(December 5, 2015 at 2:24 am)AAA Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 2:12 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Just keep on telling yourself that enough times, and maybe sooner or later you'll believe it yourself. You can't really believe it now, otherwise you wouldn't need the affirmation of coming here to say it.

We are designing life right now, and if demand supports it, science will eventually rival the complexity of human perceptions and thought, and probably with fewer defects. To actually imitate life as it exists today would be very difficult, not because it's so awesome and flawless, but for the very good reason that life was never engineered in the top-down fashion which is required of short-lived human engineers. Be honest about this, if you are capable of doing so: just why in fuck do you really think your god would sit back and watch everything that ever crawled out of the dirt blunder and waste so much time over the past 4 billion years, bandaid-patching one defect at a time and changing so slowly that between adjoining generations they are barely noticeable at all, when he actually had a plan? No, Genius, plans do not work that way. Go ahead and chalk that up to "mysterious ways", but if your god did that than he's an asshat.

It is a good design. From the DNA to the actual anatomy, all the parts work together well. We are modifying organisms, but we aren't designing it. We aren't even designing our new DNA, we are just taking DNA from one organism and putting it into another. Also I think the evidence is more consistent with a top down design for life. Our genome is slowly being crippled by mutations from generation to generation, we are not becoming better. We are becoming a more disease stricken species. I do not think he sat by and watched for billions of years. I think that it was made good at the beginning and is slowly getting worse. So your whole condescending statement about his crappy plan is just putting words in my mouth.

Can you provide immunological or wider medical data to support your above claim please?

Thank you.

I will make this easy on you AAA, I will except your premise that evolution and abiogenesis are both false. Now that we have excepted your premise that they are false, give me the evidence for your designer?

Quote:Well no it doesn't. I'm sure your thinking about antibiotic resistance developing in bacteria. Antibiotic resistance is often hijacked as an example of evolution, but it actually is not creating new genetic information. What happens is a small percent of bacteria contain a segment of pre-existing DNA called plasmids. These segments of DNA code for proteins that destroy the antibiotic molecules. Bacteria can then transfer this segment of DNA between each other and thus they gain this ability to survive. But it is not the creation of new information, it is just a brilliant design to keep populations of bacteria alive.

This actually gave me a headache reading it.

I can say anything I want and claim that it is a fact. That doesn't mean it's actually a fact.

But is that a fact?

(December 5, 2015 at 9:36 am)Stimbo Wrote: But is that a fact?

Totally. Cause I said so!

(December 5, 2015 at 9:11 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: I will make this easy on you AAA, I will except your premise that evolution and abiogenesis are both false. Now that we have excepted your premise that they are false, give me the evidence for your designer?

There is a lot of chemical information in the cell. Information comes from intelligence as far as we know. There are molecular machines that act specifically with a purpose due to their structure. Specifically functioning complex molecules are characteristics we would expect to find in a designed system. The default conclusion that we should come to based on this is that intelligence played a role in its formation. If another working solution provides itself, then we can move away from the idea of intelligent design, but I do not think that solution is there yet.

(December 4, 2015 at 9:30 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 9:16 pm)Natachan Wrote: ok. Provide your evidence.

I study biology, and I am blown away at how information rich even the simplest organisms are. The theory of evolution does a poor job of explaining the origin of new genetic information, and I think that it is more logical to assume that intelligence played a role in the origin of genetic information than to assume that it has some other explanation that we will discover later. Based on our experience, information only has one cause and that is intelligence. If you are more comfortable waiting for a different answer that's fine, but then you are relying on a mild type of faith.

Also the universe itself has many specific physical properties that allow it to support life. For example the rate of expansion of the universe and the strength of gravitational pull are so finely balanced that the slightest variation in either of the two variables will lead to the inability of the universe to produce planets.

You obviously need to keep studying biology some more...

Concerning your second point,
If I accept that some physical parameters are extremely sensitive to small changes, how is that evidence for an intelligent designer? I claim it is evidence against an intelligent designer. An intelligently designed set of physical laws which has as its purpose that planets can form, would not require fine tuning. Anthropic selection almost predicts it.

(December 5, 2015 at 9:34 am)Mermaid Wrote: I can say anything I want and claim that it is a fact. That doesn't mean it's actually a fact.

I agree, but they are facts, if you want to know just go look up: plasmids, bacterial conjugation, bacterial transformation, and transduction. These are mechanisms to ensure the survival of bacterial colonies. Don't trust me, go look it up for yourself.

---

(December 5, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Quantum Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 9:30 pm)AAA Wrote: I study biology, and I am blown away at how information rich even the simplest organisms are. The theory of evolution does a poor job of explaining the origin of new genetic information, and I think that it is more logical to assume that intelligence played a role in the origin of genetic information than to assume that it has some other explanation that we will discover later. Based on our experience, information only has one cause and that is intelligence. If you are more comfortable waiting for a different answer that's fine, but then you are relying on a mild type of faith.

Also the universe itself has many specific physical properties that allow it to support life. For example the rate of expansion of the universe and the strength of gravitational pull are so finely balanced that the slightest variation in either of the two variables will lead to the inability of the universe to produce planets.

You obviously need to keep studying it some more...

 
You think you're so smart don't you. You are acting like you have this elite knowledge that I can never attain. Yet all I see is name calling and claims that I'm wrong. But I don't see you pointing out evidence.

No, I don't think I have that elite knowledge. Also, if I thougj you can never attain it I would not recommend that you keep studying it. Odd that you would think that, are you really studying biology? But I know some elite biologists who really know their stuff, and they don't think that evolution does a poor job of explaining new genetic information.