The flaws in Intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

So callins has two oposite opinions? Lol

According to what you posted. Not that it is uncommon for you to post contradictory information.

 

[Bear Wild]

That dont account for the ARRIVAL of information in the first place. Why dont you see this? This should be so easy to see.

How can you select what isnt there yet? Selection dont account for whats not there yet. Come on, common sense!



Selection and adaptation dont account for the arrival. You ant have selection and adaptation BEFORE the arrival of the organism first!

I just told you there is already evidence of how DNA could develop in prolife conditions on earth. Once formed you have what you need for life to develop and there is also evidence of how lipid membranes could form. That is far more evidence that there is to show that and intelligent designer visited earth and magically created life.

 

[Jollybear]

You have not given anything that cannot be explained by natural forces. What is your very best evidence that is undeniably intelligent design. We already know that the genetic code is changed and influenced by natural factors so you have to do better than just say DNA. Research has already shown how the pyrimidine base pairs developed in the prolife earth and there is evidence how they would polymerize to form sequences. So what is you very vest evidence?

No, none of that conjecture about origins of DNA and life is evidence that natural forces did it. Thats just "naturalism of the gaps" and it relies astronomically upon chance.

 

[Jollybear]

I just told you there is already evidence of how DNA could develop in prolife conditions on earth. Once formed you have what you need for life to develop and there is also evidence of how lipid membranes could form. That is far more evidence that there is to show that and intelligent designer visited earth and magically created life.

This relies on chance fare too much.

Chance dont even exist by the way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That dont account for the ARRIVAL of information in the first place. Why dont you see this? This should be so easy to see.

How can you select what isnt there yet? Selection dont account for whats not there yet. Come on, common sense!



Selection and adaptation dont account for the arrival. You cant have selection and adaptation BEFORE the arrival of the organism first!

Information did not arrive like it was sitting somewhere waiting to show up. Information is generated by cause and effect. Please explain how information is sitting around waiting to show up somewhere.

He is talking about evolution. From a scientific position, the origin of life is unknown at this time.

Do you think people selected the variation that lead to the evolution of life. Could you explain this further and provide examples. Could you explain how people were there with the first living things?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This relies on chance fare too much.

Chance dont even exist by the way.

Can you explain this claim and demonstrate how chance does operate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, none of that conjecture about origins of DNA and life is evidence that natural forces did it. Thats just "naturalism of the gaps" and it relies astronomically upon chance.

Could you provide the evidence that supports your claim that chance has a low probability of operating in origin space?

 

[Jollybear]

Information did not arrive like it was sitting somewhere waiting to show up. Information is generated by cause and effect. Please explain how information is sitting around waiting to show up somewhere.

He is talking about evolution. From a scientific position, the origin of life is unknown at this time.

Do you think people selected the variation that lead to the evolution of life. Could you explain this further and provide examples. Could you explain how people were there with the first living things?

Glad you admit theres no evidence that natural forces did it in the origins, fox dont say that. Why dont you get in the ring with him on it. Muno emono, lol.

 

[Bear Wild]

Once the first living things with the capability to reproduce and pass on heritable variation existed, radiation into what must have been numerous niches is easily understandable.

Yet that is ignored by proponent of ID. I cannot understand why they need to create something that has no evidence for when the evidence for 200 years continually supports the theory of evolution and amazingly supports Darwin's theory when he did not have what is understood today. But this is what happened with plate tectonics. The idea originally proposed has only grown stronger with the accumulating evidence. I guess if you are and ID proponent all you can do is keep repeating the same claims since you have nothing else to support what you say.

 

[Jollybear]

Could you provide the evidence that supports your claim that chance has a low probability of operating in origin space?

Information comes from intelligence. All evidence and experience reveal that. No experience reveals the oposite. Period.

Chance creating coded information to create all complex life forms is nill.

 

[Jollybear]

Yet that is ignored by proponent of ID. I cannot understand why they need to create something that has no evidence for when the evidence for 200 years continually supports the theory of evolution and amazingly supports Darwin's theory when he did not have what is understood today. But this is what happened with plate tectonics. The idea originally proposed has only grown stronger with the accumulating evidence. I guess if you are and ID proponent all you can do is keep repeating the same claims since you have nothing else to support what you say.

Why keep beating the strawman? None of this accounts for the arrival of the organisms in the first place.

 

[Bear Wild]

Glad you admit theres no evidence that natural forces did it in the origins, fox dont say that. Why dont you get in the ring with him on it. Muno emono, lol.

Evolution is supported but so is the origin of the nucleotides that formed DNA. It may not have the same degree of support that evolution does but there is increasing evidence to show how these components formed. Once life started as we consider life to be then the theory of evolution supports the development of all the complex biological structures we have now without a designer involvement.

 

[Bear Wild]

Why keep beating the strawman? None of this accounts for the arrival of the organisms in the first place.

But it does and no accounts for a ID arrival. One has evidence the other does not. No scarecrows needed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why keep beating the strawman? None of this accounts for the arrival of the organisms in the first place.

Can you provide evidence and support for your claim that what he has posted is a straw man argument? If you say they are, you must have some reason for saying so. It is not just sour grapes is it?

 

[Jollybear]

But it does and no accounts for a ID arrival. One has evidence the other does not. No scarecrows needed.

How does selection, adaptation account for the origin?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evidence, collins admits it, so your not like him.

Theres a difference between proof and evidence.

You have the opinion of a person that happens to be a scientist and he is not claiming that he has scientific evidence. Really, he is just saying that he believes.

I am so like him.

There is a similarity between proof and evidence in the context of this discussion. It is the fact that you have neither.

 

[Bear Wild]

How does selection, adaptation account for the origin?

It doesn't they are separate events. Evolution theory explains the progression of life through selection and adaptation. Abiogenesis is explained by the interaction of energy and matter in the development of more complex organic compounds as demonstrated in the scientific literature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How does selection, adaptation account for the origin?

Selection and adaptation are part of the theory of biological evolution, but there may be similar processes that took place in a sort of chemical evolution. Have you had much chemistry? What are you basing your claims regarding chemistry on?

 

[Jollybear]

You have the opinion of a person that happens to be a scientist and he is not claiming that he has scientific evidence. Really, he is just saying that he believes.

I am so like him.

There is a similarity between proof and evidence in the context of this discussion. It is the fact that you have neither.

I gave you the quotes from collins stating he said evidence, design and fine tuning! Whats the matter with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, if you take out any VITAL parts, it does not work any more.

Just like our bodies, if you take off a finger, youl be ok, but if you take out your heart, your dead.

This is why it fails. It may not work as a flagellum but it still works. It still functions for the organism. A mistake that many ID followers make is to assume that the flagellum was a goal when it was merely a result.