Intelligent Design in Biology

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, but your wrong about pretty much everything so what you think is really not worth anything.

I know you don't value my opinion, but some people might. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know you don't value my opinion, but some people might. HalleluYah !!!

Yes. That is the only reason I still take the time to point out where and why you are wrong.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes. That is the only reason I still take the time to point out where and why you are wrong.

Well, it seems you have failed so far. You have some good speculation. However, you lack the facts to go along with them. HalleluYah !!!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it seems you have failed so far. You have some good speculation. However, you lack the facts to go along with them. HalleluYah !!!

In what way have I 'failed'?


I obviously am not going to convince you that you are wrong because you pay little to no
attention to what anyone says and start from the position that the bible is right and ignore
everything that contradicts it... which is pretty much everything.


However my intention is to point out that you are wrong and why so that others who come
across your posts also come across the reason why you are wrong.



How can you tell whether or not I have, or have not, been successful at this?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact is they do not know yet, so stop acting like they do. I think one day they will discover God did it after all.

The fact is they do not know yet

we know what the most credible current hypothesis is of abiogenesis is; We have just shown that with the evidence shown in the links. It is therefore rational to believe that by far the most probable way it happened is that way until if and when the evidence points to a different scientific hypothesis that contradicts that one -that is just the way scientific thinking works; it is evidence-based.
So we DO know at least that. And that doesn't involve the stupid superstition of “God did it”.
You on the other hand have no evidence that this current hypothesis is wrong nor have you any evidence that “God did it”.

Originally posted by humy

The fact is they do not know yet

we know what the most credible current hypothesis is of abiogenesis is; We have just shown that with the evidence shown in the links. It is therefore rational to believe that by far the most probable way it happened is that way until if and when the evidence points to a different scientific hypothesis that ...[text shortened]... no evidence that this current hypothesis is wrong nor have you any evidence that “God did it”.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is another part of the fraud of evolution.

http://www.questiondarwin.com/abiogenesis.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is another part of the fraud of evolution.

http://www.questiondarwin.com/abiogenesis.html

There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is another part of the fraud of evolution.

that is a stupid quote;

1, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is not a theory of life's first origins.

2, we have evidence many of the details of how abiogenesis almost certainly must have occurred.

3, we have evidence that conditions right for abiogenesis certainly was present on the early Earth.

4, there is absolutely no rational alternative at the current time to abiogenesis ( stupid superstition not being rational of course )

P.S. I am not going to dignify the stupid delusional propaganda in that religious propaganda link design by delusional morons like yourself rather than rational scientists that know what they are talking about with a response.

Originally posted by humy

There is no evidence for abiogenesis. It is another part of the fraud of evolution.

that is a stupid quote;

1, abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is not a theory of life's first origins.

2, we have evidence many of the details of how abiogenesis almost certainly must have occurred.

3, we have evidence that conditio ...[text shortened]... yourself rather than rational scientists that know what they are talking about with a response.

But if abiogenesis is not true then there is no base for evolution to ever happen. At present the most logical conclusion for the beginning of life that contains all this information in it is an intelligent designer and creator.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But if abiogenesis is not true then there is no base for evolution to ever happen. At present the most logical conclusion for the beginning of life that contains all this information in it is an intelligent designer and creator.

But if abiogenesis is not true then there is no base for evolution to ever happen.

irrelevant: evolution is not a theory of the origin of the first life; we have evidence for evolution; we also have evidence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth but, even if abiogenesis didn't happen like that and that first life came from a 'god', that would not in any way logically contradict evolution -evolution could have simply preceded from there to create the diversity of species regardless of how that first life came to exist.
If you deny this then tell us:
what is the logical contradiction in a god making the first life and then evolution create the diversity of species from that first life?

At present the most logical conclusion for the beginning of life that contains all this information in it is an intelligent designer and creator.

how can this be the “most logical” conclusion when we have evidence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth and NO evidence against this?

Originally posted by humy

But if abiogenesis is not true then there is no base for evolution to ever happen.

irrelevant: evolution is not a theory of the origin of the first life; we have evidence for evolution; we have evidence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth.

[quote] At present the most logical conclusion for the beginning of life ...[text shortened]... ence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth and NO evidence against this?

It is relevant because without the first living cell no evolution could possibly take place. So there must be a complex living cell capable of reproduction for any type of biological evolution to take place. Even adaption requires information to direct it how to adapt. Earth is the only place we know with the fine-tuned constants necessary to support life. Was that another random accident? Then you also have the problem of how the physical laws came into being and why. Contrary to what you say there is absolutely no proof or evidence that evolution happens or has ever happend. It is all conjecture.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is relevant because without the first living cell no evolution could possibly take place. So there must be a complex living cell capable of reproduction for any type of biological evolution to take place. Even adaption requires information to direct it how to adapt. Earth is the only place we know with the fine-tuned constants necessary to support life ...[text shortened]... solutely no proof or evidence that evolution happens or has ever happend. It is all conjecture.

It is relevant because without the first living cell no evolution could possibly take place.

I just explained why that is irrelevant. Reminder:

evolution is not a theory of the origin of the first life; we have evidence for evolution; we also have evidence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth but, even if abiogenesis didn't happen like that and that first life came from a 'god', that would not in any way logically contradict evolution -evolution could have simply preceded from there to create the diversity of species regardless of how that first life came to exist.
If you deny this then tell us:
what is the logical contradiction in a god making the first life and then evolution create the diversity of species from that first life?

you still haven't answered the above question; I take it you have no answers.
If you cannot answer this last question then that is proof of the irrelevance of what you say.

Earth is the only place we know with the fine-tuned constants necessary to support life.

there is no “fine-tuned constants” nor evidence of any such thing; just you fantasies.

Then you also have the problem of how the physical laws came into being and why. (my mphais)

No such “problem” exists; there is no evidence that the physical laws “came into being” rather than just merely being brute facts and there is no evidence that the physical laws involve a “why” therefore there is no rational reason to assume either.

Contrary to what you say there is absolutely no proof or evidence that evolution happens or has ever happend.

that is your pure fantasy. Meanwhile, the vast mountain of evidence for evolution swells ever larger and reality just passes you by.

Originally posted by humy

It is relevant because without the first living cell no evolution could possibly take place.

I just explained why that is irrelevant. Reminder:

[quote] evolution is not a theory of the origin of the first life; we have evidence for evolution; we also have evidence that conditions were right for abiogenesis on the early Earth but, eve ...[text shortened]... e vast mountain of evidence for evolution swells ever larger and reality just passes you by.

You ask, "what is the logical contradiction in a god making the first life and then evolution create the diversity of species from that first life?"

The logical contradiction is if God made the first life as recorded in the Holy Bible then evolution could not have occurred. Evolution could only be possible if God did not create the first life.

Definition of Science from the University of Georgia:
1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.
http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html

The evolution of one kind of creature to another kind of creature has never been observed.

Adaptation is not evolution.

Evidence for fine-tuning of the universe
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

If there is no evidence that the physical laws “came into being” then are they eternal, like God?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b] You ask, "what is the logical contradiction in a god making the first life and then evolution create the diversity of species from that first life?"

The logical contradiction is if God made the first life as recorded in the Holy Bible then evolution could not have occurred. Evolution could only be possible if God did not create the first life. ...[text shortened]... s no evidence that the physical laws “[b]came into being” then are they eternal, like God?[/b]

[/b]

The logical contradiction is if God made the first life as recorded in the Holy Bible then evolution could not have occurred.

my question was NOT specifically about a 'God' “as recorded in the Holy Bible” but rather “a god” i.e. ANY god!
THEREFORE, no such “logical contradiction” exists in what my question implies contrary to what you clearly imply by your above response.
Reminder of my question:

what is the logical contradiction in a god making the first life and then evolution create the diversity of species from that first life? (my quote)

see were my question says “god” above and NOT “God as recorded in the Holy Bible”.
So you still haven’t answered my question.

Evolution could only be possible if God did not create the first life.

that conclusion would only logically follow if you prove that the “God as recorded in the Holy Bible” as you interpret that made the first life -but you haven’t proved this. And my question was not specifically about “God as recorded in the Holy Bible” but just “a god”.

The evolution of one kind of creature to another kind of creature has never been observed.

that is simply not true. The observation of Speciation has mainly been indirectly observed but indirectly observed is STILL observed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
“...Observed instances
Island genetics, the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits, has been observed in many circumstances,...
….
….
Observed instances
Ring species
The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.
the grass Anthoxanthum has been known to undergo parapatric speciation in such cases as mine contamination of an area.
…..”

there are also some much more DIRECTLY observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
“...Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
….
…
...Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
….”
-and more from that link.

Adaptation is not evolution.

what kind of adaptation are you referring to here?
If it is both genetic adaptation AND natural adaptation i.e. not artificial then that would not exactly literally BE “evolution” but it would certainly be AS A RESULT of evolution because we have evidence of this.

Evidence for fine-tuning of the universe
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

the same crap; pointing out that if the constants were slightly different from what there are then there would be no life is NOT “evidence” for “fine-tuning”. The reason? its the same old fallacy they use which is one where they ignore the fact that:

we cannot say anything about the probabilities of the physical constants being different to what they are because we don't have any observed examples of universes where they are different and, therefore, by implication, we can say nothing about the probability of there being different to what they are nor even if it is POSIBLE for them to be different from what they are so therefore no observation of how perfectly favourable an “exactly just right” the constants are for life can be rationally interpreted as evidence for “fine-tuning”.
For all we know, the constants are inevitably what they are and couldn't possibly have been any different from what they are.

can you show us the evidence that my above assertion is false?
If not, then, logically, that means you must conclude that there is currently NO known observation or measurement that can be rationally interpreted as “evidence” for fine tuning.

If there is no evidence that the physical laws “came into being” then are they eternal, like God?

not if there was a beginning of time. If there was a beginning of time then they did not “came into being” because there presumably was not a moment of time when no physical laws existed. I presume for it to be literally correct to say they “came into being”, they must “came into being” FROM a point in time which I take to mean they didn't exist AT that point in time. But there is no evidence that such a point in time existed for not even at time zero do we assume there was literally no laws of physics.

Note that I am NOT claiming there was a beginning of time for I do not rule out the possibility of there being a before the singularity that gave birth to the big bang.
But, even if there was no beginning of time, all that would mean is that there was a “before” the big bang and the laws of physics as we know them today may or may have been identical to the laws of physics that came “before” the big bang -but all that is just pure speculation at the current time and certainly none of it would imply the existence of a 'god'.

Originally posted by humy

The logical contradiction is if God made the first life as recorded in the Holy Bible then evolution could not have occurred.

my question was NOT specifically about a 'God' “as recorded in the Holy Bible” but rather “a god” i.e. ANY god!
THEREFORE, no such “logical contradiction” exists in what my question implies contrary to what you lation at the current time and certainly none of it would imply the existence of a 'god'.[/b]

First, there is only ONE GOD and not many gods. If you wish to exslude God from your question then the premise is wrong from start to finish. There would be no life forms for evolution to work on and evolution does not "create" anything.

The observation of Speciation, as you call it, is not an observation of evolution to a different kind of creature. It is observation of reproductive adaptations in the same kind of creature. Fox example, a bird is still a bird after its adaptive changes and a fish is still a fish after any adaptive changes. These are not examples of evolution.

You say, "we don't have any observed examples of universes where they (constants) are different..." That is because there are no other known universes. But we do not need to know any other universes to know that the constants have to be fine-tuned for life on this planet because we know of many other planets with different constants and they are not suitable for life.
This is the only planet we know of that has all the right constants suitable for life as we know it. So the evidence is there regardless if you choose to ignore it.

Can you imagine why the laws of physics would exist without a physical universe for them to contol? Are the laws of physics material or spiritual?

Originally posted by RJHinds
First, there is only ONE GOD and not many gods. If you wish to exslude God from your question then the premise is wrong from start to finish. There would be no life forms for evolution to work on and evolution does not "create" anything.

The observation of Speciation, as you call it, is not an observation of evolution to a different kind of creature. I out a physical universe for them to contol? Are the laws of physics material or spiritual?

First, there is only ONE GOD and not many gods. If you wish to exslude God from your question then

NO, can't you read? I said “a god” NOT “a god excluding God”. How does “a god” exclude “God”? Isn't “God” supposed to be “a god” by definition? -answer, yes.

the premise is wrong from start to finish.

whatever my “ premise” was ( not sure what context you are referring to here ), it was NOT to exclude “God” from being “a god”.

The observation of Speciation, as you call it, is not an observation of evolution to a different kind of creature.

what are you talking about? Of course the observation of Speciation is an observation of evolution to a different kind of creature! How is a different species NOT a different kind of creature?

Fox example, a bird is still a bird after its adaptive changes and a fish is still a fish after any adaptive changes.

not necessarily; we have evidence that birds have fish as their ancestors for example.

These are not examples of evolution.

try looking up evolution and came back to me. By definition, one Speciation via evolution is an example of evolution in action.

But we do not need to know any other UNIVERSES to know that the constants have to be fine-tuned for life on this planet because we know of many other planets with different constants and they are not suitable for life. (my emphasis)

first you were talking about the physical constants of the “UNIVERSES” above such as speed of light etc but then what kind of “constants” are you referring to when you talk about “constants” on different planets within our own universe?
Have you suddenly changed the meaning of the word “constants” half way through that quote just to try and confuse?
Or are you actually saying here that the physical constants for the UNIVERSE such as speed of light etc are different on different planets within our own universe?
If neither and if you are talking about variables such as surface gravity etc then we KNOW that THOSE “constants” can be different from what they are because we have actual examples ( other planets ) where we know they are different but those variables/”constants” are DIFFERENT from the constants of the universe such as speed of light etc and we have NO examples of other universes were they are different so that tells us nothing of the probability or even the possibility that those constants of the universe could be different from what they are.

This is the only planet we know of that has all the right constants suitable for life as we know it.

so your point is? How would that be evidence for “fine-tuning” of the variables such as surface gravity?
If conductions were NOT suitable here for life then we wouldn't be here and thus there would be no idiot here to ask “isn't it an amazing coincidence that conditions are right for life here but not so on any other known planet?” And that would be like asking “isn't it an amazing coincidence that I am a member of the only species of living thing on this planet capable of typing or saying these words when so many species of living things exist on this planet!”.

Can you imagine why the laws of physics would exist without a physical universe for them to contol?

how do you know there exists a “why” the laws of physics exist?