Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
97 online now:
Michael MD, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 93 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,981 Year: 5,093/6,534 Month: 513/794 Week: 4/135 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 146 (792318)
10-06-2016 7:26 PM


Well, I can understand that an argument from design has been attempted yet so far no indication of either design or designer or any need for any designer has been presented.

Given that the idea is so ridiculous it rightly falls in the same category as design by pure chance.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 146 (792338)
10-07-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
10-07-2016 6:25 AM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Logic is irrelevant when dealing with reality as you have been told in the past. Things exist that are illogical. That is a fact.

You begin with an unsupported assertion that something that appears to be designed was designed.

Until you can support that it has no meaning.

But wait, there's more.

When things can be explained without the necessity of inserting some unevidence designer the existence of any such unevidenced designer is just pointless.

Why should anyone insert the unevidenced designer when there is no reason or necessity to insert the unevidenced designer UNLESS the actual point of the exercise is an attempt to insert the unevidenced designer without the necessity of actually doing any research, providing any evidence or get around the restrictions required of reality based science?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 10-07-2016 6:25 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 39 of 146 (792353)
10-07-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 12:08 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Genomicus writes:

A hypothesis of agency in the origin of life need not conflict with the modern evolutionary synthesis.

But does it add anything at all other than unsupported assertions?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 12:08 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 12:54 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 55 of 146 (792369)
10-07-2016 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Genomicus
10-07-2016 12:54 PM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
Genomicus writes:

For example, the hypothesis of eukaryotic front-loading explains why core eukaryotic proteins have well-conserved structural and sequence protein homologs in prokaryotes, as opposed to some of these essential proteins having been cobbled together from non-functional stretches of prokaryotic genomes (e.g., pseudogenes).

HUH?

How is that an explanation of anything more than "turtles all the way"?

Genomicus writes:

Further, specific design hypotheses provide predictions which can then be experimentally tested.

I have seen that claim many times but like the words salad in the former quote, what meaning does that have and why haven't any such tests ever been performed?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Genomicus, posted 10-07-2016 12:54 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 84 of 146 (792638)
10-12-2016 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by New Cat's Eye
10-12-2016 10:20 AM


Re: Life Looks Engineered
CS writes:

Quibbling over whether or not it really does superficially look like a machine seems like the wrong approach. Especially given that being a "machine" can be something as simple as having a triangular shape.

Their position is even funnier when you realize that monkeys using a rock to crack nuts is an example of a machine and crows selecting hooked twigs to pull grubs from under bark are also using tools. Looks like the Intelligent Designer could be a monkey or a bird brain.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2016 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 124 of 146 (793683)
11-03-2016 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by vimesey
11-03-2016 4:17 PM


Green goods?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by vimesey, posted 11-03-2016 4:17 PM vimesey has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 142 of 146 (796849)
01-05-2017 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Dr Adequate
01-05-2017 10:57 AM


Re: Life Looks Evolved
But if there was a perfect creator, you'd expect none.

But you need to remember that the Biblical creator in Genesis 2&3 was far from perfect and in fact learning by doing so you would expect piss poor design.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2017 10:57 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022