If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?

[Jose Fly]

Yep!

So if "humans create life via their intelligence, therefore intelligence is required for life to emerge" is reasonable to you, why then isn't "humans create life via non-supernatural means, therefore supernatural intervention isn't required for life to emerge" just as reasonable?

Also, using that same logic can we also conclude that opposable thumbs are required for life to emerge?

Prior to the beginning of physical life (in the universe), where & how would this intelligence exist?

Really though, what you might label as ‘supernatural intelligence’,
I would call natural...just by some means that are not completely understood currently. Ex.: humans have detected what they term “dark matter”, which apparently comprises over 60% of the known universe....it may have much to do w/ invisible life existing.

With how little we understand, it’s quite arrogant for biologists IMO, to discount that there’s an intelligent source behind the complex information neededo for life & matter, especially when empirical science constantly reveals intelligence as the source for functionality and complex information discovered in other fields!

Explain to me the evolutionary pathways selected by natural mechanisms that would build something as simple as the bacterial flagellum....and you’ll begin to break down my POV that much of Evolution is based on the fantastical.

I'd be more interested in pursuing this discussion further if it weren't for the fact that you've just plain bailed, completely unannounced, on past discussions.

 

[Valjean]

And how science works, let us hear from you

Why? You didn't learn it in school, and all the previous times we've explained it to you, you didn't grasp it -- or you wouldn't be asking for another explanation now.
Your faith and ego-integrity prohibit accepting a natural explanation.

Where did I say that magic is involved?

You posit a creator but propose no mechanism for his/her/its creation. Apparently you're satisfied with things being spoken into existence, created "by his hand" or breathed into life. This isn't mechanism. This is magic.

Whereas you believe in the stone, you don't believe in design and plan, you don't believe that
a proper job needs plan , design and a good science, you just believe that things just happened to be so,
how can we do anything without having the knowledge and science, how the universe managed to be without a proper plan and design.

You ask a question you should know the answer to; that you should have learned in school; that we've already explained to you.

The ToE is an explanation of the mechanisms you're asking about. It explains, step-by-step, how a complex organism can be created by natural, unguided mechanisms, without any planning or magical tweaking of natural laws.

 

[Valjean]

Assertions w/o references....

The underlying facts have been explained to you many times, in school and here in RF.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wow, you really still don’t get it.

If you are going to claim there is “intelligent source” being either the Designer, Creator or God, then you will need EVIDENCE to demonstrably show that such agent of creation of life exist.

Without evidence for the Designer or Creator, then what you claim that intelligence being the source of first life is nothing more than silly old fashion superstition.

You are asking for biologists to accept Intelligent Designer by default, without any evidence whatsoever for the Designer’s existence. That the arrogance of creationists, because you want biologists to accept your bogus claims about “intelligent sources”.

Ok, I’ll bite. I am not a biologist, but you said there are evidences for “intelligent source” behind the creation of life, so please present to us, these imaginary scientific papers, scientific evidence and scientific data, right here, right now, that Designer unequivocally exist.

Even Michael Behe, who is smarter than you, have qualification in biochemistry and teach at university, wrote paper on Irreducible Complexity, and wrote book titled Darwin’s Black Box, have never presented any scientific evidence and data for Irreducible Complexity and for Intelligent Design, AND YET you seems to have these evidence and data that Behe have not.

So present them, Hockeycowboy.

I did. I guess you prefer to ignore the empirical evidence, and believe it isn’t.

Your faith in processes as currently understood is misplaced....

‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

And quit making assessments of my intelligence.

It always devolves to that...I must be touching a nerve. Lol.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So if "humans create life via their intelligence, therefore intelligence is required for life to emerge" is reasonable to you, why then isn't "humans create life via non-supernatural means, therefore supernatural intervention isn't required for life to emerge" just as reasonable?

Also, using that same logic can we also conclude that opposable thumbs are required for life to emerge?


I'd be more interested in pursuing this discussion further if it weren't for the fact that you've just plain bailed, completely unannounced, on past discussions.

Why do you persist in missing the point? You’re not that obtuse...you just don’t want to answer the question, as to where the intelligence came from, prior to the first life ‘emerging’.

Asking more questions, is a textbook tactic you use to deflect. (It usually means I made the point, which the opposer refuses to acknowledge.) That’s why I leave the discussions at times.

You’re not interested.

 

[gnostic]

I did. I guess you prefer to ignore the empirical evidence, and believe it isn’t.

Your faith in processes as currently understood is misplaced....

‘The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Philosophical and Historical Dimensions’ Workshop Report – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

And quit making assessments of my intelligence.

It always devolves to that...I must be touching a nerve. Lol.

Sorry, but you again demonstrated your science illiteracy.

I said you need to provide evidences or data that should verify the existence of any deity or Intelligent Designer.

Your article provided not a single evidence FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, let alone for any DESIGNER. There isn’t even any data to work with.

These group of people mentioned in the article to do talks, so no researches, no evidences and no data.

Do you have reading comprehension problems as well, Hockeycowboy?

There are no mention of any DESIGNER anywhere. So much for your empirical evidence.

Seriously, Hockeycowboy. Did you even bother to read the article/link that you have posted up?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, but you again demonstrated your science illiteracy.

I said you need to provide evidences or data that should verify the existence of any deity or Intelligent Designer.

Your article provided not a single evidence FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN, let alone for any DESIGNER. There isn’t even any data to work with.

These group of people mentioned in the article to do talks, so no researches, no evidences and no data.

Do you have reading comprehension problems as well, Hockeycowboy?

There are no mention of any DESIGNER anywhere. So much for your empirical evidence.

Seriously, Hockeycowboy. Did you even bother to read the article/link that you have posted up?

^^ more attacks, and no substance. ^^

To be expected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

^^ more attacks, and no substance. ^^

To be expected.

Wrong, observations. You have as of yet failed to come up with a working definition of "design". Don't worry, none of the creationists have been able to do so. All they can do is to use sciency sounding words with quite a bit of hand waving.

Here is what you need to do to be taken seriously. Come up with a working definition of "design". That means you would need to be able to have some sort of reasonable standards to tell if some natural phenomenon is natural or "designed". Second come up with a testable hypothesis. Until you have a properly testable hypothesis you can not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why do you persist in missing the point? You’re not that obtuse...you just don’t want to answer the question, as to where the intelligence came from, prior to the first life ‘emerging’.

I have no idea what "intelligence" you're talking about.

Asking more questions, is a textbook tactic you use to deflect. (It usually means I made the point, which the opposer refuses to acknowledge.) That’s why I leave the discussions at times.

You’re not interested.

So asking questions about a subject is a sign a person is not interested in that subject and is a legitimate reason for the person being asked the questions to leave.

Huh. I gotta say, that's a new one to me. Makes me wonder how you got through any schooling.

 

[FearGod]

Why? You didn't learn it in school, and all the previous times we've explained it to you, you didn't grasp it -- or you wouldn't be asking for another explanation now.
Your faith and ego-integrity prohibit accepting a natural explanation.
You posit a creator but propose no mechanism for his/her/its creation. Apparently you're satisfied with things being spoken into existence, created "by his hand" or breathed into life. This isn't mechanism. This is magic.
You ask a question you should know the answer to; that you should have learned in school; that we've already explained to you.

The ToE is an explanation of the mechanisms you're asking about. It explains, step-by-step, how a complex organism can be created by natural, unguided mechanisms, without any planning or magical tweaking of natural laws.

You added nothing but rubbish, the same answers as your fellow atheists.
No magic involved in the creation, it's an amazing science.

If you believe or understand that life is simple and can be brought to existence and
to evolve to the human's brain just with no reason and with no plans, then it's up to
you, I can not change your way of thinking and I do not have anything to add, good luck

 

[Subduction Zone]

You added nothing but rubbish, the same answers as your fellow atheists.
No magic involved in the creation, it's an amazing science.

If you believe or understand that life is simple and can be brought to existence and
to evolve to the human's brain just with no reason and with no plans, then it's up to
you, I can not change your way of thinking and I do not have anything to add, good luck

I don't think that you understand "science".

And using strawman arguments is never wise. No one claims that evolution occurred because of "no reason", well except for rather ignorant creationists. If you do not understand how evolution works you should ask. Don't jump to conclusions. There is a very good reason that over 99% of those that study the subject accept the theory of evolution. It is not because they want to be wicked.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Where did I say that magic is involved?

Every time you invoke "god", you are claiming "Magic"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You added nothing but rubbish, the same answers as your fellow atheists.
No magic involved in the creation, it's an amazing science..

False-- every time you claim a Magical Super-Being (god), you are invoking MAGIC.

That's how it works. Gods are Magic, by definition.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't think that you understand "science".

And using strawman arguments is never wise. No one claims that evolution occurred because of "no reason", well except for rather ignorant creationists. If you do not understand how evolution works you should ask. Don't jump to conclusions. There is a very good reason that over 99% of those that study the subject accept the theory of evolution. It is not because they want to be wicked.

Yep. Here's a pie chart explaining the position.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

.

You mean fail to memorize it

Why memorize something that is logical? Besides, it's constantly being refined in the fine details, so whatever you memorize? Might change.

Pure, nonsensical rote memorization is for Robots. It's better to study it so you **understand**.

Once you actually understand, you don't need rote, non-thinking memorization.

Oh! I see the problem now...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Assertions w/o references....

Here you go-- it's buried in one or more of these... Happy Learning!
1) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
2) Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
3) 8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
4) Human Evolution Evidence
5) http://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/
6) http://www.talkorigins.org/
7) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
8) http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/
9) http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
10) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/…/topicbrowse2.php…
11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
12) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
13) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
14) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God wants us to be many.

And also, a kind of Hive Mind too.... (that whole "we are one in the spirit" nonsense)

 

[Ouroboros]

And also, a kind of Hive Mind too.... (that whole "we are one in the spirit" nonsense)

Resistance is futile?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Resistance is futile?

"you will be assimilated"

 

[Ouroboros]

"you will be assimilated"

"Borg? Sounds Swedish."