“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Harris]

Tell that to quantum foam. .

I made a call to the foam and asked for virtual particles. The answer I received was “sorry wrong number call E=MC2.” Unfortunately, what you desire to hear is not a reality. There is nothing in the universe that comes into existence spontaneously. Even virtual particles and even for a Nano-Second!

Wow, there's a lot wrong here. First of all, you don't have any evidence on your side, so there's no reason to preference your claims; at least we know that nature exists. Secondly, your "everything in nature" claim is idiotic to begin with as you have no evidence that things outside of the universe constitute "nature" or adhere to the same rules as the things within it... which also don't follow the rules you're demanding they do.

This claim is literally wrong at every conceivable level.

Sure, if you do not have scientific evidence then by any means you are not in position to give any scientific value to an axiom or to a postulate like “bird is the selecting agent for a moth to be black or white”

Chemistry. I mean, that's literally what DNA is: chemicals reacting together.

Why in nature these chemicals react together in a deterministic manner!

And I'll run through them real quick:

First quote: argument from ignorance based on faulty assumptions. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis might be that doesn't mean god is real by default, and more importantly, how the fuck is this guy deriving calculations of probability when he has no idea what things were like in the past, nor what is required for life to form naturally at all? His probability argument is based on nothing but bullshit, as he doesn't have enough data to form a calculation of probability. Also, 1981? Really? Thirty year old science is... well, out of date. By thirty years.

Do you reason that things have changed in favour of Theory of Evolution in past 30 years? On the contrary, they become worse with the advancements in genetics and palaeontology.
It seems time is the criteria for you to assess science. Presumably, for you, Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein Theory of relativity … all of them are out of date science because all of them are more than 30 years old. However, on the other side you support centuries old Theory of Evolution (a mere postulate) and count it to be a valid scientific fact in contemporary world of science. Why double standards?

Second quote: again, argument from ignorance. "It seems unlikely" is not evidence for a designer, you actually need positive evidence for that. Interesting how you fail to present any. And again, you present a thirty year old source! Got anything from this decade?

Please download documentary from the following link and check out what eminent scientists, philosophers, and mathematician of our time say about evolution. They are giving solid scientific evidences for their justification on Intelligent Design.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7JspPJ...sp=sharing

Incidentally, did you think I wouldn't check your source, and find the enormously negative reception it got from the scientific community, many real members of which declared it unable to pass even softball peer review?

Which Scientific Community. (Atheist?)

I also see that, curiously enough, the only positive reviews seem to come from creationists...

That is well understood! Why should atheist scientists agree with science that goes against their ideology? In doing so, they disprove atheism, which in turn might become a harsh reality for them. Next time please don’t forget to give literary references and names instead of using words “scientific community” or “creationists.”

Here's a mutation that confers a resistance, bordering on outright immunity, to HIV. That's new, in that it wasn't present before, and is now, especially if one inherits the gene from both parents. You're wrong again.

I am not wrong! It is you. Theory of Evolution is talking about new organs and transformation form one specie to another. Like humans evolve from fish. Genetics talks only about variations in population of same species. In fact, genetics is the enemy of evolution because it tells that one specie cannot be evolved into another. That is the reason evolutionists are trying to incorporate genetics with the natural selection in order to hide the loopholes in the Theory of Evolution, which has no laboratory foundation. Look at the Darwin’s tree of life and to your amazement, you will find it has no roots.

If you're just going to say "nuh uh!" and not back up your assertions at all, I'm just going to dismiss them out of hand. Either provide some evidence as to why you say natural selection can't "justify," whatever that means in this context, these mutations, or kindly be silent.

I had given many facts against evolution. I used the word laboratory on purpose because evolutionists have no documented evidence in favour of evolution that can be proved in laboratory. They do not have answers to:

1. What is the origin of living cell?
2. Where are the transient animals?
3. What new organs, a positive mutation had produced?

So you see it is not a mere “NUH UH!”

Only one out of eight? Interestingly limited scope: I wonder how many fallacies I can spot here? Lemme just load up talkorigins before I go on.

That one example is sufficient for people who are wise in their thinking. I already discussed on mutation and there is no reason to repeat the same topic more than once.

Don't forget natural selection, but that's basically correct otherwise

Genetics only talks about variations in same species. Genetics do not talk on transformation from one specie to another.

The mutations are random, but their persistence in a population is informed by their evolutionary benefits or detriments. That is evolution, that you're describing so far, so I'm a bit weirded out as to where this is going.

“The mutation is random” is another point that Neo-Darwinism try to incorporate with the Theory of Evolution. Natural selection and random mutation is essentially a trial-and-error process. It would, therefore, necessarily generate many mutational errors in the process of producing any functionally specified sequences. It should produce a genome in which genetic noise rivals or dwarfs genetic signal.
To produce any fundamentally new biological forms these mutations would—at the very least—have to produce a number of new proteins. But natural selection can act only on what mutations first generate. Thus, for mutation and selection to produce new functional proteins or protein folds—the smallest unit of selectable function—new proteins or protein folds must first arise by chance—that is, by random mutation. If the probability of this were extremely low—beyond the reach of available probabilistic resources—then this would undermine the plausibility of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.
How rare or common are functional protein folds within their corresponding amino acid–sequence space? If functional sequences were common enough for mutations to stumble upon them relatively easily (within the time required for relevant evolutionary transitions), mutation and selection might be able to build otherwise extremely improbable structures in small incremental steps. On the other hand, if functional proteins are extremely rare within sequence space, such that mutations will not have a realistic chance of finding them in the available time, selection will have little or nothing to work on, undermining its ability to produce biological information.

This is just babble, and again, it's baseless assertion type babble that you haven't provided evidence for, and will hence be summarily dismissed. Feel free to go find some science- peer reviewed, mainstream, and up to date - that supports you. Otherwise... meh.

You have not yet submitted any example of positive mutation that got a laboratory verification. When I say positive mutation, I mean new organ. If man evolved from a walking fish then he can have wings in future. Isn’t it?

Why is it that you think just saying "that's ridiculous" counts as a rebuttal? .

Because, you do not have an appropriate laboratory proof to support your cute little bird.

Don't bother. Lee Strobel isn't exactly educated on this issue. As to the quote... just describing what irreducible complexity is doesn't count as confirmation of it. You'd need evidence for this, something that you can't have, as irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance itself, and based entirely around negative claims: "evolution can't do this, therefore designer."

Besides, irreducible complexity already got roundly laughed out of a court of law for good reason. You got anything better?

Please past the link to this discussion. Perhaps, I would share a little laughter along with you.