The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

quote:

---

Yes, I don;t think you'll be able to produce anyone who believes in evolution, who thinks humans came from pools of goo.

---

Indirectly, all life came from a pool of 'hot' goo.

quote:

---

According to this theory, energy for rearranging atoms and molecules into organic forms that promoted the genesis of life came from sunlight, lightning, or geothermal heat. This model of the early environment became especially popular among scientists after a U.S. graduate student of physics named Stanley Miller (1930—), then studying at the University of Chicago, designed an experiment to test it. In 1953 Miller filled a closed glass container with a mixture of the gases that Oparin and Haldane suggested were in the ancient atmosphere. In the bottom of the container was a reservoir of boiling water, and above it an apparatus that caused electrical sparks to pass through the gas mixture. After one week of reaction, Miller found that amino acids and other organic chemicals had formed from the gases and water.
Origin of Life - Theories Of The Origin Of Life - Acids, Amino, Atmosphere, and Molecules - JRank Articles

---

So again, I ask, what is your opinion on how the first organism arised?

quote:

---

Given enough time.

---

Time time time. It's always the same from every evolutionist. Just give it time. Anything is possible with TIME. I bet you have a lifetime subscription to TIME magazine...haha.

quote:

---

Since it is highly unlikely that I would say that biological information was speghetti

---

Good, then tell your evolutionist friend to answer my direct question.

quote:

---

No. I do however see you saying that you don't know why water exists. What with words having meanings, and so forth.

---

This explained so much Doc. You replaced 'How' with 'Why'. A common problem with evolutionists.

quote:

---

Yes, apparently he meant to write a book called The Origin of Life but he was such a poor speller that he spelled the word "life" as "s-p-e-c-i-e-s"

---

1. Do you always take things so literal?2. Do you laugh?But now that we know origins are important, we can get back to explaining them, instead of using intellectual attacks to support our viewpoints, and use science instead.

quote:

---

We can't actually measure complexity.

---

Wrong, we can. You just asked a stupid question, as I wrote in my last response. You need to be specific when you ask for the complexity of something with many variables.How do you measure earth? It's easy if you could be specific.circumference?
Distance?
Mass?
Materials?
Shape?
Rotation?
Speed?All you need to do is ask questions that make sense. I would know, ID's have been doing it for years now.

quote:

---

Then complexity is useless for a guide as to whether something is designed or not.

---

Wrong. Complexity is evidence of a designer. Though it is not PROOF, as so many evolutionists attack, it is evidence for. See what evolutionists want is something so concrete, that it cannot be mistaken or interpretted any other way but an intelligent designer. But the ToE has no such evidence, in that every fossil, experiment and theory in support of has been argued quite well for the contrary. It's not the evidence for evolution that makes it wrong, it's the lack of.Off topic, back to design stuff.

quote:

---

You do know you have torpedoed I.D. right there, with your own words, don't you?

---

Though I'm sure you enjoy sounding smart, it's only you that hears the tune. And even if I did say something stupid, I sincerly doubt that ID's worldwide would collapse and cry out, "WHY!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!??!"I'm an oilfield man, with an opinion. There are far more intelligent people out there making far better arguements for ID than me. And you can't even manage to convince me. You are the only evidence I can find of a half man/ape thus far.

quote:

---

'functional information' content of the genome rather than its complexity.

---

True, but I'm basing the complexity of the information on the grounds that the information, though from independant sources (different mRNA strands, codon sequences, etc.) work together in common directions. DNA for eye structure comes from many different DNA sources, but all complete a single task. If they all worked independently, then we would be closer to a much simpler, "functional information" interpretation.

quote:

---

specify some sort of sequence length

---

sequence length has much less to do with overall complexity, but it is true that longer sequences of nucleotides would be harder to form useful information, but only if evolution is true. If ID is true, the differing lengths of sequences would have been almost no different to create.

quote:

---

but to systematically modify every nucleotide and screen for fitness effects would be orders of magnitude more difficult.

---

I'm not asking anyone to do that. I'm simply defining genetic complexity, so whoever I was writing to could carry on with the topic.

quote:

---

Just to clarify, you are agreeing with JBR that your tree and arrow example was about someone mistakenly identifying the tree as a simple natural product compared to the arrow even though both were actually the result of intelligent design?

---

I have no idea who JBR is. The only two people I can manage to keep straight for now are you and Dr. Adequate. I just respond when someone responds to me.But no. The hypothetical person who we are discussing mistakes the tree for being simple, and assumes natural origin, and the arrow complex, and assumes design. Why?

quote:

---

Is the wire arrangement in this antenna

​

complex?

---

Likely to be formed in nature? No.
Function and purpose? Yes.
Co-operation with other parts to function? Yes.
Designed.

quote:

---

This sounds like a weasilly caveat to get around the fact that there are many examples of random mutations which produce organisms with a better ability to survive in a particular environment.

---

Fruit fly experiments?

quote:

---

You mean as Dennis claimed. There is plenty of direct evidence for de novo beneficial mutations

---

I NEVER claimed anything close. I said 99.9% of mutations are neutral or negative, and that is true. There are DOCUMENTED instances of beneficial mutations occuring. Non issue for me.ID's and evolutionists alike, stop putting words in my mouth. Though I am not convinced that random genetic mutation caused all diverse life today, there are documented cases of beneficial mutation.JBR.

quote:

---

Ignorance though can be cured and lead you out of the darkness of Satan and into to light of science.

---

You are funny. I think I'll keep you as a pet.You are using God's light to shine science. You are also breathing God's air.A man was talking to God one day, and said, "You may be all powerful, but I bet I could build something far better than anything ever on earth. Better than you could possibly imagine."God replies, "Go for it."The man begins working. He starts digging a hole, for the foundation of his masterpiece, when God interupts him..."What are you doing?" God said."Digging a foundation for my masterpiece!" He replies."I can see that" God says, "But you are using my dirt."You offered no science in your message, so I will do the same. The response to how to measure earth is in this thread, back a little, to which I refuse to write twice. Keep up or keep out.

quote:

---

The same is true of DNA.

---

Not with the genetic material used for your grey matter, agreed. But if DNA has no function, how are you reading this, interpreting this, and responding to this?

A wonderful response. Clear, concise, and consistent with the positions you've previously laid out. I applaud your effort.Unfortunately, your conclusion is incorrect. The antenna arrangement was not designed. It was a result of random changes.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

But how does the sandbar traverse the central median trench? Edited by Omnivorous, : I mean, it IS kind of deep.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

quote:

---

I said that the odds were irrelevant, not the DNA.

---

You wouldn't be an avid lottery player would you?

quote:

---

Yes it does! (pretaining to water)

---

GOOD, WTF is it. Can we all stop side stepping and dancing like a friday night cowboy club playing Cadillac Ranch and explain the origin of the matter required for water?!?

quote:

---

No it doesn't! (pretaining to origins)

---

Evolution explains the origin of many things, including genetic material, and individual and diversity of species, but excludes the origin of the first living organism(s).

quote:

---

All you are doing is demonstrating your own dismal lack of understanding and your vast wealth of ignorance.

---

You are avoiding questions like a bulimic, self-mutilating cannibal overdosed on Red Bull. Before you eat, and puke yourself to death, how does that sound for:

quote:

---

you are being clever when you say these things

---

???BTW, you can attack my character all you want, I asked you very specific relevant questions, to which you avoid. I'm moving on it other posts, where at least I have to defend my position, rather than my character.Mutate and be less fit.

quote:

---

Too funny. Maybe you will actually be the very first person that can actually present even a shred of evidence in support of that nonsense.

---

Page not found – Pinkoski.comYou lose.

quote:

---

Of course, even if you could support that assertion it would add zero support to the topic of this thread.

---

You are the one that went off topic and attacked those that accept certain aspects of the Bible as literal interpretations of historical events. YOU went off topic, and YOU are wrong.Stick to the subject now. I don't want to throw away my time talking off topic. Though even on topic, talking with you is the same thing.

quote:

---

There are no chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, nor any sandbar across it, as you can plainly see in Google Earth.

---

What? Google earth can see underwater now? F*ing cool. But since the Bible says a great wind separated the waters, and exposed the sand, one could assume that the sand bar is under water...which it is, between Nuweiba and Midian, in the Gulf of Aqaba.Goodbye.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, your conclusion is incorrect. The antenna arrangement was not designed. It was a result of random changes.

---

Perfect. This is yet a prime example of how someone can misinterpret physical information to draw incorrect conclusions. In order to make a intelligent assumption, I would have gained more insight by asking a mechanical engineer about the antenna, and it's proper shape and function. More information means more accurate conclusion. As science advances, we understand even once thought simple organisms are amazingly complex, and thus tilts evidence for design.I got one.http://www.avland.co.uk/sony/ers7/ers7lrg.jpgDesigned or evolved?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what point you are making.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist