Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

All I am doing is using the same principles and methods you all use and reversing it. As you said... it never serves the theists any better to address illogical positions that atheists have offered.

Now you know how we view the process you all use.

As the saying goes, "I was born at night but not last night"

For you we will go with
" may have been born yesterday
but it sure was not in the morning"

As for reversing, yes. Your approach is the
opposite of what goes into science, honesty or logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

you do realize that after the experiment they were stored in seal vials, and were re-examined in 2007, 55 years later, and identified additional amino acids, bringing that to a total of 20 different amino acids?

All without additional electricity & without reheating the samples.

The only baloney is you don’t understand chemistry any more than you understand biology.

You don't want to understand that this demonstrates that it was a concocted experiment showing these objects have a reaction with elements introduced by people. It didn't happen without human intervention and set-up. It certainly does not demonstrate that life started naturally from non life. Argue away... your conclusions are meaningless. But if you want to say this means life came naturally from non life obviously you will. Have a good one. Your argument does not make sense.

 

[Audie]

LOL... I'm not a yec. So much for your scientific expertise.

I did not say you are. Didn't even mention you.
Try "lol, so much for reading ability".

Still, "quacks like" is a sign of something real
similar to duck. Or yec, in this case.

Care to ID your chosen -ism that we may address
you with due respect?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe... which ones?

For example the misrepresentation of what experiments under controlled conditions represent...
Leading to hilarious nonsense such as ice in a freezer being "intelligently designed".

Although i wouldn't call them false or dishonest. My position, like yours, can be honest but honestly wrong.

Like I said, I have a really hard time accepting you are really merely "honestly wrong" when it comes to that freezer example we were discussing....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't want to understand that this demonstrates that it was a concocted experiment showing these objects have a reaction with elements introduced by people. It didn't happen without human intervention and set-up.

Same old nonsense.
By that logic, ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed".

You fail to grasp what "controlled conditions" are in an experiment. And perhaps more importantly, what they are not.

We find amino acids in space rocks. Did humans put them there?

It certainly does not demonstrate that life started naturally from non life.

It demonstrates that amino acids can and do form naturally.
These are molecules that creationists claim are "too complex" to be natural.
They aren't.

Argue away... your conclusions are meaningless.

They are only meaningless to YOU because you are, and remain, willfully ignorant.

But if you want to say this means life came naturally from non life obviously you will. Have a good one. Your argument does not make sense.

What doesn't make sense is to use an "argument" that when applied to a freezer it means that ice is "intelligently designed".

 

[Audie]

Same old nonsense.
By that logic, ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed".

You fail to grasp what "controlled conditions" are in an experiment. And perhaps more importantly, what they are not.

We find amino acids in space rocks. Did humans put them there?



It demonstrates that amino acids can and do form naturally.
These are molecules that creationists claim are "too complex" to be natural.
They aren't.



They are only meaningless to YOU because you are, and remain, willfully ignorant.


What doesn't make sense is to use an "argument" that when applied to a freezer it means that ice is "intelligently designed".

I think the concept, ill stated as it has been, is that
the laws of nature and all of matter is intelligently
designed.

So ice forming is as much by design as
are the atoms involved.

And it might be.

As an argument against evolution though
it's real badly lacking

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the concept, ill stated as it has been, is that
the laws of nature and all of matter is intelligently
designed.

So ice forming is as much by design as
are the atoms involved.

And it might be.

As an argument against evolution though
it's real badly lacking

This "argument" of them is an argument against any and all experiments that happen under controlled conditions. Which is essentially all of them.

And it is imagined ad hoc in context of the Miller - Urey experiment. We also see this nonsense come up when we discuss the hypothetical of "what would you say if tomorrow an experiment is conducted that produces life from non-life?". Their answer then is "it would mean it required intelligent design".

It is fundamentally centered around confusing "controlled conditions" with "human intervention in the reaction / process".

Whenever this comes up, I immediatly go to the freezer example as it exposes neatly how nonsensical it is.
The inside of the freezer is a controlled environment. But the ice is not "intelligently designed".

Guys like @Kenny , I suspect (or rather: hope), realize this very well. Yet, they still argue against it. And they do this because they understand that acknowledging that point means to acknowledge the difference between "controlled conditions" vs "intervention by an agent".

By granting that ice in a freezer is the natural outcome of what happens to water in the environment, they would indirectly have to agree with the results of experiments like Miller-Urey. And that would be rather devastating to their creationist nonsense.

So they are pinned against a wall. In order to uphold their nonsensical creationist case, in order to deny the significance of the results of such experiments, they are psychologically forced to say that ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed".

Personally I find it hilarious to see them fall to such lows.

 

[Kenny]

If your "position" is honest, it's ignorant
and based on something besides infofmation.

It's impossible to be an infomed and honest creationist,
yec or otherwise.

Observing the cut n paste creactionist- site nonsense
you post, and giving you credit for honest intent,
that leaves earnest naif.

That you've no idea what you are talking about is as
evident as it would be if I tried to broadcsst a football game.

Ignorant can be just what you know as compared to what you don't know.

I haven't cut and pasted anything that is from creationism... but it may be just "so much" that has passed that I don't remember.

 

[viole]

so far anything beneficial (as if 4 eyes might be beneficial) has not been happening, has it? If anything, humans are moving into a completely self-destructive state. But it's not genetic evolution. Or maybe it is.

Since 99% of all species got extinct, and that is actually fully in agreement with evolution, what makes you think that our alleged self destruction defeats evolution?

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Since 99% of all species got extinct, and that is actually fully in agreement with evolution, what makes you think that our alleged self destruction defeats evolution?

Ciao

- viole

Lol pardon me for laughing at such a ridiculous comment. Thanks.

 

[Kenny]

I did not say you are. Didn't even mention you.
Try "lol, so much for reading ability".

Duly noted... my error

 

[viole]

Lol pardon me for laughing at such a ridiculous comment. Thanks.

I do pardon you.

If I were in your shoes, and believe what you believe, I would not know how to reply in a more constructive way than that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

I do pardon you.

If I were in your shoes, and believe what you believe, I would not know how to reply in a more constructive way than that.

Ciao

- viole

So you think dinosaurs killed themselves...etc

 

[YoursTrue]

I do pardon you.

If I were in your shoes, and believe what you believe, I would not know how to reply in a more constructive way than that.

Ciao

- viole

Your comment was funny...

 

[YoursTrue]

Same old nonsense.
By that logic, ice in a freezer is "intelligently designed".

Not exactly. Putting water in the freezer in trays which turns to ice may certainly be considered designed by...(hey, I know! the refrigerator! No, the refrigerator people! Yeah, that must be it.)

 

[cladking]

Not exactly. Putting water in the freezer in trays which turns to ice may certainly be considered designed by...(hey, I know! the refrigerator! No, the refrigerator people! Yeah, that must be it.)

Perhaps people should be interested in Ice-nine. ...so it goes.

Nothing funny here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol pardon me for laughing at such a ridiculous comment. Thanks.

The only laughable ridiculous thing here, is your abysmal understanding of biology and your incredibly obtuse unwillingness to learn anything about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not exactly. Putting water in the freezer in trays which turns to ice may certainly be considered designed by...

You say "not exactly" and then go on to make the exact retarded point you pretended to disagree with.

You guys keep falling to new lows every other post.

(hey, I know! the refrigerator! No, the refrigerator people! Yeah, that must be it.)

And lower and lower and lower.

 

[Astrophile]

Not exactly. Putting water in the freezer in trays which turns to ice may certainly be considered designed by...(hey, I know! the refrigerator! No, the refrigerator people! Yeah, that must be it.)

Do you also think that snow and hail falling from clouds should be considered design by cloud people? Do you think that the formation of organic molecules such as ethyl formate, methanol, ethanol, vinyl alcohol (ethenol) and butyronitryl (propyl cyanide) in the Sagittarius B2 interstellar cloud - Sagittarius B2 - Wikipedia - should be considered design by interstellar cloud people?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you also think that snow and hail falling from clouds should be considered design by cloud people? Do you think that the formation of organic molecules such as ethyl formate, methanol, ethanol, vinyl alcohol (ethenol) and butyronitryl (propyl cyanide) in the Sagittarius B2 interstellar cloud - Sagittarius B2 - Wikipedia - should be considered design by interstellar cloud people?

I can't see where that question came from.