(March 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 2:45 am)JackRussell Wrote: Happenstance has nothing to do with it, chemistry and physics does, crack open a text book rather than cheerlead for your team.

Have you created life through chemistry and physics? Perhaps you should check out the hypotheses that scientists have offered through abiogenesis. Each one of them is about life created through happenstance.

Flinging the same bullshit at the wall over and over won't make it stick.

Tell your folks they're lousy teachers for me, will ya?

(March 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)JackRussell Wrote: Can you quote some of that latest research and link to the relevant papers without a frantic google search?

I can.

Abiogenesis is a tricky problem, but that life began and that common descent from that point occurred is trivially obvious to those without an agenda to insert their mythology.

ID is the lazy route that obviates meaningful inquiry. To date no intelligence is observed, just stuff doing what it will always do under certain circumstances. Replicating that is an obvious problem, can you work out why?

So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied for life to be created out of inorganic material and then developed into a human body without intelligent design would be an impossibility. Intelligent design is much more probable. I believe that intelligence has always existed and that our bodies were intellectually designed.

(March 10, 2018 at 2:12 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 9, 2018 at 11:48 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: (emphasis is mine)

You keep using that word as if it applies to what your lamely attempting to refute.

Why don't you set aside your great-big-book-of-fairy-tales and try some actual science books for a change?

There is actual science and there is science  such as what I refer to as happenstance science. Abiogenesis is a terminology where there are many hypotheses and NO clear answers. This type of science can only be described as a belief and not actual science. With so many guesses as to how life began the best you have is a hunch. Your conclusion is entirely based on a guess that is so far fetched it is in the realm of being completely impossible.

You know, coming here with, at best, willful ignorance of the science you desperately want to refute is going to impress and/or convince exactly no one. You know that, right?

It's obvious you don't understand abiogenesis, evolution or even fundamental biology, yet you expect us to accept ID, completely unsupported by any actual evidence, simply on your say-so. Talk about arrogance in the extreme!

---

(March 10, 2018 at 3:20 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 2:55 am)JackRussell Wrote: Can you quote some of that latest research and link to the relevant papers without a frantic google search?

I can.

Abiogenesis is a tricky problem, but that life began and that common descent from that point occurred is trivially obvious to those without an agenda to insert their mythology.

ID is the lazy route that obviates meaningful inquiry. To date no intelligence is observed, just stuff doing what it will always do under certain circumstances. Replicating that is an obvious problem, can you work out why?

So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied for life to be created out of inorganic material and then developed into a human body without intelligent design would be an impossibility. Intelligent design is much more probable. I believe that intelligence has always existed and that our bodies were intellectually designed.

I'm personally incredulous, so magic, isn't a valid argument. Could you perhaps describe the process your gawd used to make man from dirt and woman from spare ribs? Please, don't point at the buy-bull. I've read that shit and the methodology is, not surprisingly, completely absent.

Quote:So many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied for life to be created out of inorganic material and then developed into a human body without intelligent design would be an impossibility. Intelligent design is much more probable. I believe that intelligence has always existed and that our bodies were intellectually designed.

1. No one cares about your  personnel credulity

I feel pretty safe and unbiased here, because:

If evolution is "wrong": I don't care. It makes no difference to my life whatsoever. I'd just be interested in how scientific theory adapts.

If intelligent design is "wrong": These guys presumably have to re-evaluate their whole life, because their whole religion is a sham.

If intelligent design is "right": I also don't care. If the designer wants to communicate with me sensibly, he is welcome to. If not, then fine. If he needs your help to do so, then he's laughable.

So you see, any outcome is fine with me. I'm just interested in what is most likely to be true, and I do that by working upwards from evidence, not working backwards from conclusions I require for my worldview.

The bible is happenstance. Inserting that word into a sentence reduces the things you're talking about to absurdities, thus disproving them. So the bible is false. You don't have to know anything about the subject matter either, so it's a sure-fire technique. You can protect yourself from ever learning anything new, and hang on to the first set of stories you were told when you were a child, throughout your whole adult life.

(March 10, 2018 at 2:43 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 2:35 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: But "intelligent design" is the claim creationists use and want taught alongside or instead of evolution., so my comment still holds.

I am a creationist. I believe that life was not created through happenstance.

I can tell you're a creationist.

And, again, continual use of the word doesn't mean it has any credibility.

And do you know how you can tell a creationist is being dishonest when debating evolution?

Either their mouth is moving or their fingers are on a keyboard.

I love how he thinks just saying that word over and over. Somehow makes a point .

---

(March 10, 2018 at 4:25 am)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(March 10, 2018 at 2:43 am)He lives Wrote: I am a creationist. I believe that life was not created through happenstance.

I can tell yoy're a creationist.

And, again, continual use of the word doesn't mean it has any credibility.

And do you know how you can tell a creationist is being dishonest when debating evolution?

Either their mouth is moving or their fingers are on a keyboard.

Their breathing

Quote:I believe that intelligence has always existed and that our bodies were intellectually designed.

Tooth decay, renal failure, harlequin foetus syndrome, cancers too numerous to list, eyes in backwards, haemophilia, Larsen syndrome, mircocephaly, spina bifida, congenital syphilis, cri du chat, Huntington's chorea, lissencephaly and on and on and on.

So, tell me - where does the 'intelligence' come in?

Boru

I think they have a magical story to explain the difference between the first magical story and what we observe. Something to do with the creator vandalizing his creation because they ate some naughty fruit.

Oh, I expect little Rik will say it's punishment for not getting enough Karma Points on your last try.

(March 10, 2018 at 5:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I think they have a magical story to explain the difference between the first magical story and what we observe. Something to do with the creator vandalizing his creation because they ate some naughty fruit.

Oh, I expect little Rik will say it's punishment for not getting enough Karma Points on your last try.

That's where it all falls down, of course.  IDers desperately want their lunacy accepted as a legitimate scientific theory, but the moment they get backed into a corner (and the world they live in is nothing BUT corners), they invoke godism to explain away their failed thinking and BANG goes any pretense of science.

Boru