1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

serp777, you have shown nothing.  No science and no response worth anything. 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names.

 

No I don't. I'll leave this thread as well as I did the others as calling names is not amusing for me but just a reflection of frustation of not being able to initate a rational dialog with you while you in fact claim that you are interested in such.

There is no rational discussion here, there never was and other than that I've learned everything I need to know about your psychology profile. Everything you say now is expected, predicted and boring. There's nothing amusing your cognitively distorted mind can produce anymore.

Enjoy talking to your projections and begging people to fulfill them ("now is your chance" rofl) so you can beat them with your endless lists of bogus evidence. This activity sure seems to be doing wonders for your life.

You're wasting your life building lists of proof for something you declare to already beleive is true. You have no way to explain this yourself, you lie to yourself about it. You try to invent witty analogies why this happens, but ask any shrink and you'll get the same answer: you're the one who doesn't beleive.

And you're here trying to change peoples minds and can't admit that it is in fact YOU who doesnt beleive in God and by changing our opinion you will finally change yours.
And it never happens so you're locked into a ridiculous recurring process seen on this forum that is a waste of life. You should really simply be put down to ease your suffering as if you were a wounded horse.

Anyway, enjoy the futility of your existence, ta-ta

 

Nothing rational, 0.  And we know who engages in name calling. 

[shadowhawk]

Debate on the book, Darwins Doubt."  Here is a top evolutionist and ID debating the issues.

 

http://intelligentde...T17_43_37-07_00

 

 

 

[serp777]

serp777, you have shown nothing.  No science and no response worth anything. 

That's only your opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing. All you've shown are your useless emoticons. When you can't deal with a good argument, you just switch to denial mode. A great debate tactic for deflecting relevant conversation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names.

 

No I don't. I'll leave this thread as well as I did the others as calling names is not amusing for me but just a reflection of frustation of not being able to initate a rational dialog with you while you in fact claim that you are interested in such.

There is no rational discussion here, there never was and other than that I've learned everything I need to know about your psychology profile. Everything you say now is expected, predicted and boring. There's nothing amusing your cognitively distorted mind can produce anymore.

Enjoy talking to your projections and begging people to fulfill them ("now is your chance" rofl) so you can beat them with your endless lists of bogus evidence. This activity sure seems to be doing wonders for your life.

You're wasting your life building lists of proof for something you declare to already beleive is true. You have no way to explain this yourself, you lie to yourself about it. You try to invent witty analogies why this happens, but ask any shrink and you'll get the same answer: you're the one who doesn't beleive.

And you're here trying to change peoples minds and can't admit that it is in fact YOU who doesnt beleive in God and by changing our opinion you will finally change yours.
And it never happens so you're locked into a ridiculous recurring process seen on this forum that is a waste of life. You should really simply be put down to ease your suffering as if you were a wounded horse.

Anyway, enjoy the futility of your existence, ta-ta

 

Nothing rational, 0.  And we know who engages in name calling. 

 

Go cry to the internet police. He is vastly more rational than you. 

Edited by serp777, 19 June 2014 - 03:58 AM.

[shadowhawk]

 

serp777, you have shown nothing.  No science and no response worth anything. 

That's only your opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing. All you've shown are your useless emoticons. When you can't deal with a good argument, you just switch to denial mode. A great debate tactic for deflecting relevant conversation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names.

 

No I don't. I'll leave this thread as well as I did the others as calling names is not amusing for me but just a reflection of frustation of not being able to initate a rational dialog with you while you in fact claim that you are interested in such.

There is no rational discussion here, there never was and other than that I've learned everything I need to know about your psychology profile. Everything you say now is expected, predicted and boring. There's nothing amusing your cognitively distorted mind can produce anymore.

Enjoy talking to your projections and begging people to fulfill them ("now is your chance" rofl) so you can beat them with your endless lists of bogus evidence. This activity sure seems to be doing wonders for your life.

You're wasting your life building lists of proof for something you declare to already beleive is true. You have no way to explain this yourself, you lie to yourself about it. You try to invent witty analogies why this happens, but ask any shrink and you'll get the same answer: you're the one who doesn't beleive.

And you're here trying to change peoples minds and can't admit that it is in fact YOU who doesnt beleive in God and by changing our opinion you will finally change yours.
And it never happens so you're locked into a ridiculous recurring process seen on this forum that is a waste of life. You should really simply be put down to ease your suffering as if you were a wounded horse.

Anyway, enjoy the futility of your existence, ta-ta

 

Nothing rational, 0.  And we know who engages in name calling. 

 

Go cry to the internet police. He is vastly more rational than you. 

 

Typical. 

[serp777]

 

 

serp777, you have shown nothing.  No science and no response worth anything. 

That's only your opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing. All you've shown are your useless emoticons. When you can't deal with a good argument, you just switch to denial mode. A great debate tactic for deflecting relevant conversation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More and more name calling but when it comes to evidence 0.

I'm not here supplying evidence, I'm here to see your evidence about ID you keep claiming to have but always asking people to give evidence about evolution first and it is not even the topic
 

Do you think design happens by designers?  Where did it come from?  Ever hear of designer genes?

Well, that sounds like a mechanism, tell us about it
 

Now is your chance.

Evolution is not the topic. You have google if you want to learn about evolution, it's too large for me to explain it to you especially when considering futility of such an endeavour. Or if you reduce your arrogance maybe you could show up in a class and listen to someone talk about it or something.

Offer evidence towards ID or stop confusing and trolling the topic.

 

  I thought so, here was your chance to destroy ID and you fired a blank.  All you want to do is call names.

 

No I don't. I'll leave this thread as well as I did the others as calling names is not amusing for me but just a reflection of frustation of not being able to initate a rational dialog with you while you in fact claim that you are interested in such.

There is no rational discussion here, there never was and other than that I've learned everything I need to know about your psychology profile. Everything you say now is expected, predicted and boring. There's nothing amusing your cognitively distorted mind can produce anymore.

Enjoy talking to your projections and begging people to fulfill them ("now is your chance" rofl) so you can beat them with your endless lists of bogus evidence. This activity sure seems to be doing wonders for your life.

You're wasting your life building lists of proof for something you declare to already beleive is true. You have no way to explain this yourself, you lie to yourself about it. You try to invent witty analogies why this happens, but ask any shrink and you'll get the same answer: you're the one who doesn't beleive.

And you're here trying to change peoples minds and can't admit that it is in fact YOU who doesnt beleive in God and by changing our opinion you will finally change yours.
And it never happens so you're locked into a ridiculous recurring process seen on this forum that is a waste of life. You should really simply be put down to ease your suffering as if you were a wounded horse.

Anyway, enjoy the futility of your existence, ta-ta

 

Nothing rational, 0.  And we know who engages in name calling. 

 

Go cry to the internet police. He is vastly more rational than you. 

 

Typical. 

 

Irrelevant statement. Irrelevant emoticon. 

Edited by serp777, 19 June 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[shadowhawk]

  Have a good night.

[serp777]

  Have a good night.

More irrelevant emoticons. Why are you so obsessed with that condescending smiley face? 

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

1. The Beginning of life?
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
3,  Haeckel's Embryos?
4.  Archaeopteryx?
5.  Peppered Moth?
6.  Galápagos Finches?
7.  Four-Winged Fruit Flies?
8.  Horses?
9.  E-Coli?
10.  Human Evolution?

------------------------------------------------------------

 

serp777 answered the first two and I responded.

 

My question.
1. The Beginning of life?
Your answer
1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence.

My question.
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
Your answer
2. Evolution from initial replicating cells
-----------------------------------------------------------
Number one is not evidence.  There is no experiment or probability from chemistry to show life starts from.....  The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry.  DNA and epi-genome.
Number two.  Without a membrane all the contents of a cell would simply spill out.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 June 2014 - 05:26 AM.

[serp777]

I've already countered all of your points, but you didn't respond to the coutner points for some reason. I will re iterate.

 

"The contents of a cell are much more than chemistry.  DNA and epi-genome."

 

When you make an assertion you need evidence or proof to back it up. You can't just make a claim and expect people to take your word for it. DNA is made from atoms, and therefore can be described by chemistry since chemistry explains electrical interactions between atoms. DNA and epi-genome doesn't suggest anything other than pure chemistry.

 

"Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

 

Assuptions you've made-

1. That cells use something besides chemistry. You would need some proof that chemistry cannot explain the all of the mechanisms of the cell. The field of biology uses chemistry to explain all the mechanisms of the cell:

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Cell_(biology)

 

2. That the first cell used DNA. There is no reason to believe that the first cell was constructed from DNA and was likely much more simple. DNA eventually evolved out of something much simpler.

 

"it has been proposed that the earliest forms of life may have used RNA as their genetic material.^[125][126] RNA may have acted as the central part of early cell metabolism as it can both transmit genetic information and carry out catalysis as part of ribozymes.^[127]"

 

^{http://en.wikipedia....i/DNA#Evolution}

 

3. "Without a membrane all the contents of a cell would simply spill out." surely you do not know all of chemistry. There may be a way for a cell to exist without a membrane; you would need some proof to say that a cell cannot function without a membrane. I have yet to see you provide any evidence for this.

 

 

 

 

"Number one is not evidence.  There is no experiment or probability from chemistry to show life starts from"

 

I've already responded to this, but ill respond again. Your own evidence that you provided from Cambridge says that proteins have a non zero probability of spontaenously forming, which means advanced oragnic molecules also have some probability of forming. Since a cell is just a collection of molecules, a very simple cell made from RNA would have a small, but non zero chance of forming spontateously. Probability, furthermore, does not need a mechanism.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

You didn't answer either question

 

My question.
1. The Beginning of life?
Your answer
1. Probability from chemistry, as supported by your own evidence.

My question.
2. How did the first Cell Outer Membrane Form?
Your answer
2. Evolution from initial replicating cells

 

How does probablity from chemistry create life and if it does why does it not continue to do so?  What probability?

 

The second concerns the outer membrane of the cell.  How did it evolve initially so the stuff of life could stay inside and what caused it to replicate?

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 June 2014 - 05:25 PM.

[serp777]

I know your arguments are so weak that you cant respond to my arguments, but you're just embarrassing yourself at this point by ignoring the answers i just posted.

I did answer both questions throughly, but if you want to keep lying to yourself thats your prerogative

Simply saying i.did not answer the question does not mean i didn't answer it

Why did you provide evidence from cambridge that protein have a low probability of forming if you're going to deny it now? I will re cite your own evidence if you cant remember

Edited by serp777, 19 June 2014 - 05:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Nonsense, you didn't answer it.  I showed your answer.  http://www.longecity...-22#entry669791

[serp777]

You didn't read and or understand my post. If you need help understanding some of these relatively simple points, let me know, but simply claiming nonsense is a red herring

Also, as I've already argued without contention, you are not the ultimate judge of sense, so just because ypu think it is allegedly nonsense does not mean it is nonsense

Furthermore, to reiterate for the third time, your own evidence shows that proteins and advanced organic molecules can form randomly. Life is made from organic molecules so it follows that life can arise randomly. I can re cite your evidence if you forgot. Your second question about membranes reflects a profound ignorance about my argument. Once ypu have a self replicating molecule, evolution from that point can explain how membranes eventually arose. It would be like asking me to show you exactly how human hair arose. Its a moot argument

Edited by serp777, 29 June 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[shadowhawk]

No arguments here.  Nonsense.

[addx]

http://www.cell.com/...5521(13)00426-2

 

An RNA enzyme has been developed that catalyzes the joining of oligonucleotide substrates to form additional copies of itself, undergoing self-replication with exponential growth. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution. The opportunity for inventive evolution within this synthetic genetic system depends on the diversity of the evolving population, which is limited by the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme. Directed evolution was used to improve the efficiency of the enzyme and increase its exponential growth rate to 0.14 min−1, corresponding to a doubling time of 5 min. This is close to the limit of 0.21 min−1 imposed by the rate of product release, but sufficient to enable more than 80 logs of growth per day.

 

I think this makes EOD. 

[serp777]

No arguments here.  Nonsense.

You concede the debate since you clearly cant provide any arguments

[serp777]

http://www.cell.com/...5521(13)00426-2
 

An RNA enzyme has been developed that catalyzes the joining of oligonucleotide substrates to form additional copies of itself, undergoing self-replication with exponential growth. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution. The opportunity for inventive evolution within this synthetic genetic system depends on the diversity of the evolving population, which is limited by the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme. Directed evolution was used to improve the efficiency of the enzyme and increase its exponential growth rate to 0.14 min−1, corresponding to a doubling time of 5 min. This is close to the limit of 0.21 min−1 imposed by the rate of product release, but sufficient to enable more than 80 logs of growth per day.

 
I think this makes EOD. 

This is exactly the kind of relatively simple rna molecule i have been referring to, nice find. Shadow will not accept this as evidence however because it defeats his arguments

[addx]

http://www.cell.com/...5521(13)00426-2

An RNA enzyme has been developed that catalyzes the joining of oligonucleotide substrates to form additional copies of itself, undergoing self-replication with exponential growth. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution. The opportunity for inventive evolution within this synthetic genetic system depends on the diversity of the evolving population, which is limited by the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme. Directed evolution was used to improve the efficiency of the enzyme and increase its exponential growth rate to 0.14 min−1, corresponding to a doubling time of 5 min. This is close to the limit of 0.21 min−1 imposed by the rate of product release, but sufficient to enable more than 80 logs of growth per day.

 
I think this makes EOD.

This is exactly the kind of relatively simple rna molecule i have been referring to, nice find. Shadow will not accept this as evidence however because it defeats his arguments

Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.cell.com/...5521(13)00426-2

 

 

An RNA enzyme has been developed that catalyzes the joining of oligonucleotide substrates to form additional copies of itself, undergoing self-replication with exponential growth. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution. The opportunity for inventive evolution within this synthetic genetic system depends on the diversity of the evolving population, which is limited by the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme. Directed evolution was used to improve the efficiency of the enzyme and increase its exponential growth rate to 0.14 min−1, corresponding to a doubling time of 5 min. This is close to the limit of 0.21 min−1 imposed by the rate of product release, but sufficient to enable more than 80 logs of growth per day.

 

 

I think this makes EOD. 

How so?

 

No arguments here.  Nonsense.

You concede the debate since you clearly cant provide any arguments

 

  What a joke

[shadowhawk]

 

Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.

 

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

 

Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.

 

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

[serp777]

 
Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.
 

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

 
Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.
 

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

Did you not understand the biology of his evidence? You don't need a membrane to have rapid evolution. Once you have evolution a membrane will eventually evolve given enough time. This is like asking how the eye formed and saying therefore intelligent design. Do you accept evolution as a science with an equally huge amount of evidence compared to the theory of relativity (gravity) ?
[quote name="serp777" post="672421" timestamp="1404361958"]

[quote name="shadowhawk" post="672374" timestamp="1404341038"][quote name="addx" post="672304" timestamp="1404302652"]

 
Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.
 [/quote]Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

 
Yep. I remember I've seen studies producing self-replicating molecules with less than 150-200 base pairs, I think this one is even smaller... so that's not that difficult... given enough time, temperature. We're talking pure RNA here, no cellular membrane. That's a soup of self-replicating evolving, cannibalising molecules. Once it starts it turns into an insane soup of evolution until one of the free RNAs manages to get surrounded by a membrane or something. Without membranes it's evolutionary mayhem.
 

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.[/quote]
Did you not understand the biology of his evidence? You don't need a membrane to have rapid evolution. Once you have evolution a membrane will eventually evolve given enough time. This is like asking how the eye formed and saying therefore intelligent design. Do you accept evolution as a science with an equally huge amount of evidence compared to the theory of relativity (gravity) ?

Furthermore you do know that pools of random assortments of organic molecules exist today right? Go do a water analysis and you will find amino acids

http://www.cell.com/...5521(13)00426-2
 
 

An RNA enzyme has been developed that catalyzes the joining of oligonucleotide substrates to form additional copies of itself, undergoing self-replication with exponential growth. The enzyme also can cross-replicate with a partner enzyme, resulting in their mutual exponential growth and enabling self-sustained Darwinian evolution. The opportunity for inventive evolution within this synthetic genetic system depends on the diversity of the evolving population, which is limited by the catalytic efficiency of the enzyme. Directed evolution was used to improve the efficiency of the enzyme and increase its exponential growth rate to 0.14 min−1, corresponding to a doubling time of 5 min. This is close to the limit of 0.21 min−1 imposed by the rate of product release, but sufficient to enable more than 80 logs of growth per day.
 

 
I think this makes EOD. 

How so?

 

No arguments here.  Nonsense.

You concede the debate since you clearly cant provide any arguments
 

  What a joke

It is pretty funny how you can't provide any counterarguments to my previous point.

[Duchykins]

No proposal of a biological mechanism of ID yet?

For the sake of argument:

1) evolutionary theory is incorrect in part or in whole
2) life appears to be designed by intelligent agency



Now how does ID explain the diversity of life in any way that is scientifically useful/meaningful?

Oh that's right, it has no explanatory power.

That's why ID is not a scientific theory.

[addx]

Intelligence created the soup.  Not chance.  the membrane remains a problem.  This does not explain how life started.

So you expect an experiment to prove chance? How exactly would one go about proving chance?

It is now clear that entire IDs rebuttal of evolution relies around the fact that they will never accept any "recreation/simulation of an event/conditions that spawns life as proof" because each recreation of such conditions will be recreated by humans and as such it will be deemed designed by intelligence. So anyone trying to disprove ID fails even before he begins. A theory that is relates like that to possibilites of proving itself is no theory at all.

That means ID expects science to observe all dead areas of the world that humans never touched and until life spawns spontaneously by itself on any of those dead areas, evolution is not proven "by chance" but only by human intelligence recreating conditions. It is deemed that conditions that humans created and that supported evolution to resume without human intervention are still artificial and could never arise in nature. There is no true deductive logic to support this but nevertheless, the human touch supposedly taints the possibility of such proof being 100% deductive.

I can even accept that way of thinking, strictly deducted logic. But if you do really think so strict in that way then religion as such is completely out of the question as a truth, when compared to evolution, NOTHING religios can be monitored for proof in the same way dead areas can be monitored for spontaneous appearance of life. The standards you set for proof of evolution are absolute-deductive-logic. The standards you set for proof of religion are relative-inductive logic. Look it up.



So, you have double standards, have been told so in various situations, various ways.

[shadowhawk]

serp777, reply.

 

Intelligent agency produced the soup and it used preexisting soup to get it going.  Kind of like starting a fire with a match and claiming you invented fire.   This is hardly the product of random chance.  Evolution and gravity are apples and oranges.  One does not establish the other.

What counter argument do I need.  You still do not have life or a cell membrane or DNA for that matter.  As addx noted this same experiment was done years ago.  Still no reason ID is not in.

[shadowhawk]

Addx response.

In evolution random chance caused life.  Yes, I expect random chance not intelligent design to produce the result if your theory holds up.  There are other problems but I wont go into them unless brought up.  ID is still in.

You have not spawned life as you claim.  So your negative comments on ID are imagination

[shadowhawk]

No proposal of a biological mechanism of ID yet?

For the sake of argument:

1) evolutionary theory is incorrect in part or in whole
2) life appears to be designed by intelligent agency



Now how does ID explain the diversity of life in any way that is scientifically useful/meaningful?

Oh that's right, it has no explanatory power.

That's why ID is not a scientific theory.

Does it have to be materially physical to be scientifically meaningful?  What do you mean by useful.

 

[addx]

In evolution random chance caused life.  Yes, I expect random chance not intelligent design to produce the result if your theory holds up.

Exactly. So I have to produce life out of random chance in front of your eyes without causing it artificially in any way since this would be taint the "randomness" of the event by my intelligent touch.

Nice going.

[shadowhawk]

 

In evolution random chance caused life.  Yes, I expect random chance not intelligent design to produce the result if your theory holds up.

Exactly. So I have to produce life out of random chance in front of your eyes without causing it artificially in any way since this would be taint the "randomness" of the event by my intelligent touch.

Nice going.

 

You haven’t produced life nor was it done by random chance.  What you have demonstrated is Intelligent Design.  Nice going.