Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[tas8831]

Hey, man! You made my ignore list! You are not genuinely open to discussion..you just rail, and berate.

And you just assert, deny, and plagiarize. IOW - standard YEC type.

Goodbye.

Another plagiarist "Christian" finds a way to hide.

COOL!

Easier than having to see all his plagiarism and dishonesty exposed, I guess.

 

[tas8831]

Where did you get the word 'sightly' from?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I didn't.

"So.... You are saying that your deity is only slightly more competent than modern day humans."

 

[Jose Fly]

Is that what you “see”?

Yes, I most definitely see you exhibiting black/white thinking.

Read my statement...I said “currently”.

So?

What does “explanatory deficits of the standard evolutionary paradigm” mean to you?

It means that in the author's view, standard evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything that exists, and has existed, in the history of life on earth, and that he feels evo-devo can help in that regard.

For what I think are obvious reasons, you twist that to something like "therefore evolutionary theory is a failure" and see the paper as somehow supportive of (or the result of) ID creationism.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Then by the same reasoning, the "design of humans" must have involved metallurgy, plastics synthesis and molding, chip engineering and manufacture....plus the "designer" must have been a bipedal, upright primate with opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, and a brain....plus the "design" process was all via natural means (IOW, no supernatural actions were required).

Is the human body not much much more complex than the human robots?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Jose Fly]

Is the human body not much much more complex than the human robots?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I don't know. How are you defining and measuring "complexity"?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Never seen a human robot, though Ben Shapiro comes close.

Google the human robots. I'm sure you can find it. I was certainly impressed with them.

Good flags all. I like em. And there are others. Actually, the South never surrendered. Yes, we were beaten militarily and our armies at individual times surrendered. Appomattox was the surrender of Lees Army. The war continued on for several months later. But the Confederate Government never surrendered.

Just show me the surrender papers signed by Jeff Davis. Good luck.

In fact, just like I have showed in other threads on this forum, Jeff Davis was never brought to trial as a traitor, because the North knew that if it went to trial, they would be the ones guilty of treason. Not the South.

So, do a little more history on the flags of the Confederacy.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I didn't.

"So.... You are saying that your deity is only slightly more competent than modern day humans."

Where did you get the word 'slightly' from?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I don't know. How are you defining and measuring "complexity"?

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No, I am talking about a bacterium where its chromosome was removed and a new one inserted. The new one was completely made by humans.

I read the article...genome transplantation.
Interesting for sure.

Would you consider this, starting life, though? Any functions degraded or improved? Could it replicate?

Still, it is amazing what humans can accomplish, with their intelligence.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, I most definitely see you exhibiting black/white thinking.


So?


It means that in the author's view, standard evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything that exists, and has existed, in the history of life on earth, and that he feels evo-devo can help in that regard.

For what I think are obvious reasons, you twist that to something like "therefore evolutionary theory is a failure" and see the paper as somehow supportive of (or the result of) ID creationism.

No, not that extreme. But it certainly doesn’t agree that “evolutionary mechanisms have already explained the complexity of life.”

That is inaccurate.

 

[ecco]

Hey, man! You made my ignore list! You are not genuinely open to discussion..you just rail, and berate.

Aw, seriously? You can't handle a discussion so you put a person on "ignore".

What you should do, is put everyone you disagree with on "ignore". That way you could post all the CreoBabble you want to post and you would never have to see any rebuttals. That way you could pretend that no one disagrees and you are always right.

Alternatively, you could join a CreosOnly forum.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And you just assert, deny, and plagiarize. IOW - standard YEC type.
Another plagiarist "Christian" finds a way to hide.

COOL!

Easier than having to see all his plagiarism and dishonesty exposed, I guess.

Lol. All you expose, is your rudeness. If you presented some sourced counter-arguments, you might have a point. But you don’t.

Aw, seriously? You can't handle a discussion so you put a person on "ignore".

What you should do, is put everyone you disagree with on "ignore". That way you could post all the CreoBabble you want to post and you would never have to see any rebuttals. That way you could pretend that no one disagrees and you are always right.

Alternatively, you could join a CreosOnly forum.

There’s no discussion, just ad homs.

Even you...you cry about not presenting evidence, but when I did, you just said, “Nah, I’ll take your word for it.”

Sad

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, if you don't know, then you don't know.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You're right, I don't know how you are defining and measuring "complexity". Do you know?

 

[Jose Fly]

No, not that extreme.

Then I guess I'm still not clear on why you posted the paper in the first place.

But it certainly doesn’t agree that “evolutionary mechanisms have already explained the complexity of life.”

That is inaccurate.

I agree that it's inaccurate to say "evolutionary mechanisms have explained every type of complexity that's existed on earth", but it's just as inaccurate to say "evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain any examples of complexity at all".

Again, I suggest you do your best to avoid black/white thinking.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....it's just as inaccurate to say "evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain any examples of complexity at all".

Well then, you tell me: what complexity, exactly, originating solely through natural Darwinian mechanisms, has been verified conclusively?

Bacteria, such as arthrobacter, evolved the ability to eat nylon through environmental pressures....

Some strains of bacteria have become antibiotic - resistant....

?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then, you tell me: what complexity, exactly, originating solely through natural Darwinian mechanisms, has been verified conclusively?

Bacteria, such as arthrobacter, evolved the ability to eat nylon through environmental pressures....

Some strains of bacteria have become antibiotic - resistant....

?

Until you can give a working definition of what you mean by "complexity" no one can answer your question. Also your question indicates that you do not understand how science is done in the first place.

Here is a simple fact, until you can come up with a testable hypothesis, that means you would need a proper test that could conceivably refute your beliefs, you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

In case you wonder what I mean by "proper test" that means that your concept would have to be refutable on its own merits. You cannot refer to another idea and say something on the order of "if evolution is proven that would show me to be wrong". Your concept needs to pass or fail on its own merits, not based on how some other concept passes or fails.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Here is a simple fact, until you can come up with a testable hypothesis, that means you would need a proper test that could conceivably refute your beliefs, you do not have any scientific evidence for your beliefs.

Don’t even go there.
What’s the testable hypothesis for ambulocetus being the forerunner of whales?

Science ventures into the field of philosophy all the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t even go there.
What’s the testable hypothesis for ambulocetus being the forerunner of whales?

Science ventures into the field of philosophy all the time.

Most of the tests would need to be applied before it was analyzed. For example a clear refutation would be if it did not have a whales inner ear. That after all was how pakicetus was first recognized to be a likely whale ancestor. Try to think of it rationally. If it was not an evolutionary product there would be no "need" for it to have that ear. Other sea mammals such as seals and dugongs do not have whale ears.

Let me remind you that just because you cannot think of a valid test that does not mean that others cannot. I am sure that there are others as well, but that was the first and most immediate test that came to mind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is the human body complex? No, let me restate, is the human body not much much more complex than the human robot?

Good-Ole-Rebel

Why does that matter? Why do you think complexity requires design? Just because a particular thing that is complex is a result of design doesn't mean that all things that are complex are a result of design.

Do you not see the flaw in your logic?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Why does that matter? Why do you think complexity requires design? Just because a particular thing that is complex is a result of design doesn't mean that all things that are complex are a result of design.

Do you not see the flaw in your logic?

It was an observation. I see no flaw in it. Makes sense to me.

Good-Ole-Rebel