“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Esquilax]

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!

Sorry Harris, but "nuh-uh!" isn't an answer, especially when the science seems to disagree with you. Simply denying that just makes you seem juvenile.

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”

This has literally nothing to do with what we were talking about. And, uh, you are the one without scientific evidence, not I.

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

Laws of physics?

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.

Paleontology and genetics have done nothing but confirm that evolution occurs. What are you even talking about, here?

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 Presumably, for you, Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein Theory of relativity … all of them are out of date science because all of them are more than 30 years old.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?

It's not a double standard because time and again certain theories are confirmed by the advancement of science, and others aren't. You quoted a thirty year old source that hasn't been accepted by the scientific community, meaning that, evidently, the science has moved on and found the source to be incorrect or lacking in evidence. By contrast, the centuries that have passed since evolution was first proposed have only ever discovered evidence that reinforces and refines the theory, and never disagreed with it.

That's the difference.

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

First of all, it's a dead link: the video won't play. Second of all, you should be able to articulate the argument you wish to make on your own, else you'll run afoul of Rule One of the forum eventually.

Which Scientific Community. (Atheist?)

There is one scientific community, and it's made up of a mix of theists and atheists, many of the former, by the way, accept evolution. In fact, the majority of theists working in mainstream science accept evolution, as they are a part of the majority of scientists that accept evolution. Your attempt to imply some kind of atheist conspiracy falls flat because it's simply factually incorrect.

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.”

Wrong again, because evolution is not atheism, and there's no requirement for an atheist to accept evolution. You can't "disprove" atheism by disproving evolution. And the only people giving positive reviews for the book in question, from memory, were known frauds like Ken Ham, which is extremely telling.

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.

No, it isn't. Evolution concerns genetic changes over time in populations, which you'd know if you'd bothered to research this at all.

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.

And if those variations within the same species keep happening, and the species keeps varying more and more, eventually there will come a point where that population is so different from the species if begins at that it can't be called the same species anymore. Read a goddamn book!

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.

Nylon eating flavobacteria. Look it up.

They do not have answers to:

1. What is the origin of living cell?

We don't know how exactly, but we have strong evidence that it's possible for life to form naturally, which removes the requirement for a designer completely.

2. Where are the transient animals?

We have thousands of examples, including near complete lineages in some cases. Here's a big ol' list of them. You're wrong again.

3. What new organs, a positive mutation had produced?

The eye. We know how the eye evolved, in fact we know how it evolved along multiple independent evolutionary paths, hence the differences between, say, our eyes and squid eyes. Oh, and there's a species of skink here in Australia that are developing the ability to live birth their young, rather than using eggs as lizards generally do.

That said, the formulation of this question is a tad dishonest, since evolution of the kind you're looking for takes millions of years.

So you see it is not a mere “NUH UH!”

No, this time it was an argument from ignorance.

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.

"If you don't agree with me, you're dumb!" Fantastic argument, dude.

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

Accumulations of the former result in the latter.

“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.

There's a reason the majority of the species on this planet are extinct, you know. The rest of this section is just another argument from ignorance from you.

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?

You literally don't know what evolution is, do you?

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

Flavobacteria. Seriously. Fruit flies too. Silver foxes. Look up any of those things in a search with the word "evolution."

I look forward to you coming back here and demonstrating how little you know about the subject you're babbling about by protesting, "but they're still the same species!"

Honestly, if you don't care to understand evolution, then stop disagreeing with this strawman version of it you've cooked up.

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

It was the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, back in 2005. A quick google search should furnish you with everything you need to know, but the short version is that intelligent design advocates presented their best "evidence" for their idea, and the judge in charge of the case ruled that intelligent design wasn't scientific and could not be taught in schools in that area.

Now, onto official business: your quotes here are all messed up, man. In fact, you've attributed things to me here that I didn't even say, which is quite serious: please try to keep your quotes normal in the future.