Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[xSauronx]

So you can't conceive of an intelligent designer but you can conceive of a magical random process for creating biological matter?

Why can't imagine you imagine a designer for a highly complex living organism?

i dont hold an opinion or belief on the beginning of life. i see no compelling evidence to conclude that we were created by another magical being. none. whatsoever.

what i meant was that if you can conceive a magical man to make all of this...its not really much of a step to hold as a possible option that there isnt one. or rather: if god always "just was" then the universe is every bit as likely to "just be" and you cant prove or disprove either one.

us being here and things being complicated isnt evidence of a creator, its just more things we havent figured out yet. that list changes constantly. science is regularly providing answers to questions, and providing more questions to ask that we will (in many cases) find answers to.

Knowledge has been practically explosive in the last several decades, and scientific research--research based on the same principals that give us computers, cell phones, nuclear weapons, advanced medicine and youtube--is telling us more and more about the universe around us (from the sub-atomic level to the galactic level and then some) practically every day.

none of that research has, as far as i have seen, provided us with the evidence of the origin of the universe, nevermind life. it damn sure doesnt point to evidence that an invisible, magical man wiggled his nose and *poof* everything was there. suggesting such a thing to begin with is absurd, foolhardy and shows an absolute lack in interest in anything often defined as logical or rational.

suggesting further that there is *evidence* is being willfully ignorant both of the absurdity of the idea as well as in the definition of "evidence"

and please, stop with that picture. its amazingly annoying.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

A Physical Anthropology professor told me that in a lecture. He provided ample evidence and I don't have any reason to believe he has an alternate agenda to push. If you're going to believe your own conjecture over the evidenced research of a credited and well-respected scientist, then there's no hope.

I can't give you damning evidence of evolution off the top of my head, because I'm not an expert. I have, however, been presented with evidence that is good enough for me. If you're really curious about the theory and its supporting evidence, go talk to such an expert at a local university.

Just because a college professor says something doesn't make it true.

 

[PowerEngineer]

So you can't conceive of an intelligent designer but you can conceive of a magical random process for creating biological matter?

Why can't imagine you imagine a designer for a highly complex living organism?

I can imagine it; I can imagine a lot of things. But what I can imagine isn't always true nor does it often turn out to be the best scientific explanation for something.

Imagining an 'intelligent designer' essentially requires you to think that the designer's existence is more likely that the 'magical random process' that triggered life and its evolution on earth. But then you have to answer the question of how the designer came into existence. It seems reasonable to assert that the process to bring an omnipotent designer into existance would have to be far more 'magical' than the one required to produce our more humble life forms.

Now, I suppose I can imagine an even less likely 'magical random process' where our designer was 'designed' by an even more omnipotent designer. But then that more omnipotent designer's existence relies on an even more 'magical' process.

And so on...

The point here is that the simplest explanation for the existance of life as we know it does not involve any 'intelligent designers'.

The only way out of this is to make the designer's existence a matter of faith rather than logic (which I assume you do).

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Agreed, all the evidence points against randomness and towards intelligent design.

All that evidence which I have continually requested to be presented and which you have not only failed to supply, but you've already admitted can't exist since ID is unfalsifiable.

This is why you are a liar. You make statements which you yourself have admitted cannot be true.

 

[Jeff7]

Who told told you that, and why do you believe them?

Jesus, because he's Jesus.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

i dont hold an opinion or belief on the beginning of life. i see no compelling evidence to conclude that we were created by another magical being. none. whatsoever.

You say you don't hold a belief but you do, there are two possible explanations for the origin of life:

• Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
• Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.

You believe the former. Why do you hold this belief? Why are you limiting yourslef to naturalistic explanations, when the former explanation may provide a better fit to the evidence?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If a scientist says something it must be true, even if it doesn't stand up against critical analysis?

More lies. You know well by now that evolution is constantly the subject of critical analysis and yet it remains because the evidence is so undeniable.

To suggest otherwise is to perpetrate a falsehood.

You are a liar.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You say you don't hold a belief but you do, there are two possible explanations for the origin of life

WHAT origin of life?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I can imagine it; I can imagine a lot of things. But what I can imagine isn't always true nor does it often turn out to be the best scientific explanation for something.

Imagining an 'intelligent designer' essentially requires you to think that the designer's existence is more likely that the 'magical random process' that triggered life and its evolution on earth. But then you have to answer the question of how the designer came into existence. It seems reasonable to assert that the process to bring an omnipotent designer into existance would have to be far more 'magical' than the one required to produce our more humble life forms.

Now, I suppose I can imagine an even less likely 'magical random process' where our designer was 'designed' by an even more omnipotent designer. But then that more omnipotent designer's existence relies on an even more 'magical' process.

And so on...

The point here is that the simplest explanation for the existance of life as we know it does not involve any 'intelligent designers'.

The only way out of this is to make the designer's existence a matter of faith rather than logic (which I assume you do).

The probability of randomly forming a small protein molecule with 150 amino acids is about 1 x 10^180.


Even the most primitive cell has

• A cell wall
• The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
• The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
• The ability to split itself to reproduce

What is the simple explanation for the random, spontaneous generation of a cell in the absence of an intelligent designer?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

More lies. You know well by now that evolution is constantly the subject of critical analysis

Really? I guess you didn't see this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

 

[Nik]

Just because a college professor says something doesn't make it true.

Of course not. Professors don't just "say stuff." They provide evidence to backup their claims.

Like we did.

Repeatedly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Really? I guess you didn't see this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

I did, and it's a bunch of bullshit, just like everything else you post. Creationism isn't taught in science class because it isn't scientific. Period. You've admitted as much yourself, you lying piece of shit. When creationists can propose a falsifiable hypothesis and validate it experimentally, then it will have scientific relevance.

They don't teach the theory of intelligent falling in science classrooms, either. Where's the movie on that?

 

[Nik]

Really? I guess you didn't see this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Nope, not going to click it either. I'm going to conveniently ignore it just like you ignore everything we link you.

 

[Nik]

The probability of randomly forming a small protein molecule with 150 amino acids is about 1 x 10^180.


Even the most primitive cell has

• A cell wall
• The ability to maintain and expand the cell wall (grow)
• The ability to process "food" (other molecules floating outside the cell) to create energy
• The ability to split itself to reproduce

What is the simple explanation for the random, spontaneous generation of a cell in the absence of an intelligent designer?

Time

 

[actuarial]

You say you don't hold a belief but you do, there are two possible explanations for the origin of life:

• Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
• Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.

• 
  
  Or we're a video game simulation and not really alive
  Or life on earth was engineered by aliens much the same way we engineer artificial sweetners
  
  Are we a supernatural creature from the perspective of ants in an ant farm? Does that make use supernatural creatures? Should ants pray to us?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Of course not. Professors don't just "say stuff." They provide evidence to backup their claims.

Like we did.

Repeatedly.

I see. You place your faith in professors and never question them. Of course a professor could never be wrong.

 

[PowerEngineer]

What is the simple explanation for the random, spontaneous generation of a cell in the absence of an intelligent designer?

You seem to be ignoring the content of my post.

No one has said that the explanation is 'simple'.

What I have said is that no matter how unlikely the "random, spontaneous generation of a cell in the absence of an intelligent designer" might seem, it is still very much more likely than the "random, spontaneous generation" of the intelligent designer.

Adding the need for an 'intelligent designer' makes the existence of life as we know it much less likely.

What you need to provide is a 'simple explanation' for the existence of the 'intelligent designer'.

 

[Molondo]

And you have kids?

 

[Ruptga]

Hey now, none of that. This r srs thread.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I see. You place your faith in professors and never question them. Of course a professor could never be wrong.

Individuals can be wrong. But when every single reputable professor and scientist say the same thing, it's probably best to listen.

Unless you're an idiot.

 

[madeuce]

I see. You place your faith in professors and never question them. Of course a professor could never be wrong.

It doesn't help that when the professors themselves question evolution or are involved in a study that doesn't seem to be supporting evolution they tend to lose their jobs.

 

[xSauronx]

You say you don't hold a belief but you do, there are two possible explanations for the origin of life:

• Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
• Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.

You believe the former. Why do you hold this belief? Why are you limiting yourslef to naturalistic explanations, when the former explanation may provide a better fit to the evidence?

WHAT origin of life?

we're here, im not interested in an origin we cant investigate. i dont have evidence for your invisible man, so i dont believe in him. i could be wrong...but its not in the face of a preponderance of evidence. i dont believe, or care, either way.

you do, despite a lack of evidence for your belief.

 

[Nik]

I see. You place your faith in professors and never question them. Of course a professor could never be wrong.

When did I say that, liar?

Of course they can. The material they teach is constantly ridiculed and poured over by peers. It's CONSTANTLY reviewed. Theories change as new supporting evidence surfaces.

You know this. Everybody knows this.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

It doesn't help that when the professors themselves question evolution or are involved in a study that doesn't seem to be supporting evolution they tend to lose their jobs.

Yeah, professors need to have evidence to back up their point when they try to discredit a proven theory. These idiots lose their jobs because they assert that evolution is false without providing any real evidence.

 

[Jeff7]

No, more than that.