Some questions about evolution.

[johnhanks]

Science should be a search for evidence.

And so it is. But once again, the only 'evidence' you present for ID is the unsupported assertion that living organisms are too complex to have arisen without supernatural intervention. This is not evidence, rusra: it's an expression of your personal opinion.

Saying that intelligent design is not scientific is a cop-out...

No, it's a statement of fact. ID offers no evidence in its support, just the unsupported assertion I referred to above; it is not testable; and it offers no mechanism by which it is supposed to operate.

Houses and mouse traps don't build themselves. Are you saying that belief in an intelligent designer of a house is unscientific?

No, because we have lots of observational evidence that houses arise that way. That they do so does not preclude a naturalistic origin for biomolecules and cells. Is it really your view that 'Houses can't build themselves: therefore cells can't have arisen without a designer' comprises unassailable logic?

 

[jarofthoughts]

The mechanisms described by 'science' have not been proven to exist.

Wrong word.
Proof is not used in science, except in the enclosed realm of mathematics.
The mechanism are, however, overwhelmingly supported by observable evidence.

Saying great complexity can arise from simple mechanisms doesn't make it so.

Good thing ToE shows exactly how that happens then and supports it with tons of evidence.

ToE advocates make claims that have been challenged by scientists who disagree with their claims, and present evidence for their views.

What evidence? So far I have seen or heard of no evidence that would refute or disprove ToE. If you have any that amounts to more than opinion, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Calling intelligent design "magic" is a way to ridicule and misrepresent what ID is.

Seeing as ID explains no mechanism by which this could have happened, magic is the only proper word for it.
"It just happened" = Magic

And claiming complex objects that are nonliving cannot arise by chance, but infinitely more complex living things can, is special pleading and without basis.

I don't recall anyone claiming that complex non-living things cannot arrise by chance, although chance is the wrong word for it. Generally we know which mechanisms are at work, and there are plenty of non-living complex things that have arrisen naturally and without a designer.

 

[rusra02]

And so it is. But once again, the only 'evidence' you present for ID is the unsupported assertion that living organisms are too complex to have arisen without supernatural intervention. This is not evidence, rusra: it's an expression of your personal opinion.
No, it's a statement of fact. ID offers no evidence in its support, just the unsupported assertion I referred to above; it is not testable; and it offers no mechanism by which it is supposed to operate.
No, because we have lots of observational evidence that houses arise that way. That they do so does not preclude a naturalistic origin for biomolecules and cells. Is it really your view that 'Houses can't build themselves: therefore cells can't have arisen without a designer' comprises unassailable logic?

What do the facts show? Physical laws dictate the natural tendency is for order to break down. To build a house, one must intelligently direct energy. The same is true of building anything. ANYTHING. Evolutionists do not simply claim that somehow a living cell "came to life" unassisted, (some claim aliens may have seeded life on earth), but say that completely without intelligent direction, ALL living things came into existence. Scientists can barely begin to understand the complexity in a single cell, yet blithely attribute the existence of all things to random events unaided by any intelligence. Houses require builders. Design requires a designer. No one (sane and honest) would see a name crudely carved in a tree and attribute it to chance events. All living things with their incredible abilities display engineering skills men cannot fully understand, much less create. The fact we didn't see God do it is not a valid reason for not following the evidence to it's logical conclusion, any more than not seeing someone carve his name in a tree means no one did that, and the name appeared via a "naturalistic origin". (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[rusra02]

Wrong word.
Proof is not used in science, except in the enclosed realm of mathematics.
The mechanism are, however, overwhelmingly supported by observable evidence.



Good thing ToE shows exactly how that happens then and supports it with tons of evidence.



What evidence? So far I have seen or heard of no evidence that would refute or disprove ToE. If you have any that amounts to more than opinion, I would be very interested in seeing it.



Seeing as ID explains no mechanism by which this could have happened, magic is the only proper word for it.
"It just happened" = Magic



I don't recall anyone claiming that complex non-living things cannot arrise by chance, although chance is the wrong word for it. Generally we know which mechanisms are at work, and there are plenty of non-living complex things that have arrisen naturally and without a designer.

I understand you don't agree with scientists and millions of others who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God. The evidence for both sides of this issue has been presented at length, and is generally available to anyone interested to examine. (But you knew that, didn't you?)
Of course you are wrong in saying people who believe in ID "explain no mechanism by which this could have happened." Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer, one with unlimited intelligence and power. Hebrews 3:4 simply states the mechanism for ID; "He that constructed all things is God." Genesis chapter one describes in simple terms how he did it. (Proverbs 3:19)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The fact we didn't see God do it is not a valid reason for not following the evidence to it's logical conclusion, any more than not seeing someone carve his name in a tree means no one did that, and the name appeared via a "naturalistic origin". (Hebrews 3:4)

 

[jarofthoughts]

I understand you don't agree with scientists and millions of others who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God.

I assume you never checked out the link I provided earlier to Project Steve.
In short, it is a project to counter the list of 500 hundred so called "scientists"' who oppose Evolution, a list that falls into shambles upon closer inspection seeing as several of the "scientists" turn out to be engineers, dentists and others who have absolutely no connection to the science of Biological Evolution.
And yet, just to show that even if that was the case (and to poke fun at the ridiculousness of even doing such a thing), the list is hardly impressive, Project Steve now has 1172 actual biologists who support ToE, all with the added obstacle of having to be called 'Steve".
Link: Project Steve | NCSE
As for the 'millions' of uneducated ignorant people who do not 'believe' in Evolution, I couldn't care less what they think. This is not a popularity contest. Either put up (the evidence) or shut up. That is how science works and it has served us pretty well so far.

The evidence for both sides of this issue has been presented at length, and is generally available to anyone interested to examine. (But you knew that, didn't you?)

Strange then that I have never seen any evidence in favour of Creationism/ID.
Care to provide it?

Of course you are wrong in saying people who believe in ID "explain no mechanism by which this could have happened." Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer, one with unlimited intelligence and power. Hebrews 3:4 simply states the mechanism for ID; "He that constructed all things is God." Genesis chapter one describes in simple terms how he did it. (Proverbs 3:19)

In other words; Magic.
Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not an explanation and it is most certainly not a mechanism, no matter how wide a definition you use.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do the facts show? Physical laws dictate the natural tendency is for order to break down. To build a house, one must intelligently direct energy. The same is true of building anything. ANYTHING. Evolutionists do not simply claim that somehow a living cell "came to life" unassisted, (some claim aliens may have seeded life on earth), but say that completely without intelligent direction, ALL living things came into existence. Scientists can barely begin to understand the complexity in a single cell, yet blithely attribute the existence of all things to random events unaided by any intelligence. Houses require builders.

I really shouldn't have to point this out, but:

Living systems are not houses.

Honestly, do you really believe comparing something that we know is the result of design to something that we do not yet understand the cause of is honest? I assure you, it is not. No matter how many times you make a false, uninformed analogy, it is still false and uninformed. The fact is that we do not yet know - naturalistic or otherwise - the initial cause of life, and your assumption that life is inherently designed is presumptive and ultimately flawed. What we do know is that 1) the proteins which are required for life can be formed through unguided, naturalistic methods, 2) such methods can be reproduced by imitating early earth conditions, 3) life reproduces naturally, without inherent design, 4) there has never been any instance of any life form of any kind ever magically appearing via the divination of some divine agency - or indeed any evidence of any such agency existing in any form whatsoever.

Design requires a designer.

That's based on the a-priori assumption that life is inherently designed.

Here's a question for you. Let's say I present you with two objects. Neither object you have ever seen before, and neither object you have been appraised of the origin of. I tell you that one of the objects is designed and the other occurred naturally and give you the task of trying to determine which is which. How, exactly, do you go about determining which of the two objects is designed and which occurred naturally? What criteria do you use to qualify either position?

No one (sane and honest) would see a name crudely carved in a tree and attribute it to chance events.

Names crudely carved in trees do not naturally replicate or evolve. Stop the false analogies, we are talking about life.

All living things with their incredible abilities display engineering skills men cannot fully understand, much less create.

And yet you keep comparing life to houses and carvings in trees. If life is so much more complicated, then surely it is feasible that the method by which life formed is also far more complicated than just "God did it". Sounds reasonable, no?

The fact we didn't see God do it is not a valid reason for not following the evidence to it's logical conclusion,

What evidence?

any more than not seeing someone carve his name in a tree means no one did that, and the name appeared via a "naturalistic origin". (Hebrews 3:4)

If you cannot tell the difference between naturally occurring systems and graffiti, that's your problem. Not ours.

 

[McBell]

All this, as I had responded to assertion such as the following:



Which is hogwash given latest round of responses that have nothing more to say than the redundant claim of 'tis observable fact it tis and dats all you need ta know. Now go lie under apple tree and let apple hit u in face, so we can laugh at u."

Yet you are still doing nothing more than playing semantics games as though winning will somehow change the facts of Evolution.

 

[McBell]

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true.

You would do good to heed your own advice.

Claiming evolution is an observable fact over and over will not make it so.

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true.

Facts speak for themselves.
The fact that you are much more interested in your fantasy over the facts speaks volumes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I understand you don't agree with scientists and millions of others who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God.

I know you have been asked this before, but...

Provide a list of accredited biologists who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God, and can provide the empirical and objective evidence for their "Theory of Creation".

 

[Tristesse]

Do you really believe that whether a single human cell gives evidence of design is not testable or observable? But, I forget, "We cannot let a divine foot in the door". (Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin, speaking of ToE advocates among scientists.)

No, I don't think it would be evidence of design at all. Human cell's are capable of reproducing, they are naturally occuring.

 

[painted wolf]

Maybe he thinks when two houses love each other very much the get together and the stork brings them a shed of their very own to raise.

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

Maybe he thinks when two houses love each other very much the get together and the stork brings them a shed of their very own to raise.

wa:do

That would save housing developers a lot of money, naturally occuring houses.

 

[johnhanks]

What do the facts show? Physical laws dictate the natural tendency is for order to break down.

If this is a reference to the second law of thermodynamics, it's a very crude and incomplete one. Increase in the total entropy of a closed system may be coupled to reduced entropy in part of the system. Living organisms are not closed systems.

To build a house, one must intelligently direct energy. The same is true of building anything. ANYTHING.

Someone, surely, must at some time have pointed out to you that repeating a claim in capitals doesn't make it any truer. Is a snowflake assembled by 'intelligently directed energy'?

Evolutionists do not simply claim that somehow a living cell "came to life" unassisted, (some claim aliens may have seeded life on earth), but say that completely without intelligent direction, ALL living things came into existence.

Those working in the field of abiogenesis certainly don't claim that anything like a modern cell just "came to life" in a single step.

Scientists can barely begin to understand the complexity in a single cell, yet blithely attribute the existence of all things to random events unaided by any intelligence. Houses require builders. Design requires a designer. No one (sane and honest) would see a name crudely carved in a tree and attribute it to chance events. All living things with their incredible abilities display engineering skills men cannot fully understand, much less create. The fact we didn't see God do it is not a valid reason for not following the evidence to it's logical conclusion, any more than not seeing someone carve his name in a tree means no one did that, and the name appeared via a "naturalistic origin". (Hebrews 3:4)

I don't think I can improve on ImmortalFlame's response here. Hats off to him/her.

 

[Alceste]

So far, the only evidence rusra02 has brought to the table is JW propaganda and the discredited movie "expelled". He seems to think his evidence is superior in quality to every biology-related research paper published in the past century.

After such an outrageous display of cherry picking, I've concluded he must desperately want to believe these lies - much more than he wants to know about the world. Nothing is going to get through to him. That's sad.

 

[rusra02]

Maybe he thinks when two houses love each other very much the get together and the stork brings them a shed of their very own to raise.

wa:do

No, I believe each house had an intelligent builder. (Hebrews 3:4) To the contrary, it appears the ToE advocates believe non-living material got together and produced a living cell somehow, even though this is statistically impossible. But thanks for the ridicule. It clearly displays the arrogance displayed by so many ToE apologists.

 

[Tristesse]

No, I believe each house had an intelligent builder. (Hebrews 3:4) To the contrary, it appears the ToE advocates believe non-living material got together and produced a living cell somehow, even though this is statistically impossible. But thanks for the ridicule. It clearly displays the arrogance displayed by so many ToE apologists.

Do you understand the difference between a house and a living organism and why that analogy is so faulty?

 

[rusra02]

So far, the only evidence rusra02 has brought to the table is JW propaganda and the discredited movie "expelled". He seems to think his evidence is superior in quality to every biology-related research paper published in the past century.

After such an outrageous display of cherry picking, I've concluded he must desperately want to believe these lies - much more than he wants to know about the world. Nothing is going to get through to him. That's sad.

I would just reiterate that each person should examine the evidence for and against evolution versus creation for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. It is sad so many have been taken in by the ToE propoganda machine.

 

[Photonic]

I don't see God building any houses Rusra, if that's your argument for intelligent direction of energy.,

 

[Dirty Penguin]

it appears the ToE advocates believe non-living material got together and produced a living cell somehow, even though this is statistically impossible.

Your very own bible advocates this. This does nothing but hurt your credibility...you know?