not like. The irony is to call science such as evolution as myth when intelligent design beliefs can only be seen as myth without any sound, not made up, evidence at all.
By the way humans are animals or do you not believe in biology too, thus human behavior is animal behavior. As for your comments about skipping along with its trailing comments is truly a ridiculous commentary about those who believe in evolution which includes Christians as well as those from many other religions. Another desperate comment in face of the overwhelming evidence you cannot refute.

I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory, if you are referring to changes on a large scale, that is, but good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science.

I know there are millions, perhaps billions of people who don't believe in that philosophical argument that humans are animals, and just as a friendly warning, be carefully how you use that philosophy.
Some folk will definitely demonstrate what you are suggesting of them, but once they complete their demonstration, they will remind you that they are human.
I certainly am no animal.

Anyone who wants to skip along merrily with the theory are free to do so. To me it doesn't matter who does. When it crumbles, they will too.
It's like a sinking ship. There are people who would get on a ship for their own personal reasons, and they may not be aware of the danger, until the reality is realized.
People have lost their lives to disasters because of making bad choices for oftentimes materialistic reasons.
In fact, there is a prophecy regarding the time when people will realize that their money and material treasures will mean nothing to them, but it won't save them.

I was just looking at a video, about the situation with the theistic evolutionist, and evolution itself. You might not be interested, but I'll link it just in case.

You might want to skip to 8:40

 

[tas8831]

Oh really? There are?
What I can't figure out, is why you linked them.

Oh boy..

OK - I had a lengthy response 3/4 written to one of your other tedious posts, but my computer shut down and I lost it, so I think will be my last response to you for a while...

OK, so the history of this particular exchange went like this....

You had written:

"I don't have an agenda....
My faith started from my reason....
You have no verifiable evidence of evolution, so what is the difference?"​

I replied with these links:

The Miracle of Water.

Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?​

You replied to those with some dopey smilies.

I explained that they were links, your response to that is the first line in this post that I am responding to.

Allow me to explain it to you (though I suspect your dismissal is not premised on your 'reason' or your ability to understand what I wrote) -

I provided those links because they contained 1. 1 of the several iterations of my presenting 'verifiable evidence of evolution' and 2. an admission from a creation scientist that people saying that there is no evidence for evolution are ignorant and dishonest.

So yeah, I can see why you can't figure out why I linked to them - your scientific acumen must be on par with Deeje's.


And this insightful reply:

Was in response to my referring to this claim of yours:

"The designer designed the genes to do exactly what they were designed to do..."​

as being circular. I guess its more begging the question fallacy plus some circularoity, but whatever.

You claim evolution has no 'verifiable evidence' and you write something so childishly naive and fallacious and hypocritical, as your claim is not only 100% devoid not just of verifiable "direct" evidence, but even circumstantial evidence.

This is why I find it difficult to take creationists seriously, so thanks for reinforcing my experience-based stereotype.

 

[tas8831]

Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

Yes - because there isn't any.
Analogies to human activity are not evidence.

There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory

And there is that lie again.

Here is what scientist and creationist Todd Wood has written about such claims:

The truth about evolution


September 30, 2009
I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason...
​

What do you know that he doesn't? He, after all, ran the Baraminology study group for many years and has published creation science.

What is your background again?

 

[ecco]

No one cares what your idea of science is. There is no such thing as an ID scientist.

Seeing that you are "truly enlightened", I'll leave you 'n peace.

I'm seeing a lot of theist types running away from discussions when they are on the losing end (always),

 

[Bear Wild]

I think you are making claims that are not accurate.
Can you explain why scientists who support ID, have absolutely no scientific evidence for intelligent design?

There is no real evidence that supports the evolution theory, if you are referring to changes on a large scale, that is, but good science does support ID, and as I said, I believe in good science.

I know there are millions, perhaps billions of people who don't believe in that philosophical argument that humans are animals, and just as a friendly warning, be carefully how you use that philosophy.
Some folk will definitely demonstrate what you are suggesting of them, but once they complete their demonstration, they will remind you that they are human.
I certainly am no animal.

Anyone who wants to skip along merrily with the theory are free to do so. To me it doesn't matter who does. When it crumbles, they will too.
It's like a sinking ship. There are people who would get on a ship for their own personal reasons, and they may not be aware of the danger, until the reality is realized.
People have lost their lives to disasters because of making bad choices for oftentimes materialistic reasons.
In fact, there is a prophecy regarding the time when people will realize that their money and material treasures will mean nothing to them, but it won't save them.

I was just looking at a video, about the situation with the theistic evolutionist, and evolution itself. You might not be interested, but I'll link it just in case.

You might want to skip to 8:40

The video provided discusses issues of evolution but again does not provide evidence for intelligent design. Subject of the gene regulatory network is in support of evolution for instance since it helps explain some of the rapid variation in organisms in relationship to their environment which is a natural mechanism and not driven by an intelligent force. Thus we can see large variation that can happen in a relative short period of time as seen in the breeding of animals where humans can intentionally select for characteristics which helped Darwin see the mechanism for natural selection to be an effective way to create change in non-breed organisms. This complex mechanism certainly took a long time to develop but as it did the rate of variation and change in organisms could accelerate with these changes. This is also reflected in the fact that so much of the genetic code conserved with a much smaller part of the genetic code having a large influence on the change in physical characteristics of and organism.
There is still no proof of an intelligent design. The geologic record although incomplete of every change that occurred (or at least incomplete from what we have found) still shows the progression of simpler forms to more complex. Clear evidence of the change as expected in the evolution theory. What is the real evidence that an Intelligent designer started life on earth? There is no evidence only the belief without evidence that this is true. Every piece of evidence from geological record, ecology studies, our understanding of genetics, and the rest of the evidence for evolution agrees. Why would an intelligent designer create the organism to create disease and suffering?
From a biological sense yes you and I are animals. We belong to the animal kingdom and share the same biological physiology, anatomy and even behavior with much of the animal world being obviously more similar to mammals than others. We are about 96% identical genetically with chimpanzees. Humans give live birth and support the offspring with milk as most mammals. No number of time you can say I am not an animal will help. In the end we humans are still proud members of the animal kingdom.