A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

Every single time a living thing reproduces, it produces life from non-life.

I'll go further. Every single living thing is an example of life from non-life. None of the atoms or molecules that make up that living thing are alive. Yet the organism itself is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But there are connections. There are missing dots in all of the science fields yet that does not stop the theories from being believable. Just look at black body radiation in the past which has a missing dot later found, and that is in a simple system of physics. Organic evolution is far more complex to show every missing dot, but you would know that if you had an understanding of fossil formation.

Oh please.... every single dot is missing on every single tree where the claimed splits occurred.

We can settle this issue real quick.

Show me one single common ancestor for any creature on any tree where the claimed split occurred......

I’ll be waiting till the end of time....

Your entire theory is based upon imaginary things. The very thing you complain about religion. The difference is people that have faith admit theirs is a religion......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Um, no. Because a being that is literally omnipotent cannot be proven not to exist, since it can literally hide itself from our perception in infinite ways.

It’s not hiding itself. It is plainly evident to those that look.

Romans 1:20

Your mind would simply snap if you could behold God. In language perhaps you can understand it would be like trying to comprehend a 12 dimensional being from your limited three....

Except his point was never that design was obvious, just that - if there WERE some kind of design - he'd find it more likely to be some form of aliens or panspermia responsible than a God.

Except there is design. It is exactly why we think we can explain the universe with orderly laws. If they actually believed their own PR it would be ridiculous to think you can explain something truly random as orderly......

It's not doublespeak.

If you say so.

Every single time a living thing reproduces, it produces life from non-life.

No it doesn’t. Those genes passed down are alive.

I've never claimed abiogenesis is true, I just don't find arguments for God or, specifically, creationism to be convincing.

I don’t find arguments for evolution convincing at all. But without the start of life there would be no evolution...

That's a lie. We have directly observed changes across generations many, many times. Organisms have never "stayed the same", all living things that reproduce do so with variation.

Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal? Ahhh, you mean you saw a lizard become a lizard. A Finch become a Finch. A human become a human. A dog become a dog.... and confuse that into meaning if you imagine enough time the dog will become something else....

No, we don't. Evolution can be and is observed.

It’s never been observed.... once again you’ve observed humans become human, chimps become chimps, etc, etc, etc.... you then imagine that given enough time they will change into something else.

Don’t confuse what you have observed, variation within the Kind, as being the same as what you imagine.... Kind into other Kind.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh please.... every single dot is missing on every single tree where the claimed splits occurred.

We can settle this issue real quick.

Show me one single common ancestor for any creature on any tree where the claimed split occurred......

I’ll be waiting till the end of time....

Your entire theory is based upon imaginary things. The very thing you complain about religion. The difference is people that have faith admit theirs is a religion......

Your demand tells us of a lack of understanding on your part. Would you care to learn why it is wrong? Remember, you can't refute that which you do not understand.

 

[Audie]

It’s not hiding itself. It is plainly evident to those that look.

Romans 1:20

Your mind would simply snap if you could behold God. In language perhaps you can understand it would be like trying to comprehend a 12 dimensional being from your limited three....


Except there is design. It is exactly why we think we can explain the universe with orderly laws. If they actually believed their own PR it would be ridiculous to think you can explain something truly random as orderly......


If you say so.


No it doesn’t. Those genes passed down are alive.


I don’t find arguments for evolution convincing at all. But without the start of life there would be no evolution...


Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal? Ahhh, you mean you saw a lizard become a lizard. A Finch become a Finch. A human become a human. A dog become a dog.... and confuse that into meaning if you imagine enough time the dog will become something else....


It’s never been observed.... once again you’ve observed humans become human, chimps become chimps, etc, etc, etc.... you then imagine that given enough time they will change into something else.

Don’t confuse what you have observed, variation within the Kind, as being the same as what you imagine.... Kind into other Kind.....

Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal?

Show me a creationist who became
educated enough not to say something this silly?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your demand tells us of a lack of understanding on your part. Would you care to learn why it is wrong? Remember, you can't refute that which you do not understand.

If I was wrong you would simply produce one of those common ancestors.......

Sorry, I’m not interested in your excuses as to why every single one is missing.

Seems you got those you claim that went before and those you claim that went after, but never the one that split.

I already know why they are missing, they never existed....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal?

Show me a creationist who became
educated enough not to say something this silly?

Show me an evolutionists that will be honest and admit evolution has never been observed.....

It’s been millions of years, why is nothing changing? Why must we always wait a million years??????

Again, don’t confuse variation within the Kind as equaling Kind into other Kind. One does not prove the other....

Which will lead us into your ignoring your own scientific definitions and making excuses....

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not hiding itself. It is plainly evident to those that look.

Romans 1:20

Your mind would simply snap if you could behold God. In language perhaps you can understand it would be like trying to comprehend a 12 dimensional being from your limited three....

Because I said so is never evidence. Once again you should take me up on my offer.

Except there is design. It is exactly why we think we can explain the universe with orderly laws. If they actually believed their own PR it would be ridiculous to think you can explain something truly random as orderly......

That is hardly design. By your standards Darwinian evolution is design, which leaves you nothing to complain about.

If you say so.


No it doesn’t. Those genes passed down are alive.

Nope, genes on their own are not alive any more than hemoglobin is. But thanks for supporting abiogenesis.

I don’t find arguments for evolution convincing at all. But without the start of life there would be no evolution...

Granted, you won't let yourself understand evolution of even the scientific method, so you aren't convinced by the arguments. And yes, without some sort of abiogenesis event there would be no evolution. Did you have a point here?

Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal? Ahhh, you mean you saw a lizard become a lizard. A Finch become a Finch. A human become a human. A dog become a dog.... and confuse that into meaning if you imagine enough time the dog will become something else....

And once again you demonstrate not even a high school level of understanding of evolution. And to make matters worse you have been corrected on this countless time.

It’s never been observed.... once again you’ve observed humans become human, chimps become chimps, etc, etc, etc.... you then imagine that given enough time they will change into something else.

Or course it has been observed. An inability on your part does not mean others have that same inability. This is why you need to learn the basics first.

Don’t confuse what you have observed, variation within the Kind, as being the same as what you imagine.... Kind into other Kind.....

Creationists cannot even define Kind. And change of kind is a creationist strawman, why even bring up that failure of yours?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It’s not hiding itself. It is plainly evident to those that look.

Romans 1:20

Which is why everyone on earth are all in complete agreement that God both exists and is a very specific, singular entity, right?

Your mind would simply snap if you could behold God. In language perhaps you can understand it would be like trying to comprehend a 12 dimensional being from your limited three....

Sounds very Lovecraftian. Are you sure you're not worshipping Azathoth?

Except there is design. It is exactly why we think we can explain the universe with orderly laws. If they actually believed their own PR it would be ridiculous to think you can explain something truly random as orderly......

"Order", "design" and "random" are qualities imparted onto things by a conscious mind in order to make sense of them. They are not innate facets of the Universe itself.

No it doesn’t. Those genes passed down are alive.

No, they aren't. The genes are replicated from non-living matter. At one point in the womb, there is no life, and then at a latter point there is. That is life being produced from non-life.

I don’t find arguments for evolution convincing at all. But without the start of life there would be no evolution...

Irrelevant. Evolution is a theory that explains how life diversifies over time, not how life originates.

Show me a an amphibian that became a mammal?

That's not how evolution works.

Ahhh, you mean you saw a lizard become a lizard. A Finch become a Finch. A human become a human. A dog become a dog.... and confuse that into meaning if you imagine enough time the dog will become something else....

Correction: Lizards produce variations of lizards. Finches produce variations of finches. Humans produce variations of humans. Dogs produce variations of dogs. All things reproduce variations of what they are, going back to the earliest mammals producing variations of mammals, which were a result of the earliest vertebrates producing variations of vertebrates, which were a result of the earliest eukaryotes producing variations of eukaryotes.

It’s never been observed.... once again you’ve observed humans become human, chimps become chimps, etc, etc, etc.... you then imagine that given enough time they will change into something else.

Again, you don't seem to understand what evolution is. We have observed things evolving directly many times on both a micro and macro-scale. Evolution does occur. The issue you SHOULD have is with common ancestry. You're confusing evolution - the observed fact that allele frequencies in living populations change over time - and the notion of common ancestry - that evolution can be used to explain how all life diversified from a common ancestor. This notion that evolution is about organisms "changing into something else" is just a vague strawman.

Don’t confuse what you have observed, variation within the Kind, as being the same as what you imagine.... Kind into other Kind.....

Please define "kind" and produce a simple test that you can use to determine whether or not two or more animals belong in the same or different "kind".

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I was wrong you would simply produce one of those common ancestors.......

Sorry, I’m not interested in your excuses as to why every single one is missing.

Seems you got those you claim that went before and those you claim that went after, but never the one that split.

I already know why they are missing, they never existed....

Wrong again. Repeating an error and confirming your ignorance of evolution will get you nowhere. Those that understand it will continue to teach it to those that can learn. Why not try to understand The basics? All you have been able to do is to confirm the various claims of those that point out your complete misunderstanding of all of the sciences.

A truth seeker should not be afraid to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me an evolutionists that will be honest and admit evolution has never been observed.....

It’s been millions of years, why is nothing changing? Why must we always wait a million years??????

Again, don’t confuse variation within the Kind as equaling Kind into other Kind. One does not prove the other....

Which will lead us into your ignoring your own scientific definitions and making excuses....

Can you please quit shooting yourself in the foot by not using terms that you cannot define?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Because I said so is never evidence. Once again you should take me up on my offer.

Which will consists of “because I said so”........

That is hardly design. By your standards Darwinian evolution is design, which leaves you nothing to complain about.

No that would be random chance...... don’t confuse randomness with orderly design.....

Nope, genes on their own are not alive any more than hemoglobin is. But thanks for supporting abiogenesis.

Genes are alive. But then that’s why you can’t make a rock alive, because of your confusion....

Granted, you won't let yourself understand evolution of even the scientific method, so you aren't convinced by the arguments. And yes, without some sort of abiogenesis event there would be no evolution. Did you have a point here?

Says the person ignoring the scientific method and proposing things that can’t be reproduced....

And once again you demonstrate not even a high school level of understanding of evolution. And to make matters worse you have been corrected on this countless time.

Because you say so right? Or because you can’t respond except to make unfounded claims????

Or course it has been observed. An inability on your part does not mean others have that same inability. This is why you need to learn the basics first.

Denial at every level....

Creationists cannot even define Kind. And change of kind is a creationist strawman, why even bring up that failure of yours?

Define species......

Yes I know, some missing common ancestor becomes chimps and humans.... but things never change..... make up your mind if evolution is change over time or isn’t....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Can you please quit shooting yourself in the foot by not using terms that you cannot define?

Which one of the 26 definitions of species would you care to use today. At least until the next post.....

I think your confused as to who is shooting who’s foot...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong again. Repeating an error and confirming your ignorance of evolution will get you nowhere. Those that understand it will continue to teach it to those that can learn. Why not try to understand The basics? All you have been able to do is to confirm the various claims of those that point out your complete misunderstanding of all of the sciences.

A truth seeker should not be afraid to learn.

Not addressing the post and failing to back up your stance is exactly because you have no stance to back up.

An error, because you said so without showing any error????

Typical evolutionists response when unable to back up their stance. Devolve into always claiming it’s the others fault without actually showing it’s the others fault. Because they never can....

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not redacted at all as anyone who can read and comprehend English would know. Rather, the fact that there are practically no extra-biblical mentions of Christ or Christianity supports my contention.

Actually, it's not my contention, it is the consensus of biblical scholars from many different backgrounds.

I understand why you did not respond to the facts about Josephus and the Testimonium Flavius. I do realize it would be hard for you to argue against facts.

Now I suspect your agenda, not just your facts. Why?

Most every historian worth their salt commented on Christianity! You are cherry picking (no surprise) without realizing they didn't want to comment much as Gentiles on a Jewish sect, AND you are forgetting their are a dozen NT authors who comment AND apocryphal authors. Feel free to have the last word. Try to make it an honest word, please!

 

[tas8831]

Please, DNA falsified your claims.

That’s why instead of using the proven test that shows relationship in a court of law, you instead snip out 13% of one genome, 26% of another, and then use an algorithm to match one segment to a random other segment.

You keep repeating this stupid lie as if it has not been exposed and explained to you before.

Why are you like this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now I suspect your agenda, not just your facts. Why?

Most every historian worth their salt commented on Christianity! You are cherry picking (no surprise) without realizing they didn't want to comment much as Gentiles on a Jewish sect, AND you are forgetting their are a dozen NT authors who comment AND apocryphal authors. Feel free to have the last word. Try to make it an honest word, please!

Not only cherry picking but ignoring the reality.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

“While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.”

And here we are, having to contend once again with another Christ myth theory supporter when even the critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the very claim those truly ignorant of history keep making....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You keep repeating this stupid lie as if it has not been exposed and explained to you before.

Why are you like this?

You keep repeating the same stupid lie as if you’ve done anything but claim you’ve shown anything. As this post proves.... just another “because I said so” argument which you’ve already rejected by your own admission....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which will consists of “because I said so”........

No, I already explained that I would support my claims with reliable sources, why do you constantly accuse others of your sins?

No that would be random chance...... don’t confuse randomness with orderly design.....

Wrong agian. Why must you rely on strawman arguments constantly? Darwinian evolution is not random chance and you know this. You really need to address one point at a time since you get so much wrong.

Genes are alive. But then that’s why you can’t make a rock alive, because of your confusion....

Repeating an obvious error does not help you.

Says the person ignoring the scientific method and proposing things that can’t be reproduced....

You can't call yourself a Christian and make such false claims about others. By not taking me up on my offer you confirm that you do not understand the scientific method. It is the observations that need to be repeatable and not necessarily the results. You are once again proposing a strawman version of the scientific method.

Because you say so right? Or because you can’t respond except to make unfounded claims????

Once again bearing class witness against others. I do not make unfounded claims. You refuse to discuss concepts properly

Denial at every level....

Yes, we know that that is all that you have.

Define species......

You are running away again and demonstrating a lack of comprehension of not only evolution, but of creationism as well. One consequence of the fact that life is the product of evolution is that the concept of "species" will not be well defined. This is rather obvious. One consequence of creationism being true would be that there would be recognizable Kinds. There would be a well defined method of telling if two groups were of the same Kind of not.

Yes I know, some missing common ancestor becomes chimps and humans.... but things never change..... make up your mind if evolution is change over time or isn’t....

There are no missing common ancestors since that is once again a strawman. They are not missing since they are not predicted. What we have are endless transitional fossils.

That you cannot debate is very telling. Can you debate properly? Can you learn from your errors and not repeat them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not addressing the post and failing to back up your stance is exactly because you have no stance to back up.

An error, because you said so without showing any error????

Typical evolutionists response when unable to back up their stance. Devolve into always claiming it’s the others fault without actually showing it’s the others fault. Because they never can....

Please pay attention. Your error was explained to you. If you keep repeating an error after the explanation which you had no answer to then you will simply get a "wrong". That is all of hat is needed at that time.

Can you learn from your mistakes?