The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

There you go! "could be" "possibly" "Gene duplication allows one copy to keep doing the essential work while the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function." You are so duped! "While the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function? You cant be serious and say this with a straight face right? You know nothing of genetics or you wouldn't make such a preposterous statement like this! Whatever!

we can see that various genes did mutate. And if you do not understand the language of science you only make yourself look bad by attempting to use your lack of understanding as a weapon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"
"well, we are not concerned with how life started"
If that is something that atheists always say, then it should be easy for you to provide a reliable source for this quote."
Wake up!

No, it is not something atheists say. And please lay off the smilies. We already know that you do not understand the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I claim Intelligent Design is a much better way to understand the world in which we live. I understand evolution deals with living things evolving through natural selection and mutation, but that is not answering the bombardier beetle dilemma. Reread my post...think about what I posted...respond accordingly.

There is no scientific evidence for intelligent design. Why would any rational person believe it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Would you say this is correct?
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Nope. Evolution is about the change of species over time. Abiogenesis is a completely separate area of study and theory.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There you go! "could be" "possibly" "Gene duplication allows one copy to keep doing the essential work while the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function." You are so duped! "While the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function? You cant be serious and say this with a straight face right? You know nothing of genetics or you wouldn't make such a preposterous statement like this! Whatever!

Perfectly valid scientific terms.

 

[He has Risen!]

Wow, such denial. Let's go over gene duplication and further mutation. When a gene is duplicated that could be claimed not to be "New information". But once that does occur and it has been observed many times, then that allows a process that originally was a very knotty problem for evolution to occur. The question wass how does a key gene undergo evolution? If a bad mutation occurs that gene will not function as it should and the organism will die. Gene duplication changes all of that . Gene duplication allows one copy to keep doing the essential work while the other is free to mutate and possibly create a new function.

And yes, by definition, when a gene duplicates and one gene mutates that is "New information". That gene is different from the old one, therefore good or bad it is new information. I am pretty sure that this obvious correction will have to be made many many times.

Please show us an observed case of increased new information...maybe you are aware of a case that no one else is aware of. And please site the scientific law that would back up your position.

 

[He has Risen!]

Perfectly valid scientific terms.

There is a lot of blind speculation with terms like "possibly", "could have" , might have" and "may have". I can see the point that Rapture Era is saying even if you do not acknowledge it as a very valid point.

 

[He has Risen!]

Nope. Evolution is about the change of species over time. Abiogenesis is a completely separate area of study and theory.

What was the title of Darwins book..."On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

 

[He has Risen!]

If you could not understand it why didn't you say so?

The problem is Rapture Era seems to understands evolution all too well, but you do not seem to understand the basic problems with it or at least do not admit to the problems, if you did why don't you tell us some of the difficulties evolution has as a theory and what we know by observation.

 

[He has Risen!]

Is it possible that you can point to something that is not inanimate, and created by an intelligent mind? If you are talking about the 99.999% of past living failures, then I would hold off on assigning anyone credit for being intelligent.

Hard to follow what you wrote, please ask again. By saying "not inanimate" you are using a double negative which means you have just stated "not not alive". So it is hard for me to understand your point. Also give me an example of a past failure because scientist today cannot even make a single cell on their own from scratch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please show us an observed case of increased new information...maybe you are aware of a case that no one else is aware of. And please site the scientific law that would back up your position.

I gave you examples. We do not need to see it take place to know that it happened. One does not need to see a tree get sawn down to realize that is what happened. The evidence makes it clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the title of Darwins book..."On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

It was about how new species arose. The origin of species. It is not about the first species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is Rapture Era seems to understands evolution all too well, but you do not seem to understand the basic problems with it or at least do not admit to the problems, if you did why don't you tell us some of the difficulties evolution has as a theory and what we know by observation.

No, I do not think that he is a liar. It is clear that he has a very very poor understanding, just as you do.

What are these supposed problems? What he brought up was not a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a lot of blind speculation with terms like "possibly", "could have" , might have" and "may have". I can see the point that Rapture Era is saying even if you do not acknowledge it as a very valid point.

Nope, now you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of how science is done and now you need to prove that there was speculation.

 

[He has Risen!]

No, I do not think that he is a liar. It is clear that he has a very very poor understanding, just as you do.

What are these supposed problems? What he brought up was not a problem.

Just to make you aware of the problems of evolution, below are links to articles that might educate you if you really want to understand the problems with evolution.

Evolution


The Biggest Problems for Evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to make you aware of the problems of evolution, below are links to articles that might educate you if you really want to understand the problems with evolution.

Evolution


The Biggest Problems for Evolution

Do you have any non-comedy sites? Both of those sites cannot be used in a scientific debate since they require their workers to promise not to use the scientific method.

 

[He has Risen!]

Do you have any non-comedy sites? Both of those sites cannot be used in a scientific debate since they require their workers to promise not to use the scientific method.

Just reply to the argument without the ad hominem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just reply to the argument without the ad hominem.

there was no ad hominem. I only requested reliable sources. You provide sources that are a joke.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Hard to follow what you wrote, please ask again. By saying "not inanimate" you are using a double negative which means you have just stated "not not alive". So it is hard for me to understand your point. Also give me an example of a past failure because scientist today cannot even make a single cell on their own from scratch.

My apologies. I meant to say "...not AN inanimate(non-living) object, that was created by an intelligent mind. Why do ID proponents always sight human-created inanimate designs, to support an intelligence behind animate biological life? This is a false equivocation fallacy, that will again lead to an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy.

My question was, can you directly point to a nexus between a living organism and an Intelligent Designer? The argument that if humans are not intelligent enough or capable of creating "intelligent" life(a cell), and only something greater and more intelligent than humans could have done it, will become just another argument from ignorance. Can you rule out all other possible scientific alternatives, before depositing a supernatural alternative? No. Accepting any supernatural explanations would create more questions with the same answer to fit all, namely "God just did it". Shall we simply replace the gene theory, Evolution, or the chemical evolution, with a supernatural bookmark? Shall we just ignore and dismiss all evidence and data received from all related multi-disciplines? This argument is similar to, if we cannot comprehend the nature of God with our brain, then He must exist outside of the brain. Since only two options exist(conceptual or real), then God must exist in reality. Just more creative logic to appease ones presuppositions. So, before you assign credit to the supernatural, you must first demonstrate that the supernatural even exists. Failing that, you must demonstrate that any supernatural, paranormal, or metaphysical event has, or can happen. Failing that, you need to provide a logical argument for the existence of an ID that is fallacy-free. Or, you can do what all fundamentalist ID'ers do when they are buried up to their neck in facts and data. They simply pivot, ignore, divert, deny, and parrot ID rote-learned soundbites. That is, until they are completely buried and dissapear, or the gene pool has weeded out this totally unnecessary gene.

All biological life forms are flawed in some way. Some more than others. Shall I point out all the flaws in our design that have produced vestigial organs, faulty genes, mortality, energy inefficiencies, poor immunity, catabolic processes, and unfavorable mutations? Certainly not a designed by any divine intelligence. More like a designed by natural forces, as a result of evolutionary and environmental trial and error. What do you think the fossil record of extinct species represent? Do you think they represent the success stories like the crocs, turtles, and sharks? Do you think the extinction of the Dodo bird, the wooly mammoth, the thylacine, the dinosaurs, and the 500 other species in the last century, were simply caused by designed faults? Do you think the ability to adapt to a changing environment should have been included in the design?

So, my question is simple. Name me ONE biological living system that you can demonstrate was designed by a supernatural intelligent designer? Just one, other than the humble jellyfish(it is immortal) will do? Otherwise, because man created a pocket watch, does not mean that God created man.

 

[Rapture Era]

Just reply to the argument without the ad hominem.

Hhr,
Are you starting to see the pattern here? I'm not going to comment on all of your responses but I will say they are all right on point. Subduction Zone, keeps saying we dont understand science and evolution And yet fails to have any meaningful answers to your or my questions other than we dont understand science and bla bla bla
Ravi Zacharias was dead on when he quoted Richard Dawkins when asked, how should we respond to religious people? He said, just mock them, just ridicule them. This is what you see here, no attempt to carry on an intellectual dialog (which I tried by asking where did the information in the cells come from). One more thing, and this is remarkable! When I posed the question:

Would you say this is correct?

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

One, answered: "Nope. Evolution is about the change of species over time. Abiogenesis is a completely separate area of study and theory."

ecco and subduction zone? Crickets

I took the above "Misconception/Correction off of an evolutionary web site "your one-stop source for information on evolution." Devoted to instruct everyone of the proper understanding of evolution! Under the "Correction" it states, "Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins." You see, they make this statement but have ZERO to explain it!

I was asked to support my statement about atheists that say they are not interested in how life got started only after. Well, here it is! Right off of an evolutionary web site dedicated to that thinking! Restating the above quote: "Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes."
"afterwards it branched and diversified" Total and complete speculation! Atheistic scientists have nothing meaningful to provide in this area! Nor do they have anything about the processes because HEY! IT DIDNT HAPPEN! As I have said before, it's pretty hard to prove something that never happened! And they call us intellectual misfits! Keep beating that dead horse boys and girls until there is nothing left of it! And when that happens, and it pretty much already has, they will keep swinging that bat hoping for a different result! And we know the name for that kind of thinking!