(October 29, 2015 at 10:29 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I will not disagree with the possibility that some Creator "set up" the laws of the universe so that it would unfold in a manner by which the particles interacted in such a way as to produce life by natural processes. We know what almost all of those natural processes are, now. We know that evolution is a completely-unguided process that only appears orderly to our hunter-gatherer pattern seeking brains because of our inferences about agency.

When you argue that "life is complex, so God", it tells me you do not understand biology at all, and are therefore mistaken when you say that you accept evolution. You do not know what evolution is, what Rhythm correctly calls "The Modern Synthesis" (Darwin's theory, modified for the discovery of genetics, essentially). It's okay! Just learn it before you tell us that "life is complex so goddidit".

yes ill learn more about evolution im not sure why some people are convinced that learning more about evolution is going to convince me that evolution was not intelligently set up i think it would only increase my belief that it could only be intelligently organized to see actually how complex it actually is but thats ok . im glad some biologists are open to the possibility that an intelligent design could have put evolution into motion and im sure some biologists believe in God people have different opinions even scientists .

Well, biologists do have the highest percentage of atheists of any of the sciences. Above 75% I believe.

You may want to start with some Youtube videos by a scientist that goes by the name Potholer54. They are only about 10 minutes each, and might be helpful.

he has a very good series that starts here with the origin of the universe, and lead up to evolution. And no where does he ever state that organisms "told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development".

(October 29, 2015 at 10:31 pm)Hmmm? Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Those are neat videos, Hmmm?, thanks for sharing it. Sounds a little woo-ish at the end, but I don't actually disagree with what he has to say about changing our frame of reference about life, here on earth. But I liked how he presented the physics element.

Yeah, I don't know what woo-ish means, but I almost didn't post the video because of the reference to the government at the end. (I'm thinking that maybe was the woo)...either way, I'm gonna Google it.

I was referring to the semi-spiritualism near the end, during the part about government, etc. It's sweet, and well said, but it's still a bit of the woo-woo, or just woo for short.
http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html

(October 29, 2015 at 9:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 9:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design . your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ? thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.

Oh bloody hell!

Name one thing in evolution, anywhere along the process, that required an intelligent designer. 

Because the best minds on the planet, who have dedicated their lives to the study of biology, who actually work in the field on a daily basis, with the most advanced tools ever built by humans, are not finding it. 

molecules -> self replicating molecules -> self replicating RNA enzymes -> DNA -> simple cells -> simple multi-cell organisms -> the vast variation of life we see today.

Where in that process does your intelligent designer fit? And what did it actually do?

your just assuming that an intelligent designer isnt required and that lifeforms determine their own characteristics and growth . how can an organism decide its own individual development ? it just develops naturally without thought of its own regarding it.

---

(October 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 7:25 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: you also only have opinions

Sure I do. But my opinions are based on the current state of scientific knowledge. I'm not making up some non-materialistic stuff that you're supposed to accept, because "nobody really knows anything".  And I haven't presented any of my opinions here, pretending they're evidence - that's what you've been doing. You're the one claiming that because you think nature (that you know NOTHING about) is "amazing - that means there's a god. That's your opinion - as stupid and uninformed as it is. What is "my opinion" - could you quote it, please? Or do you admit, that you are full of sh*t and just saying anything to "save face", as futile an effort as that is?... 

The fact that you recon something to be one way or another is meaningless? That's not an opinion, that's just how science works. It's called argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity. Let me repeat it again - your opinion is worthless to humanity, as far as discovery of the laws of physics and origin of universe is concerned. It's just some touchy-feely nonsense, that makes you feel "special" and that you couldn't communicate to anyone, if your life depended on it. Get over yourself.

when did i ever claim or suggest that my opinions were evidence ?

(October 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: Where in that process does your intelligent designer fit? And what did it actually do?

your just assuming that an intelligent designer isnt required and that lifeforms determine their own characteristics and growth . how can an organism decide its own individual development ? it just develops naturally without thought of its own regarding it.

You should have stopped at "isn't required". Everything after "and" is bullshit.

No organism does that. And you know it.

Our DNA codes for how we develop. We have no say in what DNA we inherit, and how it tells our body to develop. We have nothing to do with it; we're just along for the ride. If during that ride, our DNA has told our bodies to develop in such a way that we are not as suited to the environment or to the reproductive process as everyone else, we'll have fewer offspring to pass on that program to. 

As soon as you say it's "decide" versus "without thought", it tells us that you're confusing the organism with its DNA program. The DNA operates on the laws of chemistry and probability, nothing more. The rest is superfluous.

Yeah but RS, what the hell do you know? You're just a biologist.

(October 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 9:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i believe in evolution and modern synthesis , and i believe both were created by intelligent design .

No, you clearly don't believe in evolution or modern synth...you clearly don't know what either of them are.  You think it's something that wizards have done to us, and the method by which magic was achieved.....  Fact.  

Quote:your opinion is that intelligent design has nothing to do with evolution and synthesis right ?

That is the conclusion of Modern Synth, not my opinion.  That these things, x, y, and z..account for the observations.  There is no line in the theory that states.  "And also god, maybe".  Modern Synth is science, intelligent design is not, they have nothing to do with each other.  Fact.

Quote:thats an opinion and you have no evidence for that other than your theory that evolution and synthesis doesnt require intelligence to create it they just create themselves out of nothing . your argument is based on theory and opinion , noone is arguing evolution or synthesis but instead what started it.

They -don't- require intelligence.  I keep telling you that this "out of nothing" bullshit has nothing to do with me..but you keep typing it, shitposter.  -You- are arguing against evolution and Synth.... when you refer to what it explains, as though it were evidence of something else....shitposter.......  Fact.

No one has to provide you with any proof against the unevidenced, or for some position that they do not hold.  No one.  You are, again, assuming wrong...about logic.

i agree completely noone has provided me any proof that intelligent design did not contribute to evolution , and since i also cannot provide proof of my opinion as i said from the beginning i couldnt i wonder why the debate has lasted this long since both have no evidence and only opinion i suppose we can both just repeat and repeat over and over again the reasons why we have our opinions but i dont know why we would do that

(October 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: your just assuming that an intelligent designer isnt required and that lifeforms determine their own characteristics and growth . how can an organism decide its own individual development ? it just develops naturally without thought of its own regarding it.

Please learn basic evolution. 

If you think that any biologist or any evidence states that "an organism decide its own individual development ? it just develops naturally without thought of its own regarding it", you know less than nothing about evolution. 

As I stated before, you are so wrong, you are not even wrong. 

Please watch the Youtube vids by Potholer54. His 'Evolution made easy" will explain how far from understanding evolution you are.

Environmental pressure and the drive to survive and reproduce is all that is needed to drive evolution. 


[/quote]

(October 29, 2015 at 10:20 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i have not seen any kind of evidence that an intelligent being could not have put into motion evolution on the earth all youve provided is your opinion that it doesnt need it . you dont have any proof there is not an intelligent creator that is responsible for the evolution of life . reproduction and life even single celled organisms develop . they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ? thats your opinion you do not know

So, you believe things until they are proven false? How do you know when to stop?

The following things have never been prove false: alien abductions, bigfoot, Chupacabra, tarot card readings, ancient aliens and many more. Do you believe them?

Once again, I'm sure not for the last time, we do not have to provide evidence for the nonexistence of the entity that you are claiming exists. You have the burden of proof.

We are not claiming to know that the entity you believe does not exist. Only that there is no justification to believe it does exist.

Quote: they told themselves how to develop they planned and then created their own course of development ?

That is not even  close to being in the same ballpark of what evolution actually states. If this is your understanding of evolution, no wonder you think it needs an intelligent being.

Seriously, your understanding of evolution is laughable.

why do you keep saying i have the burden of proof when im not trying to convince anyone of my opinion im just giving my opinion i dont care if you believe me or not just commenting on the OP, the one bringing the challenge is responsible to bring proof to the contrary but you dont have proof  your just challenging my opinion with your opinion .

(October 29, 2015 at 10:58 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, you clearly don't believe in evolution or modern synth...you clearly don't know what either of them are.  You think it's something that wizards have done to us, and the method by which magic was achieved.....  Fact.  
That is the conclusion of Modern Synth, not my opinion.  That these things, x, y, and z..account for the observations.  There is no line in the theory that states.  "And also god, maybe".  Modern Synth is science, intelligent design is not, they have nothing to do with each other.  Fact.

They -don't- require intelligence.  I keep telling you that this "out of nothing" bullshit has nothing to do with me..but you keep typing it, shitposter.  -You- are arguing against evolution and Synth.... when you refer to what it explains, as though it were evidence of something else....shitposter.......  Fact.

No one has to provide you with any proof against the unevidenced, or for some position that they do not hold.  No one.  You are, again, assuming wrong...about logic.

i agree completely noone has provided me any proof that intelligent design did not contribute to evolution , and since i also cannot provide proof of my opinion as i said from the beginning i couldnt i wonder why the debate has lasted this long since both have no evidence and only opinion i suppose we can both just repeat and repeat over and over again the reasons why we have our opinions but i dont know why we would do that

Please tell me that you are a bot. I don't want to believe anyone could be this dense. 

Everyone here has explained the burden of proof to you. Everyone here has pointed out the most basic logical flaws you make over and over.

(October 29, 2015 at 10:46 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: when did i ever claim or suggest that my opinions were evidence ?

Pretty much every time you're asked for evidence for your claims, or clarification of your argument. All you ever keep saying is "The world seems complex to me, so it must be designed."

(October 29, 2015 at 5:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: when i look around me i see complex organization everywhere doesnt appear random at all maybe you see disorder but i just dont

(October 29, 2015 at 4:25 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: evolution and BB theory both indicate a complex intelligent design based on organization and not chaos [...]

(October 29, 2015 at 5:50 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: yes im sure you dont think nature is amazing at all but i disagree and i think its very organized and coordinated and in my experience unthinking matter does not create complex designs but thinking beings do .

If those were not supposed to be arguments - why do you even keep going about these things, that you reckon to be so true and obvious, that they don't even require explanation? They're irrelevant and you're simply arrogant to think that stuff you cooked up in your head, based on ignorance and wilful misunderstanding of science and scientists, is of any use to anyone, as far as cognition of reality is concerned.

You need to read more, because your arguments and debating tactics would be embarrassing in high-school.