Evolutionry/religious nonsense

bj's god destroyed so many life forms, he should be known as the destroyer rather than the creator. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/02/11/there-have-been-five-mass-extinctions-in-earths-history-now-were-facing-a-sixth/?utm_term=.424ebd9bda57

You sound a bit like Madame Lavatsky (the mother of all scientistic word salads who wrote about the "fact" of lost civilizations of mythology.).
You hqve presented NO evidence in anything of which you are convinced. Gobbldegook about something just being "self evident" to you is not worth the bytes of space with which to write it, UNLESS, of course, you spend some time with presenting honest an repeatable , falsifiable evidence. So far, all I get from you is "I see", or its "unequivocal". Ive been a scientist over 40 years now and I see severql versions of Fundamentalist thinking parading as logic.

You're asking for a book. I think there is enoygh scientific evidence to show the need for intelligence behind all the complex order that is many layers deep. But the evidence of the intelligence is going to be hard to come by because we are looking for an ancient being that, at the present time is not creating and is having limited Physical contact with humans right now.

You cannot provide any evidence that matter can be created from nothing or that life can be created without intelligence. You make it seem possible by ending your sentences about the subject with the word yet. But what if it's not possible? What if it does require intelligence? What if the universe Was different when matter was created and life was started? What if intelligence is the initiator and part of the process of evolutionary biology? If you don't ask a question and you don't do the research you won't get the answer.

the jesuz give me babby. you are the noinsense

Oh ****, now you're doing psychology too...

I try to keep up with the scientific literature on a few topics (and this i one).
All Ive ever seen can be summarized in a single statement. LIFE IS TOO COMPLX AND ORDERED SO THEREFORE IT MUST HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Ive never really seen anything that can be called evidence. Ive asked for all this many times and while folks like you SAY that such evidence exists, you assume that we all know what it is.

True, I can not point to the method by whih life appeared. All I can see are the traces of spots where (by chemicals that are trapped in sediments, and the existence of carbon isotopes that are consistent with life only, I can be fairly accurate on the development of the "living state"

I can discuss mounds of evidence that show the chaotic, unfocused, opportunistic means by which life has evolved > I can see the detritus of countless species of (say brachiopods) that lie about the neritic zones of the ancient world as newer forms, better adapted to higher nergy or more acidic waters developed.

When an environment grows toxic, I see life either becoming extinct or evolving to adapt. You call this "Intelliegent design", I ay how bout proving what you say with some good science.

What evidence has now, or has ever been evinced?

A touch of the son?

There, that wasnt so hard to admit. Why not get your team working on it. The Discovery Institute said somewhat the same thing about 15 years ago. Were still waiting for them to report out in the literature .

Here we see your usual routine of making statements from authority--an authority we have no reason to assume you possess. I certainly can compare any other animals to the human animal. What you have or have not seen is irrelevant.

Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

What IDiot arguments? "We don't understand how this happened so it must have been my imaginary friend." Trot out your evidence for once, rather than hiding behind accusations and whining about insults. You insult us all with the bullshit you peddle here.

It is scientifically accepted that humans and animals reason differently. Animals cannot make or understand moral decisions. There is not an animal on the Earth that you can have a conversation with about God. You can believe whatever you want about animal thought. If you are implying that it is generally accepred by science that Animals think like us; you are the one speaking with authority you don't have because science doesn't see that.

The difference between humans and animals is generally considered to be that humans use a complex language to plan their interactions with their world. The concept of 'thinking' has nothing to do with it unless you take the strong form of the Sapir Whorf hypthesis ( i.e. that language determines thought). Obviously some species like dolphins, use a form of language in their interactions, including the planning of group activities, but as far as we can tell the level of complexity of that language does not approach that of humans (in terms of potentially limitless semantically significant sequences) .

But having identified human language rather than thought as the key discriminator, we are then obliged to consider language, including assigning 'thinghood' to aspects of the world, aka conceptualization as (human) species specific. That point deflates all concepts to a human communicative requirements, rather than representative of an independent reality, and that includes the concept of 'design'. Thus the word 'design' as used by IDers, is merely a noise they make which assumes a pictorial context of 'a anthropomorphic designer with a human purpose'. Its merely an attempt at an analogy like 'the heliocentric model for an atom ( now superceded). It is, in essence, an excuse for intellectual indolence. It has no scientific status whatsover because it not refutable in principle (Popper's Criterion).

So unless IDers are prepared to 'come clean' about their covert assumption of an anthropomorphic deity with an anthropocentric 'purpose', they are just making incoherent noises.

I would also like to add that humans are able to record history to pass on to future generations. We are able to learn about other countries and cultures, and communicate with people all around the world by computer or telephone. Humans can travel by air or over the seas by boat. Humans can travel to the moon and other planets.

Yes...writing was a later linguistic development which allowed for greater control, as did the metalanguage we call 'mathematics' which is 'the language of science and technology'. But irrespective of our ingenious environmental adaptations enhancing travel and communications, issues like global warming ,pollution and mutation of bacteria should make us cautious about claiming any long term 'success' as a species. Stable social colonies of insects such as ants far predate us in evolutionary longevity terms, and may even outlast us !

Once again we hear the voice of authority from someone without a shred of authority. I know of no such authority that you possess. Were we exchanging mere opinions, that would be fine. We are not. We are discussing a topic for which scientific knowledge is required, and you show precious little of that.

Agree.

Give me an example

Go piss up a rope.