Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

originally posted by: prevenge
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Why does it empirically have to be a "God" that is related with intelligent design??

Humans are genetically designing a fathom of organisms every DAY.

WHY couldn't another race of beings do the same before us??

And why wouldn't they program a sort of "dynamic adaptability" into their creations to heighten environmental changes? ... I would.

With the BILLIONS of galaxies out there with hundreds of billions of stars in them, each, most likely to have planets... Many of them earth-like...

Just blows my mind that it has to be " evolution" OR "God"...

Retarded on both sides IMO.

I suppose that you have not considered the question of who engineered the race before us, or the race before them, and so on until we get back to the Big Bang (when there wasn't billions of galaxies out there) and then we are still stuck with questions of ultimate origin again.

Neither evolution nor ancient aliens are an answer. They are, at best, descriptions of how existence might possibly have changed along the way, but not of origins at all.

And of course, where are those ancient aliens now? Seems a dumb experiment that is left unobserved.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're comparing human behavior with that of a god. Your god is supposed to be the all powerful, perfect, all knowing entity. A human is imperfect. A human doesn't always do the right thing. A human isn't a god.
But your god apparently can morph into human behavior with no consequences. Your god can be good, bad, indifferent - doesn't matter because it's a god.

You're making excuses where there are none. Either your god is following some ethic that is in tune with Judeo-Christian philosophy or it's an entity who's unreliable, irresponsible and is using humans as play things. Your god is whimsical, let's the innocent suffer and die while tyrants and murders are free to commit mass murder. Your god is specious and malevolent.

As I said before, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. However, after this conversation, I hope your god doesn't exist because it's a cruel unrelenting killer. Why that should be I have no idea. Why anyone would see this god as a good thing is beyond comprehension.

It occurred to me that if an alien civilization who had no malintent towards us and was only here to explore and seek out new life went into a Christian church and saw a man hanging from a cross, bloody and probably dead, what would they think? Is that supposed to be a good thing? Of course, there's a story behind the image, but just think about that for a minute. If you went to another planet and saw practices that were highly aborrant i.e. sacrificing living beings and torture, what would you think?

There's no logic or morality to your god. Therefore, I declare that it doesn't exist - at least I hope it doesn't.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut


There's no logic or morality to your god. Therefore, I declare that it doesn't exist - at least I hope it doesn't.

Turn the other cheek to violence, love others as your self, love your enemies, give to the needy, forgive, forgive, forgive, have hope, respect your parents, etc, etc...

If the planet were to follow the Christian philosophy for one day, a Utopian world peace would ensue instantaneously.

a reply to: cooperton

If Christians started following that philosophy then I am sure Christianity would be more popular. Even worse is many of them are hung up on the fire and brimstone crap.


Sigh... there are so many great and noble philosophies out there and so few that will put them into action.

a reply to: cooperton

That says nothing about a god. Christian philosophy was constructed by man. Most religions have similar philosophies.

I don't disagree with you, but human nature is what it is. And I don't think "god did it". It's the natural nature of survival of the fittest.

Gosh, you guys still slugging it out here
I got tired of replying here, I made my point, repeating myself would be pointless, but to all contributors thanks for an interesting read.
I may get bored of arguing myself sometimes, but I never tire of reading a good argument, so cheers folks.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You're comparing human behavior with that of a god. Your god is supposed to be the all powerful, perfect, all knowing entity. A human is imperfect. A human doesn't always do the right thing. A human isn't a god.
But your god apparently can morph into human behavior with no consequences. Your god can be good, bad, indifferent - doesn't matter because it's a god.

You're making excuses where there are none. Either your god is following some ethic that is in tune with Judeo-Christian philosophy or it's an entity who's unreliable, irresponsible and is using humans as play things. Your god is whimsical, let's the innocent suffer and die while tyrants and murders are free to commit mass murder. Your god is specious and malevolent.

As I said before, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. However, after this conversation, I hope your god doesn't exist because it's a cruel unrelenting killer. Why that should be I have no idea. Why anyone would see this god as a good thing is beyond comprehension.

It occurred to me that if an alien civilization who had no malintent towards us and was only here to explore and seek out new life went into a Christian church and saw a man hanging from a cross, bloody and probably dead, what would they think? Is that supposed to be a good thing? Of course, there's a story behind the image, but just think about that for a minute. If you went to another planet and saw practices that were highly aborrant i.e. sacrificing living beings and torture, what would you think?

There's no logic or morality to your god. Therefore, I declare that it doesn't exist - at least I hope it doesn't.

God offers eternal life, and that in a paradise without pain or suffering, but you have to be someone who doesn't go and spoil a good thing.

If you break your 'phone, you can't blame the manufacturer, especially when they extend the good will of a warranty, but if you willfully break your 'phone, then it makes sense to deny you warranty.

God gave us life and there's a warranty for accidental breakage and manufacturing defect.

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
It could not, but, geology makes microscopic inorganic cells all the time, if enough “stuff” (organic elements) concentrate in those chambers, evolution can happen.

Whenever the topic of odds comes up below, it is another way of addressing how plausible or probable the above evolutionary storyline is. Note that when "evolutionary theory" is mentioned below, it is referring to what is referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. chemical evolution followed by biological evolution. Much in the same way HiddenWaters did it without referring to the initial steps as evolution even though that's done by prominent evolutionary philosohers such as Haldane & Oparin, and by wikipedia on the page for abiogenesis which litterally spells out "chemical evolution followed by biological evolution" just like I just did. With that out of the way (hopefully no one sees that as an invitation to start their whole 'evolution has nothing to with the origin of life' or 'evolution doesn't address the origin of life'-spiel and debate-routine):
Could Life Originate by Chance? Or was it by Creation?

WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

A New Form of Spontaneous Generation

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠2

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”⁠3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”⁠4

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”⁠5 And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

The principal steps en route to the origin of life, as envisioned by evolutionary theory, are (1) the existence of the right primitive atmosphere and (2) a concentration in the oceans of an organic soup of “simple” molecules necessary for life. (3) From these come proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds) that (4) combine and acquire a membrane, and thereafter (5) they develop a genetic code and start making copies of themselves. Are these steps in accord with the available facts?

The Primitive Atmosphere

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. ...

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”⁠6 Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠7
...
Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”⁠8

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠9
...

Continued in next comment.

a reply to: whereislogic

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠11

There is, however, another stubborn problem that confronts evolutionary theory. Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life’s proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are “right-handed” and others are “left-handed.” Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life’s proteins, all are left-handed!

How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? Physicist J. D. Bernal acknowledges: “It must be admitted that the explanation . . . still remains one of the most difficult parts of the structural aspects of life to explain.” He concluded: “We may never be able to explain it.”⁠12

Probability and Spontaneous Proteins

What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones​—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup?

The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10^113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. An idea of the odds, or probability, involved is seen in the fact that the number 10^113 is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe!

Some proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The latter speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. Without such help, the cell would die. Not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random? One chance in 10^40,000! “An outrageously small probability,” Hoyle asserts, “that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” He adds: “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”⁠13

However, the chances actually are far fewer than this “outrageously small” figure indicates. There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. As evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: “Modern cell membranes include channels and pumps which specifically control the influx and efflux of nutrients, waste products, metal ions and so on. These specialised channels involve highly specific proteins, molecules that could not have been present at the very beginning of the evolution of life.”⁠14

The Remarkable Genetic Code

More difficult to obtain than these are nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which bears the genetic code. Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20^100​—another huge number “larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes.”⁠15

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”⁠16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”⁠17 In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠18

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠19 But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”⁠20 And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”⁠21

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

Amazing Photosynthesis

An additional hurdle for evolutionary theory now arises. Somewhere along the line the primitive cell had to devise something that revolutionized life on earth​—photosynthesis. This process, by which plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, is not yet completely understood by scientists. It is, as biologist F. W. Went states, “a process that no one has yet been able to reproduce in a test tube.”⁠22 Yet, by chance, a tiny simple cell is thought to have originated it.
...

a reply to: whereislogic

This process of photosynthesis turned an atmosphere that contained no free oxygen into one in which one molecule out of every five is oxygen. As a result, animals could breathe oxygen and live, and an ozone layer could form to protect all life from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Could this remarkable array of circumstances be accounted for simply by random chance?

Is Intelligence Involved?

When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way . . . in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”⁠23

Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”⁠24 Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,”⁠25 as Dawkins expressed it. Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life.⁠26 In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?

Is It Scientific?

If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: “Yet here we are​—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”⁠27 Does that sound like objective science?

British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger characterized such reasoning as “simple dogmatism​—asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen.”⁠28 How have scientists come to accept in their own minds this apparent violation of the scientific method? The well-known evolutionist Loren Eiseley conceded: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”⁠29

Based on the evidence, the spontaneous generation of life theory appears better to fit the realm of science fiction than scientific fact. Many supporters apparently have forsaken the scientific method in such matters in order to believe what they want to believe. In spite of the overwhelming odds against life originating by chance, unyielding dogmatism prevails rather than the caution normally signaled by the scientific method.

Not All Scientists Accept It

Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further observed that after Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”⁠30 A sad but true commentary.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe​—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: “There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.”⁠31

As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠32

Yet, even assuming that a first living cell did somehow spontaneously arise, is there evidence that it evolved into all the creatures that have ever lived on the earth? Fossils supply the answer, and the next chapter considers what the fossil record really says.
...

References Listed by Chapter (those numbers you're seeing)

originally posted by: chr0naut
* Sometimes the required phyletic gradualism is missing (the main reason punctuated equilibrium was proposed). An example is in the rapid rise of 'nylon-eating' bacteria.

That is not a major missing step of evolution. You seem to think evolution has a set rate or speed. It does not. It is highly dependent on the environment. Adapt or die out. This bacteria adapted. Not sure what the problem is. I already said that not knowing every detail isn't the same as having major missing mechanisms or unknown steps. This isn't what I asked for. The fact that you say "sometimes" pretty much proves my case. You are the king of the ALL or NOTHING mentality. You can't accept anything as a current work in progress, you think science has to be 100% absolute or it's got major issues and is unreliable.

* Sometimes the barriers that separate populations where speciating changes are noted, are absent. Like some of those famous Galapagos finches.

Again, that's NOT a missing step of evolution. It's not a huge mystery how the finches evolved to their various niches. What exactly is missing here?

* Sometimes all that has been observed in some papers is natural selection alone, and yet it is published as 'proof of evolution'. Like in the studies of the Peppered Moth in the North of England.

We already discussed this one to death. I'm not revisiting it. Nothing is missing in peppered moth evolution, it's an example of natural selection and wasn't a new species. I already completely demolished you on this subject. This is not a missing step of evolution.

* Sometimes clear proof of genetic mutation is missing or is obfuscated by the possibility of genetic change through epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer or pre-existing but rare traits in ancestor populations, such as in the ancestor population of yeasts, in one recent case where evolution was claimed.

AGAIN. Not knowing every single detail of every single transition or being about to prove every single mutation to ever happen is not missing major mechanisms or steps in the process. I never claimed we knew everything about evolution, but to suggest there are big missing steps and we can't explain it, is complete and utter nonsense.

* Sometimes alternate theories that fit the same data (like panspermia & saltational catastrophism) are not even considered (but are looking like they are more valid with the aquisition of more data).

Panspermia has nothing to do with evolution. Again, this is not missing steps, these are things being studied.

To not see that there are such omissions in nearly every specific situation published, and that those unobserved steps are required to validate that the whole theory is in operation, really says something about the quality of evolutionary science as a discipline and perhaps about the belief system which has supplanted science there.

I never said that every step of every transition would be directly observable. That's impossible because most of it happened in the past. You entire argument here is extremely deceptive. There aren't any missing steps in evolution, there are just specific situations where we can't directly observe something. That doesn't mean the observations haven't already been made thousands of times in tons of other situations. This is just more evidence that you see everything as all or nothing. That's a very faulty way to look at science. Genetic mutations and natural selection have been observed tons upon tons upon tons of times, but you think because we can't directly observe it in this one case, that it is missing??? You really don't understand science. The theory has been validated time and time again. This says nothing about the quality of science other than we don't know everything yet.

The vast majority? It takes a single verified case contrary to a theory to disprove the theory in that instance.

Yes, and specific unknowns related to minor details of certain transitions are not disproof. There haven't been any verified cases contrary to the theory. If we don't know something, we don't know. Why not just give them time to figure it out instead of whining about how faulty they theory is for not knowing all there is to know.

All science is based upon assumptions. Does that invalidate it?

Wrong again. Science is probabilities based on evidence. Assumptions are TESTED and then once tested they are no longer assumptions. That's how it works. How can you make a huge generalization about all of science like that? They don't just assume things and then stick with just because they like it.

The same basis in assumption that you use against the existence of God applies equally against science. Yet you assert one thing is is true and the other false.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I don't assert god is definitely false and it is completely dishonest to put belief in god as equally valid to testable science and research. One is testable and one is not. Not sure why you are misrepresenting my argument and the scientific method.

The verdict isn't in, we've not begun the case, the evidence is still being gathered and knowing that, you have made a deliberation. That is the meaning of the word 'prejudice'.

We have not begun the case??? Really??? Evolution was first postulated in the 1800s. The case has been being made for well over a hundred years and to this day nothing has conflicted with it. Sure there may be a handful a things we haven't fully figured out and understood yet (ie specific time frames and transitions), but the process as a whole has been thoroughly demonstrated in numerous ways by numerous independent fields of science.

Do you have anything to support that opinionated statement? I can think of cases where it is not true.

I can think of cases where deductive logic is not true as well. IE all the philosophical arguments for god. There is nothing opinionated about that. Deductive logic is only valid if the premise is proved and the reasoning itself is valid. When a statement is made about god that invokes unknowns, postulates definitions for things we don't even know are possible, and uses invalid premises. Like I said, if you have a valid inference that you think proves god, then post it. I've dismantled many apologetic claims, and they all rely on unknown variables, vague generalizations and assumptions. I'm not saying you can't argue "what ifs", but using them as some kind of proof is completely invalid.

I could counter that science also doesn't meet the criteria (you know, limited observation, incomplete knowledge) but we can, and do, still apply deductive reasoning to draw inferences about what the data is telling us.

Again, you are falsely equivocating a complete universal unknown (the existence of god), with things in science that have been verified and confirmed. How do you not see this? Science is inductive.

In fact, deductive reasoning reveals its power in such situation and wouldn't be necessary at all if 'factuality' could be confirmed by other means.

I'm not saying it has no power, but it doesn't work if you can't confirm the premise. Every deductive inference requires that if you wish to use it as a valid logical argument. Again, if you have a deductive inference that proves god, then post it.

As I pointed out, if their premise is true, if God exists, then it follows that those apologetic arguments ALL pass that test. If God doesn't exist, then the apologetic arguments are false. As we cannot determine which is true and which is false, we cannot make a determination.

So in other words, if they are true they are true and if they are false they are false. Thanks for clearing that up. My point was that the apologetic inferences don't prove anything and don't pass the test because they CAN'T be confirmed. End of story. I'm not saying they are automatically wrong, they just are not convincing enough because the premises are often assumed. You said it perfectly above. IF they are true. IF is not a definitive statement.

Since you disallow deduction and speculation from observation as being evidential, there is no evidence for any concept, anywhere, at any time.

Another complete straw man of my position. I didn't say I disallowed deduction, I said that in APOLOGETIC ARGUMENTS it doesn't work because the premise is assumed most of the time. I didn't say deductive logic is wrong, I'm saying apologists are misusing it.

I have seen someone paralysed in an automobile accident begin to move moments (seconds) after prayer and later leave the hospital, walking pain-free and unassisted (and yes, they confirmed the extent of the paralysis by sticking a large syringe into many places from the soles of the feet up to the lower sternum, with no sensation at all).

Sorry this is way too vague and based on confirmation bias. You don't know that this has anything to do with god or the prayer. You assume it. There is nothing testable in that which links to god. The person was obviously only temporarily paralyzed. It happens, regardless of prayer. Plus you blatantly ignore the thousands of times where people prayed for paralyzed folks and absolutely nothing changed. The dishonesty in which prayer is assumed is off the charts. If somebody prays for something and that something happens, that doesn't mean the prayer is what caused it. That is confirmation bias to a T. Personal experience is not testable evidence.

I have seen torrential rain from a clear and starry sky put out a house fire and this also was almost immediately after prayer (but perhaps it was a concidence of a falling mini-comet?).

Oh not this... I'm near positive I have argued this with you on youtube. I didn't know it was you, but now it makes sense. Yes, weather patterns can change in an instant. That phenomena is well known. You assume the prayer was responsible but again it's cherry picking because you ignore all the times prayer failed.

These are only two of many such things that I have seen, that have left physical traces, that were confirmend by multiple witnesses and by test.

None of which trace to god in any way whatsoever. You completely assume that god is the cause, based on a guess. Do you not understand what testable evidence means?

Little things I thought were too minor to worry about before, I suddenly realized were morally wrong, no-one told me, I just felt it (increased conscience).

Sometimes the Holy Spirit has given me knowledge of things I otherwise could not know.

Riiight. Because nobody ever has sudden epiphanies about things. How can a spirit impart knowledge to you? Please explain the mechanisms and testable data related to this. How do you know whatever you felt is "the holy spirit." Again, it's confirmation bias.

Sometimes I have felt power go through me like heat and an electric tingle and it is always and only associated with religious activities (no need for psychoactives or evidence of psychosis).

I felt the same things when dabbling in new age meditation and spirituality. That doesn't make it true. Having a feeling is not evidence of anything. The human brain very easily tricks people into thinking their preconceived notions are true. It happens to everybody in every belief system. When I was Christian I had experiences to make me thing Christianity was true. When I was in new age spirituality and pantheism, I had experiences to make me think that was true. I have higher standards of scrutiny now. It's easy to convince yourself your own beliefs are true. The hard part is testing it and verifying that belief in the first place.

I'm not even going to bother with the guitar claim. Every thing you said is completely subjective and speculative.
Personal experience is NOT EVIDENCE. People have experiences with every belief system under the sun.

originally posted by: cooperton
Turn the other cheek to violence, love others as your self, love your enemies, give to the needy, forgive, forgive, forgive, have hope, respect your parents, etc, etc...

If the planet were to follow the Christian philosophy for one day, a Utopian world peace would ensue instantaneously.

Which Christian philosophy? There are many of them and they don't all agree.

The funny thing about this statement is that most Christians can't even follow the Christian philosophy. I agree the teachings of Jesus are a great philosophy, but you have to throw out a large portion of the bible to maintain that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You're comparing human behavior with that of a god. Your god is supposed to be the all powerful, perfect, all knowing entity. A human is imperfect. A human doesn't always do the right thing. A human isn't a god.
But your god apparently can morph into human behavior with no consequences. Your god can be good, bad, indifferent - doesn't matter because it's a god.

You're making excuses where there are none. Either your god is following some ethic that is in tune with Judeo-Christian philosophy or it's an entity who's unreliable, irresponsible and is using humans as play things. Your god is whimsical, let's the innocent suffer and die while tyrants and murders are free to commit mass murder. Your god is specious and malevolent.

As I said before, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. However, after this conversation, I hope your god doesn't exist because it's a cruel unrelenting killer. Why that should be I have no idea. Why anyone would see this god as a good thing is beyond comprehension.

It occurred to me that if an alien civilization who had no malintent towards us and was only here to explore and seek out new life went into a Christian church and saw a man hanging from a cross, bloody and probably dead, what would they think? Is that supposed to be a good thing? Of course, there's a story behind the image, but just think about that for a minute. If you went to another planet and saw practices that were highly aborrant i.e. sacrificing living beings and torture, what would you think?

There's no logic or morality to your god. Therefore, I declare that it doesn't exist - at least I hope it doesn't.

God offers eternal life, and that in a paradise without pain or suffering, but you have to be someone who doesn't go and spoil a good thing.

If you break your 'phone, you can't blame the manufacturer, especially when they extend the good will of a warranty, but if you willfully break your 'phone, then it makes sense to deny you warranty.

God gave us life and there's a warranty for accidental breakage and manufacturing defect.

Your god can offer no such thing. He/she/it can't even guarantee a decent life on Earth. It's illogical to think that all you have to do is die and everything will be just hunky dory.

You can't defend your god on any moral grounds. Your god is a nasty god willing to allow its creation to suffer and die miserable deaths just for the fun of it. He/she/it takes credit for everything good that happens but seems to go brain dead when all the bad stuff happens.

And I wouldn't bet on any "guarantees" made by your god. I doubt that this god knows the difference between a lie and the truth. I will say this about your god: He/she/it is a hell of a salesman.

The entire notion of your god is irrational.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

That is not a major missing step of evolution. You seem to think evolution has a set rate or speed. It does not. It is highly dependent on the environment. Adapt or die out. This bacteria adapted.

No, it didn't adapt as far as the current science tells us.

The latest genomics is it was a single step mutation affecting multiple locations in the genome (with multiple duplications and frameshifts, although doubt has also been raised on the frameshifts) of a single instance of a unicellular organism. This produced the ability for the organism to make three new enzymes neccesary for metabolism of nylon byproducts. Because the bacteria reproduce asexually and their food source and environment are toxic to their antecedents, they are clearly a new species.

Instant appearance of a new species in a new environment is not evolution.

It does sound like we may have observed evidence more compliant with special creation (since the God part is invisible).

Not sure what the problem is. I already said that not knowing every detail isn't the same as having major missing mechanisms or unknown steps. This isn't what I asked for. The fact that you say "sometimes" pretty much proves my case. You are the king of the ALL or NOTHING mentality.

You can't accept anything as a current work in progress, you think science has to be 100% absolute or it's got major issues and is unreliable.

'... but we're trying sooo hard...' - If you don't have the answers you don't have the answers. Simple.

Again, that's NOT a missing step of evolution. It's not a huge mystery how the finches evolved to their various niches. What exactly is missing here?

Under later evaluation, the idea of their 'niches' evaporated. The two populations shared their entire environment, food sources, predators and other selection pressures. Researchers are still trying to find a reason for differentiation and so far nuthin'.

We already discussed this one to death. I'm not revisiting it. Nothing is missing in peppered moth evolution, it's an example of natural selection and wasn't a new species. I already completely demolished you on this subject.

As you said, it was "an example of natural selection". That was my point. It wasn't evolution.

Irrelevance like lifecycles in greenhouses in California did nothing to my case. You had to back down and accede (finally after 5 contrary posts) when you discovered that the lifecycle was annual in England, where the studies were done. If anything was demolished, you did it to yourself. Here's the post and you can also check back through the ones that led up to it to refresh your misremembry).

AGAIN. Not knowing every single detail of every single transition or being about to prove every single mutation to ever happen is not missing major mechanisms or steps in the process. I never claimed we knew everything about evolution, but to suggest there are big missing steps and we can't explain it, is complete and utter nonsense.

Please provide an example of evolution, the whole theory, not just a bit of it. Then I will be forced to admit that it is evidenced.

Panspermia has nothing to do with evolution.

Again, this is not missing steps, these are things being studied.

If evidence can also have another explanation, then it doesn't prove a theory.

Neither does unresolved study.

I never said that every step of every transition would be directly observable. That's impossible because most of it happened in the past. You entire argument here is extremely deceptive. There aren't any missing steps in evolution, there are just specific situations where we can't directly observe something. That doesn't mean the observations haven't already been made thousands of times in tons of other situations. This is just more evidence that you see everything as all or nothing. That's a very faulty way to look at science. Genetic mutations and natural selection have been observed tons upon tons upon tons of times, but you think because we can't directly observe it in this one case, that it is missing??? You really don't understand science. The theory has been validated time and time again. This says nothing about the quality of science other than we don't know everything yet.

Yes, and specific unknowns related to minor details of certain transitions are not disproof. There haven't been any verified cases contrary to the theory. If we don't know something, we don't know. Why not just give them time to figure it out instead of whining about how faulty they theory is for not knowing all there is to know.

Because if we don't know, it must remain a theory. To insinuate otherwise, like you have done with the theory of evolution, is just as untruthful as stating that evolution is unquestionably true.

Wrong again. Science is probabilities based on evidence. Assumptions are TESTED and then once tested they are no longer assumptions. That's how it works. How can you make a huge generalization about all of science like that? They don't just assume things and then stick with just because they like it.

Didn't you just complain about me being too linear in my reasoning. Now I'm being too general. Go figure.

As an aside, perhaps you could ask yourself, why would someone getting funding to study something, ever wreck their entire lives and income by invalidating their field with incontravertible proof of its pointlessness. What might be the motivation in such a case? Just something to consider about real-world scientific fidelity to the truth.

You really need to stop putting words in my mouth. I don't assert god is definitely false and it is completely dishonest to put belief in god as equally valid to testable science and research.

I'm pretty sure you have done just that, several times.

Here's a link to your first post in this topic thread, see what you think.

Hint, it's where you said, "This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion".

I'm fairly sure that referring to the beliefs of the religious as delusion, in a topic specifically about those beliefs pertaining to ultimate origins, is a statement that you felt that those religious beliefs about ultimate origins were untrue (delusional).

I take heart in the change in your stance from back then as being evidence that the neurons are waking up.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The latest genomics is it was a single step mutation affecting multiple locations in the genome (with multiple duplications and frameshifts, although doubt has also been raised on the frameshifts) of a single instance of a unicellular organism. This produced the ability for the organism to make three new enzymes neccesary for metabolism of nylon byproducts. Because the bacteria reproduce asexually and their food source and environment are toxic to their antecedents, they are clearly a new species.

How is that a problem for evolution? We know plants can experience single step speciation. I don't see the issue here.

Instant appearance of a new species in a new environment is not evolution.

First, it's not INSTANT. Second, it IS very much evolution. Was selection a factor, did genetic mutations affect this? Yes or no? How can you say that we documented all those mutations and then say it's NOT evolution? That doesn't even make sense.

'... but we're trying sooo hard...' -

If you don't have the answers you don't have the answers. Simple.

I never claimed to have all the answers. Science doesn't know everything. They are working on learning as much as they can. Not sure why you fault them for not suddenly having ALL KNOWLEDGE on a topic they are studying. That's why we have scientific inquiry.

Under later evaluation, the idea of their 'niches' evaporated. The two populations shared their entire environment, food sources, predators and other selection pressures. Researchers are still trying to find a reason for differentiation and so far nuthin'.

Your view is a bit outdated buddy.

www.upi.com...

As you said, it was "an example of natural selection". That was my point. It wasn't evolution.

Okay, now you are just being blatantly dishonest. Natural selection is a major evolutionary mechanism.

Irrelevance like lifecycles in greenhouses in California did nothing to my case. You had to back down and accede (finally after 5 contrary posts) when you discovered that the lifecycle was annual in England, where the studies were done. If anything was demolished, you did it to yourself. Here's the post and you can also check back through the ones that led up to it to refresh your misremembry).

Nope. You lied and said the moths were a different species and misrepresented the studies big time leading me on a wild goose chase. You tried to say that it was unknown, when it's well known in evolution how those moths evolved. You got absolutely slaughtered in that post and didn't even offer a rebuttal to my most recent comment. California green houses were irrelevant. You steered the conversation into an argument about how this "speciation" was too fast for evolution when it wasn't even speciation. The greenhouse argument was presented to show that some have more than one generation per year, but that was all based on your faulty premise which I didn't look up myself until it was too late, I just took your word for it, which is on me. They are the same species which rendered your entire argument moot. Read my latest posts in that thread. I explain it clearly. You baited me into a false narrative.

Please provide an example of evolution, the whole theory, not just a bit of it. Then I will be forced to admit that it is evidenced.

What do you mean by an example of the whole theory. What on earth do you actually want, an example of a single cell evolving for 3.8 billion years until it becomes a modern organism? Please use better terminology, because you are too vague to address.

Because if we don't know, it must remain a theory. To insinuate otherwise, like you have done with the theory of evolution, is just as untruthful as stating that evolution is unquestionably true.

More evidence of your ALL or NOTHING mentality. Of course evolution remains a theory. It's not 100% proved, just like all scientific theories, we don't know every single detail of every aspect of everything. Why do you keep lying and saying that my position is that it's unquestionably true? No, it's just extremely likely because of the HUGE amount of evidence. There is a big difference between not knowing evolution and not knowing one tiny detail of one transition in the grand scheme of things.

As an aside, perhaps you could ask yourself, why would someone getting funding to study something, ever wreck their entire lives and income by invalidating their field with incontravertible proof of its pointlessness. What might be the motivation in such a case? Just something to consider about real-world scientific fidelity to the truth.

Why would updating a partially incorrect aspect of a theory ruin somebody's entire life and income? This kind of thing happens all the time in science. They find a mistake and correct it. They don't lose their jobs for being wrong, they accept that their understanding was flawed and update it.

I'm pretty sure you have done just that, several times.

I asserted god was false? Where? Give me quotes. I've said that I don't believe many times, but never said anything about it being definitely false or wrong. I even specifically said I was arguing against the philosophical apologetic arguments, not the existence of god in itself. I'm not sure why you feel the urge to misrepresent me every chance you get.

Hint, it's where you said, "This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion".

I'm fairly sure that referring to the beliefs of the religious as delusion, in a topic specifically about those beliefs pertaining to ultimate origins, is a statement that you felt that those religious beliefs about ultimate origins were untrue (delusional)

Again, I'm saying that the arguments used to support god are delusional, not that he is definitely false. I was referring to people's ARGUMENTS used to support god or deny science. My statement was perfectly clear. Being indoctrinated leads to people being more psychologically predisposed to whatever belief you teach them and causes many people to reject logic, reason and science irrationally as a result. I didn't say their view was definitively wrong, I said the ARGUMENTS and LOGIC used to postulate god exists is wrong.

Also you conveniently left out the sentence right before my quote above that says :

"So one side provides peer reviewed testable evidence and it's instantly dismissed over fairy tales. The other side provides zilch and won't even admit the faith is faith. This is what happens when.... "

When you ignore that part it's easy to take what I said out of context, which is a common theme today.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

How is that a problem for evolution? We know plants can experience single step speciation. I don't see the issue here.

First, it's not INSTANT. Second, it IS very much evolution. Was selection a factor, did genetic mutations affect this? Yes or no? How can you say that we documented all those mutations and then say it's NOT evolution? That doesn't even make sense.

No, I suppose it wasn't INSTANT (in all caps), I apologise for the exaggeration, which you took as literal.

The entire speciation would have occurred in considerably less than 88 minutes (based upon a measured genome size of 5.3 million base pairs and a standard approximal bacterial DNA replication rate of 1,000 base pairs per second), which is the full time required for the first replication of the mutated genome.

Please identify the selection pressures and how they granted advantage over competitors in the environment, over successive generations, to achieve the speciation.

I never claimed to have all the answers. Science doesn't know everything. They are working on learning as much as they can. Not sure why you fault them for not suddenly having ALL KNOWLEDGE on a topic they are studying. That's why we have scientific inquiry.

I did not "fault them for not suddenly having ALL KNOWLEDGE on a topic they are studying", so the refutation is specious in that regard, but it is also argument from ignorance.

Your view is a bit outdated buddy.

www.upi.com...

As the linked news item said, the new models are not conclusively established, but they don't suggest in any way that there was any differential selection pressures on the finches, which was actually what we were talking about (your linked 'news' is beside the point but the date on the byline is so shiny and new).

Okay, now you are just being blatantly dishonest. Natural selection is a major evolutionary mechanism.

Hypothetical: 'If you needed transport, and a friend gave you just a steering wheel (which is part of a car), would it help you get around town'?

Similarly, if some 108+ papers give you only natural selection (which is part of evolutionary process), could the organsim speciate from just natural selection, or does it require a few more things to have occurred, to achieve evolution?

I don't think I can present my case on simpler terms. There was nothing dishonest about presenting what I did, nor did I suggest that natural selection was not a part of evolutionary process, as you seem to be inferring. It is dishonest of you to accuse someone falsely.

Nope. You lied and said the moths were a different species

This is my first post in that topic thread. I clearly stated that I did not believe that the changes represented speciation. Despite what I clearly posted, well previous to you even entering the thread, you repeated a false accusation against me, as you have just done here.

Well, the proof is before you (and others), you lost the argument then and began ad-hominem attacks. Exactly like you are now obviously doing in this thread.

and misrepresented the studies big time leading me on a wild goose chase. You tried to say that it was unknown, when it's well known in evolution how those moths evolved. You got absolutely slaughtered in that post and didn't even offer a rebuttal to my most recent comment. California green houses were irrelevant. You steered the conversation into an argument about how this "speciation" was too fast for evolution when it wasn't even speciation. The greenhouse argument was presented to show that some have more than one generation per year, but that was all based on your faulty premise which I didn't look up myself until it was too late, I just took your word for it, which is on me. They are the same species which rendered your entire argument moot. Read my latest posts in that thread. I explain it clearly. You baited me into a false narrative.

Everything I posted in that thread was to point out that it wasn't an example of evolution as others had claimed.

You, however, tried to obfuscate and derail the topic. You also put your foot in your mouth with what you claimed were facts, a number of times, and were provably called out on it, then you started the ad-hominem attacks which were so transparently false, I took it as your admission of the break down of your argument's case.

Of course I didn't reply to your untrue crap. You didnt demolish my argument. You demolished your own reputation in front of everyone following the topic thread.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The entire speciation would have occurred in considerably less than 88 minutes (based upon a measured genome size of 5.3 million base pairs and a standard approximal bacterial DNA replication rate of 1,000 base pairs per second), which is the full time required for the first replication of the mutated genome.

Can you source that information for me, please.

Please identify the selection pressures and how they granted advantage over competitors in the environment, over successive generations, to achieve the speciation.

They gained a mutation that allowed them to digest and process nylon and thus they began doing it because it was plentiful in that environment and they filled that ecological niche. It's not always about pressures. It seems pretty obvious that the changes to the environment were what made this change possible in the first place.

I did not "fault them for not suddenly having ALL KNOWLEDGE on a topic they are studying", so the refutation is specious in that regard, but it is also argument from ignorance.

Yes, your argument is absolutely an argument from ignorance. You are pointing out tiny details of certain transitions that aren't fully known and using it to push the narrative that since we don't know those few isolated things, that it means we don't know about evolution as a whole as observed in tons of other situations. It's completely disingenuous.

Hypothetical: 'If you needed transport, and a friend gave you just a steering wheel (which is part of a car), would it help you get around town'?

Completely invalid analogy. Are you seriously trying to claim that mutation was not involved or that the frequency of alleles did not change? To say that natural selection is not evolution is an absurd claim, especially when the exact gene responsible for the change has been isolated. Your claim is more like saying that because you personally don't know the exact inner workings of the engine in your specific car, that it means the mechanics of the combustion engine overall are unknown because you don't know it in this one situation even though extensive research and engineering has gone into it.

I don't think I can present my case on simpler terms. There was nothing dishonest about presenting what I did, nor did I suggest that natural selection was not a part of evolutionary process, as you seem to be inferring. It is dishonest of you to accuse someone falsely.

Your exact quote:

"it was "an example of natural selection". That was my point. It wasn't evolution."

I didn't accuse you falsely. You literally said that natural selection is not evolution. That's like saying that playing basketball on a team against another team with a time limit and declared winner is not a basketball game, simply because you didn't watch every single point get scored.

This is my first post in that topic thread. I clearly stated that I did not believe that the changes represented speciation. Despite what I clearly posted, well previous to you even entering the thread, you repeated a false accusation against me, as you have just done here.

No offense, I don't care about your first post. I care about the way you misled me about speciation. Please refer to the LAST posts, not the first. I CLEARLY explained the misunderstandings we had during that conversation and I admitted I was off about the greenhouse argument. I clearly admitted fault for that since I didn't research your claim, I took it on face value. I'm not above admitting when I am wrong or mistaken about something.

Well, the proof is before you (and others), you lost the argument then and began ad-hominem attacks. Exactly like you are now obviously doing in this thread.

What ad hom attacks? Calling out false claims is not ad hom. Ad hom is using an insult as the primary basis of an argument (ie you are wrong because you are stupid). Calling out lies as lies and attempting to correct misunderstandings is not ad hom.

Everything I posted in that thread was to point out that it wasn't an example of evolution as others had claimed.

Then why were the last few posts that clarified everything completely ignored?

Of course I didn't reply to your untrue crap. You didnt demolish my argument. You demolished your own reputation in front of everyone following the topic thread.

By all means, show me what I said in those last posts that was not true.

originally posted by: Timely
a reply to: whereislogic

Page opened on your post.

I saw the wall'O'text and got scared off. It was simple lack of paragraphs which, causes one who scans then reads ...

You get my drift.

(showing age with that one !😎)

It's because I edited in a bunch of sidethoughts and further clarifications later on. Since the first sentence was originally linked to the last sentence in train of thought, and since I ran out of time with my edits, I neglected to split it up into multiple paragraphs. Orginally, it just said:

If something that I refuse to describe as "inorganic cells" can't retain what it has already got it can't evolve as that word is used in this context. Whatever it is that you are thinking about, it's unlikely that you are only thinking about the established facts from geology (and/or chemistry). It's more likely that the influence of the intelligently guided experiments (using chemical engineering techniques) and accompanying storytelling concerning abiogenesis a.k.a. chemical evolution spoken about in the video below are included in your thinking and choice of words there. From 27:02 - 29:55, which discusses that retention issue in a natural environment rather than a precisely staged one (keypoint after 29:12 at 29:31, but it's better to not miss that introduction):

That was a bit short for multiple paragraphs. The points in the video are directly related to the first sentence of my comment. Before the first posting, I had it even shorter, it just became longer and longer as I was posting and as I was editing. But I didn't want the reader to lose focus that the video is there regarding my very first point. I'm summing up the subject as "the retention issue", it in turn is related to the interdependency issue (both having an impact on the step-by-step evolutionary storyline). In my latest commentary, in the article, it was described as such:

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of the complete genetic code​—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins and DNA. Hitching says: “Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.”⁠16 This leaves the paradox Dickerson raises: “Which came first,” the protein or the DNA? He asserts: “The answer must be, ‘They developed in parallel.’”⁠17 In effect, he is saying that ‘the chicken’ and ‘the egg’ must have evolved simultaneously, neither one coming from the other. Does this strike you as reasonable? A science writer sums it up: “The origin of the genetic code poses a massive chicken-and-egg problem that remains, at present, completely scrambled.”⁠18

Chemist Dickerson also made this interesting comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠19 But is it good scientific procedure to brush aside the avalanches of “inconvenient facts” so easily? Leslie Orgel calls the existence of the genetic code “the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life.”⁠20 And Francis Crick concluded: “In spite of the genetic code being almost universal, the mechanism necessary to embody it is far too complex to have arisen in one blow.”⁠21

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

Source: see previous comment of mine in this thread

Since the person I was responding to ignored both the retention requirement as well as the interdependency issue for the evolutionary storyline he was proposing, I was reminding him that to call something "evolution" in the context he used it, a step-by-step process of building biomolecular machinery and the code that operates it as well as the machinery that turns the code into biomolecular machinery to handle the code again (interdependency), over multiple generations of organisms that the storyline isn't clear about whether or not they are alive, yet nevertheless must be able to retain whatever they're building over multiple millions of years and multiple generations if one wants to call it "evolution" in that sense. The same point I bolded in the article there at the end counts for the biomolecular machinery that make up lifeforms. So then the point becomes, without the biomolecular machinery (enzymes; see full article) to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select, and hence, no evolution in that sense (no reproduction with at least partial retention, no evolution in that sense, not merely referring to change over time).

Step-by-step over multiple generations of whatever you want to call it (eg.: "inorganic cells" with "organic elements" in them; akin to Jack Zsostak's intellgently glorified soap bubbles that he calls "protocells") becomes impossible when the machinery and code in question are all interdependently required for reproduction (HiddenWaters' imagined "inorganic cells" with "organic elements" in them are not going to reproduce after their own kind without intelligent interference as in the lab; they also won't stay around long enough in any of the environments suggested in the overarching storylines, see keypoint in the video). And that's what the facts tell us from all the experiments conducted to circumvent these issues for the evolutionary storyline as well as those who try to come up with a reason to believe that the step-by-step suggestion is a reasonable or plausible one (usually by calling something "reproduction" which isn't actual reproduction as the word is used regarding living organisms; and embellishing the significance of certain catalytic reactions observed with RNA that provide no evidence that solves the retention and interdependency issues with the storyline).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

As for intelligent design, there is ZIP evidence, no models, no data, no nothing to work with. Scientists work with evidence and data.

Nature, the cosmos, physical laws, etc, all follow meticulous mathematical patterns. Mathematics are surely a sign of intelligence

Our universe consistently exhibits mathematically predictable laws. You should really stop publicly discrediting the Master Mathematician.

This really annoys me when I hear this over and over. The universe shows how maths fits, well yes because everything in nature generally takes a symmetrical form in order to survive. This has nothing to do with creation or that everything has perfect maths, it's that whenever nature provides a solution generally this ends up being dual symmetry. It is like throwing a rock in a pond and the ripples occur in perfect rings or every leaf has a perfectly symmetrical design, that is just a basic reaction to impact, surroundings.

Things can be perfectly mathematical but maths can also be forced to fit any situation there is. Any situation....