Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

Exactly! But your premises suggested differently, i.e., from molecule to man is a process of order and complexity means less or decrease entropy or the absence of it. IOW, it opposed decaying. So, if you are saying “things break down as we age” meaning life does not continue as one age, but your premise from a non-life molecule to man totally contradicts this, doesn’t it?

No. If you think my premise said something other than what I've explained here then you didn't take enough time to comprehend what I was saying before you jumped to some conclusions.

It does not matter what kind of life we are talking about here. The question is, when or how did life begin? Your answer is, from molecule to man, therefore, from molecule to man is a process of order and complexity meaning less or decrease entropy or the absence of it, but you said “Things don’t become more orderly and complex as we age. Things break down as we age…”

You laugh off the concept of evolution and adaptation without ever considering how normal it is. This is why I made the quick and simple post about how things which you can observe today are simply microcosms of the greater story of life.

Molecules can combine to form more complex molecules.
Complex molecules can chemically form polymers.
Polymers go onto form polypeptide bonds and produce all sorts of different proteins and amino acids.
Certain amino acids form nucleobases which are the basis for RNA & DNA.
RNA & DNA create and transfer everything.
Humans are large baskets of DNA & RNA - which all came from simple molecules...

You were conceived and developed in your mother's womb using the exact same process.
This is just stuff that you should've learned in chemistry and biology back in Middle School.

So simply by observing things which happen in labs and in nature every single day, you can see how the "molecules to man" argument isn't just some wild *** guess.

A molecule is dead or non-living matter or inorganic therefore matter is not conscious, right? If matter is not conscious then it has no information, but according to you molecules became more complex molecules and became polymer, and this polymer became more complex and became man. Now, tell me, is this transition from a dead molecule to man is a type of order and complexity or a disorder and chaos?

What are you even talking about? Matter can be anything, and everything has information in it. Even simple hydrogen atoms have information in it.
This is exactly why you need to slow down and educate yourself a little more before you attempt to debate people on such matters.

Living cells did not come from a dead cell. When a man dies or animals or plants they decompose and turn to dust. All living things will turn back to dust. “For you are dust, And to dust you shall return. –Genesis 3:19”

I've quite easily shown you how simple systems can become more complex. This does not mean that EVERYTHING gets more complex and orderly. It simply means that some things can and do.

So, if living cells are still alive after we die, that is before it fully decomposed or fully fossilized and turned into minerals, then there is a chance to date it by 14C dating method, right?

Sure. But eventually all things will decompose, even the most well preserved specimens. And yes, I know where you are going with this and your whole "dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old" theory...

No branch of science can testify that “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells”. It’s against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

.....Do you know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is related to? If you did, you'd realize your here question is kind of dumb.

Orderly and complexity is less or decrease entropy or no entropy at all.

No.

Are you saying that earth, where life is abundant, is a closed system?

I said Universe, and I said MIGHT be.... The earth receives energy from external sources and expels energy out all the time.
So no. It's not a closed system

The fact that it's not closed, on top of several other serious problems, completely negates your Thermodynamics argument...

I need to educate myself so I can debate with you guys? Are you kidding me? None of you can keep up with my post without falling apart. One is saying something that totally disagree with the other one and yet at the end of the day you guys give each other LIKES.

We can't keep up with your posts because you make grand assumptions about what is being said and you ask nonsensical questions based on those assumptions. You aren't so much having a conversation as just trying to tell people what they think

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I did not say you did, did I? Wrong about what?

Your claims about evolution. Your claims about what her evidence indicates. She is even a Christian and an scientist who has the exact same evidence you tout as against evolution and she has devoted an entire response as to why you and everyone who believes as you do on the subject is wrong.

 

[David M]

No branch of science can testify that “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells”. It’s against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No its not. You are ignorant of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, just as you are ignorant of so many things.

Only, and only, if that dead cell was sealed inside an isolated system would there be a contravention of the 2nd law. If it is in an open system then such increases in complexity are perfectly acceptable under the 2nd law. And all living things on earth exist in Open systems.

But in any case what he said was that a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died. But quote-mining to twist peoples words is a standard creationist tactic.

 

[Parsimony]

When you look at the Petronas Towers what is the first thing in your mind? The World Trade Center or the Twin Towers in NY. When God described the Behemoth’s tail, the first thing in His mind is the Cedar tree.

So if someone said that a ballerina spins like a tornado, does that imply that the ballerina is as big as a tornado as well?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Explain to me the molecules to man.

by simple laws? countless millions of chance improvements? that's a tough one.

atheists faced exactly the same problem trying to account for the physical universe with simple classical laws and chance- they don't work- and for the same reason you stated: Entropy

Life and the physical universe would both collapse into their simplest homogenous state under entropy, without specific instructions directing them to specific functional results.

 

[Shad]

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy:Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy [dead wood] is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative.Dr. Wilder-Smith:

I hope you get the picture here.

You conflate goal-oriented with design thus using a fallacious basis for your argument which results in circular reasoning. This paper addresses the mistake you have made.

http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthom...985-1989/The_misappropriation_of_telenomy.pdf

 

[outhouse]

atheists faced exactly the same problem trying to account for the physical universe with simple classical laws and chance- they don't work- and for the same reason you stated: Entropy

Factual fallacy. You do this one fallacy after another.

Many theist follow this to. not people who are against academics. Many theist love knowledge and education. Not all hate it.

 

[outhouse]

No branch of science can testify that “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells”. It’s against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I don't think you possess the education and knowledge in chemistry to talk about things over your head.

You have stated a fallacy based on creationist websites and the pseudoscience they follow.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No branch of science can testify that “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells”. It’s against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A "dead cell" no. But you bring up thermodynamics.

How do you explain gravity? Gravity and its functionality seems directly contradictory to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Are you against gravity?

 

[Parsimony]

Are you saying that earth, where life is abundant, is a closed system?

The fact that the Earth is not a closed system is the reason that evolution has been able to produce complex life in the first place: energy is constantly being supplied by the Sun to fight entropy.

 

[JM2C]

No its not. You are ignorant of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, just as you are ignorant of so many things.

It’s not against the 2nd law? Are you saying that a dead cell can be animated again? You watch too much Zombie movies. Do you know any scientist that did this, or any experiment at all? How do you understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Please explain it to me?

Only, and only, if that dead cell was sealed inside an isolated system would there be a contravention of the 2nd law. If it is in an open system then such increases in complexity are perfectly acceptable under the 2nd law. And all living things on earth exist in Open systems.

We are talking about A DEAD CELL, aren’t we? How can a dead cell increase in complexity or organized into a self-sustaining complexity again? There is no way you could do that in any system. PERIOD!

But in any case what he said was that a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died. But quote-mining to twist peoples words is a standard creationist tactic.

He could have said a single cell “reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died” instead of “a single dead cell reproduce itself into multiple single living cells before it died”. How can a dead cell reproduce living cell? IT’S AGAINST THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

 

[outhouse]

We are talking about A DEAD CELL, aren’t we?

No.

Only you are.

 

[metis]

That's a complete misunderstand of what the 2nd LoT entails. Maybe read this for starters: Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

WE HAVE ALL OF THE CREDIBILITY, YOU HAVE NONE.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

Because all credible sources say evolution is fact.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

 

[JM2C]

The fact that the Earth is not a closed system is the reason that evolution has been able to produce complex life in the first place: energy is constantly being supplied by the Sun to fight entropy.

To fight entropy? Really? How do you do that again? Please explain. We are talking about a dead molecule to man and if you believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics then the possibility that a dead molecule, like a dead cell, to man is not possible at all. There is no science that can support that idea and if you find one please post it.

 

[JM2C]

No.

Only you are.

A DEAD CELL CAN BE ANIMATED AGAIN. WHATTTTTTTTT? HOW? ASK DAVID M I THINK HE KNOWS HOW.

 

[Parsimony]

To fight entropy? Really? How do you do that again? Please explain. We are talking about a dead molecule to man and if you believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics then the possibility that a dead molecule, like a dead cell, to man is not possible at all. There is no science that can support that idea and if you find one please post it.

I'm not talking about abiogenesis or dead molecules to man. I'm talking about going from the first living cells to what we see today.

 

[outhouse]

A DEAD CELL CAN BE ANIMATED AGAIN. WHATTTTTTTTT? HOW? ASK DAVID M I THINK HE KNOWS HOW.

WE HAVE ALL OF THE CREDIBILITY, YOU HAVE NONE.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES.

Because all credible sources say evolution is fact.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

 

[outhouse]

I'm not talking about abiogenesis or dead molecules to man. I'm talking about going from the first living cells to what we see today.

It is typical moving goal post because of desperation.

Cannot win a debate against the facts of evolution so they run to abiogenesis like it will save them

 

[Bunyip]

To fight entropy? Really? How do you do that again? Please explain. We are talking about a dead molecule to man and if you believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics then the possibility that a dead molecule, like a dead cell, to man is not possible at all. There is no science that can support that idea and if you find one please post it.

Just a head-up, before you repeat another falsehood.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics refers to waste heat in closed mechanical systems, not to organisms. Maybe look it up and read it.