(January 13, 2016 at 8:35 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:29 pm)AAA Wrote: Those aren't misrepresentations. Obviously we all know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. But the fact that they are related is not up for debate. My second statement was true. Tell me how information can be added to organisms? You actually think mutation is capable of helping the organisms.?

I will leave you with this to watch. It's 10 minutes, you have no right to complain about the length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

I watched it. They say nobody defines information. That is the specified order of nucleotide or amino acid characters that lead to a desired function. There are advantages that can arise from defective proteins in different environments. For example, bacteria that have deformed membrane proteins which can prevent certain antibiotics from entering the cell. They also can hardly get their food source from the environment, and are always outcompeted by the wild type (older) organisms with less mutations. The guy was incredibly biased, and some of the mutations he said were advantageous were not. We talked about the over-expression of certain genes leading to large muscle mass in my genetics class last semester. It gives them additional health problems with mobility and others. Same with bone density. There is a potential inverse relationship between bone density and agility and jumping ability. The other beneficial mutations likely are paired with some other negative side affect. Ask yourself why these supposedly new traits never evolved in the past? The same mechanism that led to such intricate structures as the ribosome can't lead to something as simple as more muscle?

They also go on to talk about how 95% of the genome is junk DNA, when this has been discredited thoroughly and excepted by most geneticists.

(December 23, 2015 at 5:32 pm)Veritas Wrote: What's the best way to refute the argument that we were intelligently designed? I've seen the bit that Neil Degrasse Tyson did on it, but what else can I put into my arsenal? (More specifically, about how complex flowers are and other things in nature)

Why did god run the sewage through a fun park? Better yet, if were perfectly designed then why the do I have nipples? (I'm a man)

(January 13, 2016 at 8:34 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Actually the fact that you think evolutionists don't have presuppositions shows your misunderstanding of the character of scientists.

My dear, ignorant child.  The only thing you are proving is your ignorance of science.  By all means, continue along this road and see just how far you get within reason.

You guys really like to put yourselves up on a pedestal and prance about as though you have this elite knowledge, don't you? What am I so ignorant about?

(January 13, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Actually the fact that you think evolutionists don't have presuppositions shows your misunderstanding of the character of scientists.

All scientists have presuppositions, which they then test against reality. Why is this so hard?

Right, but they interpret the results through their worldview. 

What does the fact that photolyase exists mean to you? it had a necessary function, therefore it arose over many chance events.

 What does it mean to me? A designer built in a way for our bodies to protect their genome in spite of the energy rich UV waves from our environment.

Do you see how the same result is interpreted differently based on our presuppositions? Do you disagree with this phenomenon?

(January 13, 2016 at 9:03 pm)AAA Wrote: What am I so ignorant about?

Religion.

You see it is some divine answer, when it is neither divine nor an answer.

Mythology shall always be just that; an elaborate, yet primitive, answer to that which denies reality for its own stubbornness.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:15 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:00 pm)AAA Wrote: It's not ignorance. It isn't "we can't explain it, so God" It is "we know of only one cause that is capable of explaining the specified sequences and other features of life and the universe, and that cause is intelligence." You are relying on faith to think that another cause will arise.

Wrong.

You don't know jack shit about the universe, therefore you aren't qualified to weigh in on "cause". The world's best astrophysicists and evolutionary biologists don't know comparably much of the whole picture, which is why they are used to saying "I don't know" when that is fact. You can't imagine a better answer than your god answer, and it's so important to you that you will strut arrogantly into a science classroom with your pre-conceived idea, attempting (as Kitan pointed out) to make science conform to that idea, and this is not how science is done. You cannot call anything you like "science", and the bullshit you spew makes no more sense than the idea that it was created by invisible pink unicorns.

Actually I think if you read the posts from you and the others, you will see that they are the ones strutting around arrogantly as masters of logic and reasoning.
 Also I didn't always think intelligent design. I accepted evolution for a while, and it wasn't until I began to understand DNA, RNA, and proteins that I began to see the problems with it.

(January 13, 2016 at 9:03 pm)AAA Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:34 pm)Kitan Wrote: My dear, ignorant child.  The only thing you are proving is your ignorance of science.  By all means, continue along this road and see just how far you get within reason.

You guys really like to put yourselves up on a pedestal and prance about as though you have this elite knowledge, don't you? What am I so ignorant about?

Science. 

Prancing on a pedestal is a good way to fall off.

I just stand still on my pedestal and let everyone else bask in my glorious light.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Actually the fact that you think evolutionists don't have presuppositions shows your misunderstanding of the character of scientists.

All scientists have presuppositions, which they then test against reality. Why is this so hard?

And all creationists have presuppositions which they test against previous presuppositions. They even test reality against their presuppositions. And that is the principle difference between science and religion.

(January 13, 2016 at 8:29 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(January 13, 2016 at 8:26 pm)AAA Wrote: But why shouldn't I infer designer to the system I described?

Due to the fact that there is nothing to infer a designer.

Science has no problems stating "I don't know".

Only religion and intelligent design jumps to the erroneous conclusion of "I have the answer, and it's god."

It's not like they are just saying it's god for the sake of saying that. There are very good reasons to think an intelligence did it, which you ignored.

Quadrupling down on your lie, now.  I can't actually decide whether or not I want you to stop.  It's a slow night otherwise. You couldn't have accepted evolution, ever, you don't know what it is.