It just doesn't happen

a reply to: TzarChasm

You know what's up? Would it be to much to explain it?
Then I can be like you.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

You know what's up? Would it be to much to explain it?
Then I can be like you.

Or you could explain why it was necessary to initiate this bizarre exercise.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What's bizarre is your claim Chaz! You know what's up give me
one paragraph that backs you up? The level of your arrogance
is preposterous.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

What's bizarre is your claim Chaz! You know what's up give me
one paragraph that backs you up? The level of your arrogance
is preposterous.

Tell me why my comments are preposterous. What exactly was your point in starting this dialogue?

a reply to: Phage

Cherry picking? Phage you know as well as I do that you can't claim
evolution has any validity at all. If you can't first explain and
perform the origins of life. You will never replace the truth
with half assed science. Intelligent design is perfectly believable
Is very explicable in every part of life itself. And even professes certain
undeniable laws. What you're offering to replace all that is SH%t.

That's my point.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Phage

Cherry picking? Phage you as well as I do that you can't claim
evolution has any validity at all if you can't first explain and
perform the origins of life. You will never replace the truth
with half assed science. Intelligent design is perfectly believable
Is very explicable in every part of life it self and professes certain
undeniable laws. What you're offering to replace all that is SH%t.

That's my point.

Then explain and perform intelligent design for us. Create life using the power of...wait, you didn't explain that part. But I'm sure you can show us how it works.

a reply to: carsforkids

Cherry picking?

Yes.
You have chosen a single statement which supports your paradigm and ignored one from the same source which contradicts your paradigm. That is the definition of cherry picking.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TzarChasm

All I have to do is quote scripture. Aren't you going to back
yourself up? Or maybe you'd rather admit your mouth got away
from you?

Phage

Yes.
You have chosen a single statement which supports your paradigm and ignored one from the same source which contradicts your paradigm. That is the definition of cherry picking.

Okay guilty for the sake of text now what?


To be continued

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm

All I have to do is quote scripture. Aren't you going to back
yourself up? Or maybe you'd rather admit your mouth got away
from you?

Phage

Yes.
You have chosen a single statement which supports your paradigm and ignored one from the same source which contradicts your paradigm. That is the definition of cherry picking.

Okay guilty for the sake of text now what?


To be continued

What is quoting scripture going to do? I was asking for you to show us how intelligent design works, hopefully using practical examples.

a reply to: carsforkids

Okay guilty for the sake of text now what?

Evolution happens. Your own source says so.

The Platypus, don't know if it an abomination before God, or adorable.

And the Earth not being the center of the universe too, where the Sun having a much larger center of gravity then some giant ancient serpent that pulls things down.

All kinds of evolution happens cars rockets computers TVs.

But you can't have the evolution you prescribe to with out abiogenesis.
If you negate the Creator then you must have abiogenesis. And
abiogenesis JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

True or False?

originally posted by: carsforkids
All kinds of evolution happens cars rockets computers TVs.

But you can't have the evolution you prescribe to with out abiogenesis.
If you negate the Creator then you must have abiogenesis. And
abiogenesis JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN.

True or False?

Lets try this a different way. If we are willing to indulge the possibility that your divine creation story is reliable, would you allow yourself to suspend your disbelief in abiogenesis and evolution and acknowledge them as viable?

a reply to: carsforkids

From your source:

In making this claim, Muller and Newman are careful to affirm that evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining how preexisting forms diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and variation of genetic traits. Sophisticated mathematically-based models of population genetics have proven adequate for mapping and understanding quantitative variability and populational changes in organisms. Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)–that selection must act on what already exists. Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).

Neo-Darwinism:

Neo-Darwinism is generally used to describe any integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection with Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics. It mostly refers to evolutionary theory from either 1895 (for the combinations of Darwin's and August Weismann's theories of evolution) or 1942 ("modern synthesis"), but it can mean any new Darwinian- and Mendelian-based theory, such as the current evolutionary theory. The term "Neo-Darwinism" marks the combination of natural selection and genetics, as has been variously modified since it was first proposed.

THE CHEMICAL BASIS OF MORPHOGENESIS*
9 A. M. TURING
University of Manchester,
Manchester, U.K.

It is suggested that a system of chemical substances, called morphogens, reacting together and
diffusing through a tissue, is adequate to account for the main phenomena of morphogenesis.
Such a system, although it may originally be quite homogeneous, may later develop a pattern or
structure due to an instability of the homogeneous equilibrium, which is triggered off by random
disturbances. Such reaction-diffusion systems are considered in some detail in the case of an
isolated ring of cells, a mathematically convenient, though biologically unusual system. The
investigation is chiefly concerned with the onset of instability. It is found that there are six
essentially different forms which this may take. In the most interesting form stationary waves
appear on the ring. It is suggested that this might account, for instance, for the tentacle patterns
on Hydra and for whorled leaves. A system of reactions and diffusion on a sphere is also
considered. Such a system appears to account for gastrulation. Another reaction system in two
dimensions gives rise to patterns reminiscent of dappling. It is also suggested that stationary
waves in two dimensions could account for the phenomena of phyllotaxis.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss a possible mechanism by which the genes of a zygote
may determine the anatomical structure of the resulting organism. The theory does not make any
new hypotheses; it merely suggests that certain well-known physical laws are sufficient to
account for many of the facts. The full understanding of the paper requires a good knowledge of
mathematics, some biology, and some elementary chemistry. Since readers cannot be expected to
be experts in all of these subjects, a number of elementary facts are explained, which can be found
in text-books, but whose omission would make the paper difficult reading.

link.springer.com...

In case you don't know who Alan Turing was, think Enigma during WWII. He was a brilliant mathematician.
Since this paper was published in 1990, hundreds of papers have been written about self assembly which show beyond any reasonable doubt that structure/function is an inherent property of life on this planet.

Your source seems to skip over the fact that there is zero evidence for intelligent design. However, there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed research papers demonstrating self assembly of organic, life-forming molecules.

Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Lets try this a different way. If we are willing to indulge the possibility that your divine creation story is reliable, would you allow yourself to suspend your disbelief in abiogenesis and evolution and acknowledge them as viable?

Negative

Don Edstrom
I am a Ph.D. trained synthetic organic chemist, actually was in the same laboratory with Dr. Tour some 30 yrs ago. He speaks the truth. The whole story of prebiotic chemistry is a total hoax with no basis in reality. I read over 400 scientific papers in this area and they do not explain anything.

The academic world has been hoaxing you and everyone else.
I appreciate the offer Chaz but a compromise is not what I'm after.

Douglas Morales
As a Biology major from UCLA I can say that Dr. Tour is correct. Biologist do not make anything. I laughed because it’s true

I'm 100% what you guys are spreading is a hoax
Man: I can manipulate molecules to create life!
God: Create your own molecules.

A fair debate that only cost you 10 mins. Please watch.



You should at the very least agree that "Who created the Creator" is an eternally
ignorant question.

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
HISTORICAL

This is 100% impossible

a reply to: carsforkids

Genesis was done in Seven Days and man were made from clay in some orderly infallible plan, while Science say it took millions, if not billions years through sheer stupid luck and man were composed of more then 4 elements an chaos.

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: carsforkids

Genesis was done in Seven Days and man were made from clay in some orderly infallible plan, while Science say it took millions, if not billions years through sheer stupid luck and man were composed of more then 4 elements an chaos.

You seem to have the right ideas.

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: carsforkids

Genesis was done in Seven Days and man were made from clay in some orderly infallible plan, while Science say it took millions, if not billions years through sheer stupid luck and man were composed of more then 4 elements an chaos.

Please cite a biology textbook or research article that says that humans were made "through sheer stupid luck". And what are the 4 elements? Thank you.

a reply to: Phantom423

Please cite a biology textbook or research article that says that humans were made "through sheer stupid luck". And what are the 4 elements? Thank you.

Do you think there's a text book that would say that?
Of course not in those specific words. And yet those specific words
are a good demographic aren't they? I believe they are.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Specimen88
a reply to: carsforkids

Genesis was done in Seven Days and man were made from clay in some orderly infallible plan, while Science say it took millions, if not billions years through sheer stupid luck and man were composed of more then 4 elements an chaos.

Please cite a biology textbook or research article that says that humans were made "through sheer stupid luck". And what are the 4 elements? Thank you.

The classical Greek elements I would assume. Air earth fire and water. They eventually added aether which was considered a distilled solution of spiritual substance, it was actually liquor.