(March 16, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The distinction between natural and artificial in evolutionary biology is the difference between nature and artifice.  As in, something being made the way it is - not natural and "non-natural".  That's why a car would be artificial.  A termite mound is also artificial in this way.  In that it's made to be that way, not something that occurs outside of artifice.  

The creationist conjecture, is that everything is artificial.  God's artifice.

Well, it doesn't leave any natural thing for comparison...and so no way to determine whether something was "god created" or just happens to be.

(March 16, 2018 at 10:17 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(March 16, 2018 at 9:41 pm)He lives Wrote: I am just trying to explain it so you can understand. Have you ever tried to build a one celled animal or plant out of inorganic materials?

Whateverist Wrote:Nope, and neither has anyone else including your secret friend.  Living things are not constructed, they self assemble.  The wonders of chemistry and organic chemistry.  Ain't it great?

 Bold added by me.
Perhaps you could tell the scientific community how you did it so they won't have to spend so much time and money trying to figure out the human genome.

"I don't know things, therefore god!" 

Isn't that his default answer to everything . Along with his other fallacies . Which let's face it is ID in a nutshell. Bad reasoning and ignorance  parading as science .

(March 17, 2018 at 12:47 am)Khemikal Wrote: "I don't know things, therefore god!" 

Yeah my favorite argument from religious people

It's a lot quicker to remember three letters than to open a science book and learn something.

The thing is, an explanation is meant to explain. You're meant to understand something more about how it works afterwards. Just randomly pointing at characters in story books leaves us none the wiser as to how anything actually happened.

(March 17, 2018 at 12:43 am)He lives Wrote:

Whateverist Wrote:Nope, and neither has anyone else including your secret friend. Living things are not constructed, they self assemble. The wonders of chemistry and organic chemistry. Ain't it great?

 Bold added by me.
Perhaps you could tell the scientific community how you did it so they won't have to spend so much time and money trying to figure out the human genome.

*my underlining*

What part of self assemble don't you understand? When I say new organisms self assemble I am ruling out that they are put together through external agency, my own included. New organisms literally put themselves together by way of chemical transformations dictated by the DNA. No part of putting a fetus together is directed by the intentions or actions of the parents, and nothing is required of any gods, pixies or birds/bees either. It is a very complex chemical process known as sexual reproduction. Once the sex cells of the parents come together the chemical reactions which direct the assembly of the new organism are astoundingly complex but no external agency is required.

---

(March 17, 2018 at 1:22 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Isn't that his default answer to everything . Along with his other fallacies . Which let's face it is ID in a nutshell. Bad reasoning and ignorance  parading as science .

This nutter is a parrot, possibly a dead one where new learning is concerned.

---

(March 16, 2018 at 11:32 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The distinction between natural and artificial in evolutionary biology is the difference between nature and artifice.  As in, something being made the way it is - not natural and "non-natural".  That's why a car would be artificial.  A termite mound is also artificial in this way.  In that it's made to be that way, not something that occurs outside of artifice.  

The creationist conjecture, is that everything is artificial.  God's artifice.

Interestingly a human being is not artifice by this definition, but rather entirely natural.  A baby is not 'made' by its parents, but by the chemistry set in motion by conjoining their sex cells.

This shows that natural processes are capable of greater complexity than is artifice because artifice is only practiced by living beings or the products of living beings.

(March 17, 2018 at 1:22 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Isn't that his default answer to everything . Along with his other fallacies . Which let's face it is ID in a nutshell. Bad reasoning and ignorance  parading as science .

ID is recognized by intelligent people who are able to design as well.
You have yet to prove that you are qualified to make a comment on ID.

Have you ever designed something from nothing but your ingenuity?

By not recognizing ID in nature, you are proving that you don't have either, but I'd be pleased if you could prove me wrong, simply by giving evidence of your creative skills and achievements.

(March 12, 2018 at 11:39 am)He lives Wrote:

(March 12, 2018 at 2:30 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: There have been hundreds of books written about bigfoot and alien abduction. This proves nothing.

There is no compelling evidence for a soul or spirit. 

There are vague experiences. There are dark spots in our knowledge. And there are story-weavers pied pipering their message to those who want to listen and believe. There is just as much credible evidence that the soul survives death as there is for ouija boards, the abominable snowman, or haunted houses. You can't use anecdotal evidence to found theories about the the existence of a soul or its survival of bodily death.

Although anecdotal evidence is not proof, it is still evidence. It has spawned large research projects at hospitals in many countries. I am confident that the proof is there and is forthcoming. I wonder if any atheists will engage in this research.

Bold tales are also evidence.  They are full of information.  They just don't conform to the truth in any reliable way.