Intelligent Design, Proof IV

[pocaracas]

Abiogenesis describes the sequence of events that probably led to life which is perfectly describable through chemistry and physics but is also very hard to replicate.

that is my point, can you give another example (other than evolution) where a non-intelligent process cannot be replicated.

How did you turn a "very hard to replicate" to "cannot be replicated"?

Humans are very limited entities... still, they've managed to accomplished quite a lot... give them time and they'll show you how difficult things can be accomplished.

[littleendian]

But what will you think when scientists can replicate it?
It will happen, will you say ok that seems reasonable or will you shuffle the goal posts again?

Still waiting

Um, isn't a bacterium becoming resistant to an antibiotic already an illustration of evolution, albeit on a small scale? This can be replicated.

[wolf39us]

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two very different processes. It would behoove you to not mix the two.

Evolution
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Abiogenesis
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis


Lets get one thing perfectly clear while we are at it. Evolution is an observable FACT. Anyone who denies the evolutionary process may as well deny gravity, germs, cells etc.

Why use the term "evolutionist" when what you are asking relate to the Abiogenesis theory?

[Esquilax]

that is my point, can you give another example (other than evolution) where a non-intelligent process cannot be replicated.

So because we don't know everything yet, you're justified in your entirely unevidenced assertion? Seriously?

[wolf39us]

Argument from ignorance fallacy??

[Esquilax]

Argument from ignorance fallacy??

Across every thread in his little series, yes.

[Muslim Scholar]

that is my point, can you give another example (other than evolution) where a non-intelligent process cannot be replicated.

So because we don't know everything yet, you're justified in your entirely unevidenced assertion? Seriously?

It is called Empirical evidence
Go educate yourself for a bit for "No" god sake!

I based a proposition based on almost every example we see in life
still you are rejecting it based on nothing.

I think you are a true evidence for non-intelligent evolution and mutation.

---

Lets get one thing perfectly clear while we are at it. Evolution is an observable FACT. Anyone who denies the evolutionary process may as well deny gravity, germs, cells etc.

Evolution is not a fact as it is not proved, they have only some clues and observation that may be explained by evolution.
I never saw a scientific article that call evolution a fact, usually they use the term "Theory".

Why use the term "evolutionist" when what you are asking relate to the Abiogenesis theory?

Because most people are not familiar with Abiogenesis, however most evolutionists believe in non-intelligent evolution so they are obligated to believe in Abiogenesis as well.

[Esquilax]

It is called Empirical evidence

Yes, so where's yours? You're the one making the assertion of something additional, after all.

Go educate yourself for a bit for "No" god sake!

What's your educational basis for saying these things?

I based a proposition based on almost every example we see in life
still you are rejecting it based on nothing.

You pointed at a bunch of stuff and asserted that since you can't imagine how it might have come about, it must be god. That's not evidence, that's an argument from ignorance.

I think you are a true evidence for non-intelligent evolution and mutation.

And I think you were dropped on your head as a baby. The difference is, I've got your posting record as evidence of your mental deficiency, and the reverse is untrue.

Evolution is not a fact as it is not proved, they have only some clues and observation that may be explained by evolution.

So, when I give crystal clear examples of evolution, like the different breeds of dog, the silver fox experiments that yielded drastic changes, and the lab-sterile observations of evolution in bacteria and fruit flies, you're just dead set on ignoring it all?

I never saw a scientific article that call evolution a fact, usually they use the term "Theory".

Hey cool: you've just demonstrated you have no idea about the basics of science let alone evolution. Keep showing off that magnificent idiocy, "Scholar." Here, educate yourself, you schmuck.

Because most people are not familiar with Abiogenesis, however most evolutionists believe in non-intelligent evolution so they are obligated to believe in Abiogenesis as well.

Are we, fuckwit?

[wolf39us]

He has a complete disgregard for the definition of a scientific theory. He is either ignorant or unwilling to accept that a Theory is the explanation of observable facts.

Evolution is a fact. The "Theory of Evolution" explains the fact of evolution.

Simply put... Shit changes over time. Many creationists acknowledge this to be true. What the creationists generally fail to see is that many "small" changes over time = big change, in the long run.

[pocaracas]

Because most people are not familiar with Abiogenesis, however most evolutionists believe in non-intelligent evolution so they are obligated to believe in Abiogenesis as well.

When will these numbskulls lay off the "atheists believe this and that" thing??

It's not a belief. It's just what follows from not accepting that there was something alive before biological life.
At some point, somehow, nutrients and minerals combined in such a way as to yield life... a very rudimentary for of life, but life nonetheless.

Science has been attempting to discover mechanisms through which it must have happened and there are quite e few very good candidates.
But you just ignore those and anything that contradicts your holy book... it's a shame to think that you're one of the educated muslims out there... Imagine how mind-numbing the uneducated ones must be in this regard...