(January 10, 2016 at 12:52 am)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 11:55 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: That is exactly what you don't understand. Perhaps you never took a good look at the history of life history, as paleobiologists understand it, but from what they can see they believe our planet's 4.5 billion year history is quite more than enough time for life to evolve and become just as it is.


You say you are a student in your field now, and most of your elders there disagree. You need to listen to them more, and opinionate less.

It's not that I don't understand with their position, it is just that I disagree. It's not that the only two options are agree with evolution or not understand it. It can be wrong. Here's what I'm getting from what you are saying: Don't question any scientific theory even if it is on scientific grounds. You must agree with everything you are told and never look at the evidence for yourself.

You should not put words in other people's mouths.

I'm going to spell it out for you plain - you admit to understanding the position of those with far more experience and collective intelligence than you, but you disagree for strictily willful reasons. This must be so because you have not, and cannot provide one single convincing fact which does any better than lay bare your misunderstanding of your field.

(January 10, 2016 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote: Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

Okay, listen... I just got back to this thread, there's pages I haven't read yet, but is this seriously a contention you're making based on your understanding of evolutionary theory? Have you unambiguously defined what you think evolution is here yet?

Because I challenge you to find one single mainstream definition of evolution that even used the words "improved information content," let alone asserts that evolution necessitates that.

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: What I do know for sure is what you don't know. You admit to that, but still you make the claim of "design". What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence, therefore, I need not prove you are wrong, but why do you maintain your assertion? If you don't know, then you just don't know!

It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution. Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design. He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.

(January 10, 2016 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 7:40 pm)AAA Wrote: It isn't without evidence. Did you read the last response where I listed many intricate systems? Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't at least give the appearance of design? Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that life gives the appearance of being designed for a purpose. He just thinks that this is an illusion. It is not irrational or an assertion to say that the appearance of design may be due to the fact that it was designed. Why do I have to do mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusion to try to find some other answer that may or may not exist?

It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution.  Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design.  He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.  

Reasoning in science? What a concept!

(January 10, 2016 at 12:28 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 12:25 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: It becomes an irrational assertion when you hold fast to it despite strong evidence to the contrary, as in evolution.  Dawkins doesn't just "think" it is an illusion of design.  He used his critical thinking skills and available scientific evidence to come to the most reasonable conclusion.  

Reasoning in science? What a concept!

Lol! Not after the theists get their sticky Jesus fingers all over it!

(January 10, 2016 at 1:46 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 10, 2016 at 1:43 am)AAA Wrote: Natural selection and mutation are fact. Whether they can lead to improved information content in the organism is up for debate.

Define 'information' and 'improved'.

I've done definitions dozens of times to different people, and it doesn't lead anywhere. Improved in the sense that a sequence that doesn't lead to a functional protein can ever get to the point where the protein is functional. Information in the sense that the sequence of nucleotides leads to specified structures with specified functions.