95
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 06:31 am
@farmerman,
Great! You sound nicely mellow for a change. I’m on coffee and herb, a good combination of alert but relaxed.

Here is the most condensed version of the evidence for Intelligent Design that I can put in a reasonable length post. I have intentionally used as little jargon and technical terminology so that anyone with high school biology and a general understanding of how computers work should be able to understand it. I would hope that any replies follow that same format, and that meaningless generalizations like 'your thinking is too one dimensional' will be avoided.

At very least, pick one thing, fact, or logic in it that you find to be false or not in line with mainstream science. All the facts included have come from that source.
____________________________________________

Farmer previously said:
yeh, all it [biological life] takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .

Leadfoot replied:

Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe it's 'almost a given'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of biological life arising by chance, is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins and how they work. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.

____________________________________

THIS is the evidence. Criticize it, but don’t pretend it hasn’t been given.

bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 07:02 am
@Leadfoot,
They will pretend no evidence has been given.

Contrary to many philosophers who state that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, including an episode of the Boondocks, most atheists and "agnostics" take exactly this position. If evidence does exist, they vandalize it (this is more a Muslim thing to smash holy structures), or if this is impossible to do without being noticed, they simply pretend they didn't see it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKcZz6N13lo

Calling it now. In like two pages from now, someone will again state there is no evidence. And you can quote this prediction. I've been in a number of religious forums, so I have experience in this.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 07:14 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

They will pretend no evidence has been given.

Contrary to many philosophers who state that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, including an episode of the Boondocks, most atheists and "agnostics" take exactly this position. If evidence does exist, they vandalize it (this is more a Muslim thing to smash holy structures), or if this is impossible to do without being noticed, they simply pretend they didn't see it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKcZz6N13lo

Calling it now. In like two pages from now, someone will again state there is no evidence. And you can quote this prediction. I've been in a number of religious forums, so I have experience in this.


Take this as agreement or disagreement, Bulma, as you will. I'm going to use "god" rather than "intelligent design" to make the comment.

Anyone who says there is NO EVIDENCE of the existence of a god...is wrong. There is plenty of EVIDENCE of the existence of a god...IF THERE IS A GOD.

Anyone who says there is NO EVIDENCE that no gods exist...is wrong. There is plenty of EVIDENCE that no gods exist...IF NO GODS EXIST.

EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that a god exists...IF A GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS.

EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that there are no gods...IF NO GODS EXIST.

The problem is not that there is no evidence...the problem is that the evidence is totally, 100% ambiguous.

Since we do not know if at least one god exists (or if there are no gods)...we do not know what the VERY AMPLE evidence takes us.

If a god exists...as you and so many others blindly guess is the case...EVERYTHING is evidence of that god.

If no gods exist...as so many others blindly guess is the case...EVERYTHING is evidence that all this exists independently of any gods.

So if someone says, "There is no unambiguous evidence that there is a god"...that person is not "pretending" as you suggest. That person is simply pointing out a truth. The person pretending...is the person saying, "I KNOW there is a god."

bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 07:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated


And Bill Gates is one of the most godless evil men. For reference, he patented a human chipping system with the patent #WO2020060606. For dummies, that's World Order 2020: 666. When he designs (intelligently, if you will) the most evil cybernetic device imaginable, and he still admits that actual creation of life makes him look like a rank amateur, it's time to finally admit you're wrong about Intelligent Design.

Or for an even better proof, let's talk about why whenever intelligent design is brought up, an "atheist" always goes on defense mode. Why aren't there non-theistic ideas of intelligent design? Something like aliens or Cthulhu would be well within an atheist's power to suggest. Or the Force, for that matter? It's because they know that none of these explanations ever work. Cthulhu is too evil and insane to create anything, and would enjoy wringing the life from it too much. Aliens themselves are created. And you can make a case that the Force is God or at least Tao/Holy Spirit.
Those who don't believe are not simply ignorant of God, I could tell similar ideas, with the same rejection rate. They are at war with the idea of God. They know either consciously or subconsciously that there is a God. If they didn't, this wouldn't be such a threat to them.
https://www.debate.org/debates/Atheism-is-philosophically-mathematically-and-scientifically-impossible/1/
Note that despite being a "tie" the last word went to the theist side, then two rounds passed.
http://www.proofforgod.com/2018/08/atheism-is-impossible-disproving.html
Another article points out something.

Quote:
Logically, there cannot be any true atheists. For one to propose that God does not exist, anywhere at any time, one would have to know all things, and be omnipresent, eternal, and infinite. That would make you God.

So, the only person in the universe who could possibly not believe in God, everywhere, and always, would be God. One would have to be God to be a true atheist and that is theoretically, logically, and rationally absurd.

No one has enough blind faith to believe that:

Order came from disorder
Uniformity came from the accidental
Intelligence came from non-intelligence
Design came from chaos
Personality came from non-personality
Love came from hard matter
Something came from nothing



Every atheist is basically calling themselves God. As in in order to KNOW something doesn't exist, you have to see the entire universe (and possibly multiverses) at all times including the future and distant past in order to say that "God never existed."

This is why I say that atheists are at war with God.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 07:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The problem is not that there is no evidence...the problem is that the evidence is totally, 100% ambiguous.

If so, then address 'my' argument (the argument is actually an obvious and logical conclusion to the scientific evidence) that unambiguously 'requires' an intelligent designer.

Point out a single flaw in it if you can, I’m TRYING to test it myself, asking if my conclusion is in anyway wrong. I can’t see ANY ambiguity to it.

It doesn’t prove that the Bible is true or that it is God's word, but it sure as hell proves that we were made by an intelligent creator.

0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 08:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that a god exists...IF A GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS.

EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that there are no gods...IF NO GODS EXIST.


No need to shout, I can hear just fine. Yes, exactly. But the latter evidence doesn't bear out.

As I've told you several times, every created thing is in fact evidence of its creator.

I am in a red room with a white door surrounded by books, typing on a Kindle. Said Kindle was made using manufacturing for its chips, someone who made the purple case, someone who made the glass. This is one object.
I could also pick up a book (Chainfire by Terry Goodkind) and tell you that the wood for the paper pulp was sourced in a paper mill from wood cut in ummm Memphis, TN and there are articles written about this subject (it's probably a spruce)
https://www.thomasnet.com/articles/top-suppliers/paper-suppliers-manufacturers/
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-kind-of-tree-does-paper-come-from.html
that the ink is harvested from this or that berry or dye.
Going around the room, the paint is source from DuPont (maybe?) the door is made off wood so likewise, it went through the saw mill treatment. I have a painting, several plushies, several men's outfits, several dresses, blouses and skirts (genderfluidity makes things interesting). The point being that I couldn't tell you what companies helped make what goods, or where they harvested from, only that Tor manufactured it and Terry Goodkind wrote it. I could probably find these out with a series of long phonecalls, though.
But the exacts are not relevant. Not one of these objects came from nowhere, and neither did I. While I imagine atheists spawned from hell itself, the truth is that we have a mother and father. We are also created. Short of defying logic, these are facts.

These evidences are not even remotely equal.

Everything we see is proof of God. Less creators prove the existence of a greater Creator, because all trace back to a source that must have created itself or always have been. It cannot be turtles all the way down.

Only by blinding your eyes can you say there's no evidence, that everything you see is proof of no God. I'll be glad to cut them out if you want, though.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 08:14 am
@Leadfoot,
All of that would make sense if it happened at one time instead of over eons. It would be plain stupid to make these things piecemeal over the ages if you have a plan to make stuff come alive and match the current state of development.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 08:18 am
@edgarblythe,
Look up the word "teleology". An atheist once suggested it to me as to how objects could supposedly arrive from nothing. Now I'm suggesting it to you. You'll doubtless discover exactly what you want, as I have.



Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 08:31 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Quote:
EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that a god exists...IF A GOD ACTUALLY EXISTS.

EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HEAR AND FEEL is evidence that there are no gods...IF NO GODS EXIST.


No need to shout, I can hear just fine. Yes, exactly. But the latter evidence doesn't bear out.


I DOUBT THAT...BUT IT MIGHT BE TRUE.

Quote:
As I've told you several times, every created thing is in fact evidence of its creator.


No one has to tell me that...I KNOW that for a fact. It is so by definition. EVERY CREATED THING IS, IN FACT, EVIDENCE OF ITS CREATOR.

So what?

Are you asserting for a fact that this thing we humans call "the universe" is a "creation?"

If you are...that is more bullshit coming from you.

We do not know if it is a "creation"...thus requiring a "creator." And we surely do not know if it is a creation requiring a creator that concerns itself with what you do with your dick.

If it is a "creation" it requires a "creator." If it is not a creation it does not require a "creator."

Back to square one. We do not know.

Of course, that does not stop you from insisting it is a creation...so that your blind guess that there is a god who does care what you do with your dick...has to exist.

Quote:
I am in a red room...


I hope the padding is sufficient to protect you from harming yourselfll.


Quote:
...with a white door surrounded by books, typing on a Kindle. Said Kindle was made using manufacturing for its chips, someone who made the purple case, someone who made the glass. This is one object.
I could also pick up a book (Chainfire by Terry Goodkind) and tell you that the wood for the paper pulp was sourced in a paper mill from wood cut in ummm Alabama or somewhere, and there are articles written about this subject (it's probably a spruce)
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-kind-of-tree-does-paper-come-from.html
that the ink is harvested from this or that berry or dye.
Going around the room, the paint is source from DuPont (maybe?) the door is made off wood so likewise, it went through the saw mill treatment. I have a painting, several plushies, several men's outfits, several dresses, blouses and skirts (genderfluidity makes things interesting). The point being that I couldn't tell you what companies helped make what goods, or where they harvested from, only that Tor manufactured it and Terry Goodkind wrote it. I could probably find these out with a series of long phonecalls, though.
But the exacts are not relevant. Not one of these objects came from nowhere, and neither did I. While I imagine atheists spawned from hell itself, the truth is that we have a mother and father. We are also created. Short of defying logic, these are facts.


But going nowhere. It has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing.

Quote:
These evidences are not even remotely equal.

Everything we see is proof of God.


Only to people with a closed mind. There may be no gods...so everything at that point is evidence that no gods exist...that existence, and the stuff we humans refer to as "the universe" simply exist without a "creator.


Quote:
Less creators prove the existence of a greater Creator, because all trace back to a source that must have created itself or always have been. It cannot be turtles all the way down.


If you are insisting that everything that exists must have a creator...and that your "god" exists...it must have a creator.

That entire line of thought is an absurdity.

Quote:
Only by blinding your eyes can you say there's no evidence, that everything you see is proof of no God. I'll be glad to cut them out if you want, though.


If that was a threat to cut out my eyes, you scummy little piece of slime...you are even more depraved than I think you are. And I think you are one of the most depraved people posting in A2K.

I do love you though. "Loving you" despite the fact that you are a turd is the decent, proper thing to do.
Wink
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 08:37 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Look up the word "teleology". An atheist once suggested it to me as to how objects could supposedly arrive from nothing. Now I'm suggesting it to you. You'll doubtless discover exactly what you want, as I have.





I never inferred or in any wise suggested it came from nothing. It evolved over vast periods of time from stuff that already existed, not magic.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 12:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I never inferred or in any wise suggested it came from nothing. It evolved over vast periods of time from stuff that already existed, not magic.

I love the way 'wait long enough and ANYTHING can happen' is invoked as a law of physics.

It isn’t by the way.
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 12:47 pm
I see Frank has not dained to access the ambiguity of the evidence I offered.

I should have predicted that. Would have enhanced my vast reputation as a prophet.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 12:48 pm
Still, hope is alive for farmer. Give it a shot.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2021 12:56 pm
Frank said to bulma:
Quote:
And I think you are one of the most depraved people posting in A2K.


Sorry bulma, but I still hold the top spot.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 07:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
The universe is either:
1. God himself (as per pantheism and certain branches of atheism), if we regard the universe as not created but eternal. This is an idea that defies the more typical Big Bang, in favor of the an eternal universe. By this definition, the universe meets most or all the definitions of what it means to be God. Yet atheists don't object to this belief, because it is more in line with secular materialism than anything spiritual. Einstein was believed to be an advocate of this rather than a theist. In fact, most pantheists get more flack from theists than they do atheists, because the pantheistic mindset doesn't necessarily need a strong afterlife teaching. But if you stopped here I'd be thrilled because they at the very least have solved the problem of null creation. I don't despise atheism nearly as much as the idea that nothing created something. When people have that idea, I make this kind of face.
http://onepiece-treasurecruise.com/en/wp-content/uploads/c2905.png
2. The universe is created by God but completely detached from him. This is the position of Muslims and deists.
2a. On the Muslim end they believe their god is a sort of perfect being who is too far from humans to be understood, and somehow despite being perfect created a very imperfect world. This deity is so aloof that I do not think he is relevant to their religion, mainly only there to give unlimited license to Muhammad's actions. If possible, I like this sort of deity even less than the idea that nothing created somrthing. At the core, humans need a sense of connection. Not just to other people but to whatever is out there. When people look our at the stars they should convey a sense of awe of the unknown. But Islam promises none of this. You cannot know Allah, it says, and it is pointless to dwell on the idea of any kind of personal relationship, as Allah is far cooler than you puny mortals. In other words, there is a gap in a core human need. Most classical idol cults like the Greeks/Romans
2b. Deism basically has the idea that God created the universe, then died, walked away, or went to sleep. There are no miracles, God is eirher wholly detached or uses a subcontract system. I can agree with this only up to a point (some things are subcontracted) but I would compare God more to a head of a business than this.
3. Panentheism is the idea that rather than God being everything (see "universe is eternal" above), God is "in everything". This is the position of Hinduism and Christianity. To some extent most theists sorta agree but don't really think about this. That is, God not only created the world but unlike some detached notions, God is personally connected to his creation.
It's kinda the difference between making something for a wood factory, where the paper becomes a book that you never know about, and writing a book entirely by hand personally being involved all the way to wood press. Rather than simply making and then being detached, the product has your personal spirit in it. Sorta, like cooking a special meal where everyone can taste the love, only in this case, everything about you is in your creation. Panentheism is a spectrum from God just being very involved in our lives, to people literally having the spirit of God inside them. I'd be very surprised if you ever accepted this idea.
4. Or you could be Buddhist. Buddhism is a bizarre and unique stance in that they tend to seem atheist but are sorta panentheistic anyway, they simply reject the idea of gods.
5. Or Shinto. The Shinto believe in deities, but have an interesting idea that anyone can potentially become a deity. For instance, Tenjin is worshipped as a deity of scholars, but used to be human. They have an interesting cosmology that only involves the creation of Japan.

But all of this is moot if you cannot have a consisten t theory. Intellectual relativism is a lazt copout. "All ideas are equally good, so no point in thinking too hard." Ummm, one, no they aren't , two, you stop thinking and you're dead.
These are just some ideas to kick around. If you come up with another yoDawbginsc kine one that isn't ripped from (thanks Kindle, for not letting me backspace), go right ahead. As I was saying, if you come up with another one that isn't ripped from Dawkins...
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 09:07 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

The universe is either:
1. God himself (as per pantheism and certain branches of atheism), if we regard the universe as not created but eternal. This is an idea that defies the more typical Big Bang, in favor of the an eternal universe. By this definition, the universe meets most or all the definitions of what it means to be God. Yet atheists don't object to this belief, because it is more in line with secular materialism than anything spiritual. Einstein was believed to be an advocate of this rather than a theist. In fact, most pantheists get more flack from theists than they do atheists, because the pantheistic mindset doesn't necessarily need a strong afterlife teaching. But if you stopped here I'd be thrilled because they at the very least have solved the problem of null creation. I don't despise atheism nearly as much as the idea that nothing created something. When people have that idea, I make this kind of face.
http://onepiece-treasurecruise.com/en/wp-content/uploads/c2905.png
2. The universe is created by God but completely detached from him. This is the position of Muslims and deists.
2a. On the Muslim end they believe their god is a sort of perfect being who is too far from humans to be understood, and somehow despite being perfect created a very imperfect world. This deity is so aloof that I do not think he is relevant to their religion, mainly only there to give unlimited license to Muhammad's actions. If possible, I like this sort of deity even less than the idea that nothing created somrthing. At the core, humans need a sense of connection. Not just to other people but to whatever is out there. When people look our at the stars they should convey a sense of awe of the unknown. But Islam promises none of this. You cannot know Allah, it says, and it is pointless to dwell on the idea of any kind of personal relationship, as Allah is far cooler than you puny mortals. In other words, there is a gap in a core human need. Most classical idol cults like the Greeks/Romans
2b. Deism basically has the idea that God created the universe, then died, walked away, or went to sleep. There are no miracles, God is eirher wholly detached or uses a subcontract system. I can agree with this only up to a point (some things are subcontracted) but I would compare God more to a head of a business than this.
3. Panentheism is the idea that rather than God being everything (see "universe is eternal" above), God is "in everything". This is the position of Hinduism and Christianity. To some extent most theists sorta agree but don't really think about this. That is, God not only created the world but unlike some detached notions, God is personally connected to his creation.
It's kinda the difference between making something for a wood factory, where the paper becomes a book that you never know about, and writing a book entirely by hand personally being involved all the way to wood press. Rather than simply making and then being detached, the product has your personal spirit in it. Sorta, like cooking a special meal where everyone can taste the love, only in this case, everything about you is in your creation. Panentheism is a spectrum from God just being very involved in our lives, to people literally having the spirit of God inside them. I'd be very surprised if you ever accepted this idea.
4. Or you could be Buddhist. Buddhism is a bizarre and unique stance in that they tend to seem atheist but are sorta panentheistic anyway, they simply reject the idea of gods.
5. Or Shinto. The Shinto believe in deities, but have an interesting idea that anyone can potentially become a deity. For instance, Tenjin is worshipped as a deity of scholars, but used to be human. They have an interesting cosmology that only involves the creation of Japan.

But all of this is moot if you cannot have a consisten t theory. Intellectual relativism is a lazt copout. "All ideas are equally good, so no point in thinking too hard." Ummm, one, no they aren't , two, you stop thinking and you're dead.
These are just some ideas to kick around. If you come up with another yoDawbginsc kine one that isn't ripped from (thanks Kindle, for not letting me backspace), go right ahead. As I was saying, if you come up with another one that isn't ripped from Dawkins...


You are pathetic, but I love you. Thanks for sticking around and letting me batter you the way I am doing.

Are you out of your teens yet?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 09:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Anything can happen is your self-serving misinterpretation of my words. Only possible things can happen, which is why no magic exists in the real world.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 09:30 am
@edgarblythe,
Ok, I’ll byte.

How did the phenomenon of biological life happen if not for something outside the realm of physics?

If you don’t know and neither do the scientists you rely on ; then 'magic' of some sort is right in your face.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 10:11 am
@Leadfoot,
If there was magic nothing would be impossible. A squid might parent a flying zebra. Science is doing a credible job tracking it down. To say they don't know all the details because nobody was there that many ages ago does not mean they are incapable of learning what works and what doesn't. If I lose a sock and never find it again it is not a good guess that magic made it disappear. If a god can create life and have a plan it would be stupid to take billions of years to make it happen. Why develop a prototype then have it turn to an ape then have apes turn into varied species that eventually get weeded down to humans
, with just a little leftover traces of Neanderthals and other extinct versions of humans? Why create extraneous species that go extinct all the time?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2021 10:34 am
@Leadfoot,
I find your us of "SYNTAX" precious. e can see whre several gnes on veral spcis can code for somthing an when th its fixed, all the others of that same tak rapidly dissolve to"pseudogenes" (Most remain on the chromosome but become useless). SYNTAX asumes an orderlrerly language structure I ont know where thi happens....

I never EVER said I knew how life began, (Isuspect that this is fact from observation an severl lab tests using bacteriophages, that all the means of mutation (duplication, deletion, conversion, an relocation) are RANDOM till fixed.) explain GULO mods in the great apes??

Can you answer this What occur first, a mutation OOR the evolved state of th gene, chromosome, or individual???

And if you think you know, prove it because science sure aint sure.

You guys are totally stuck on th act of appearance of life(I think you do this to avoid fessing up to the fact that we seem to besure that volutionary steps are random.Covid 19 seems to support this


syntax is totally anagenetic , that woud be syntax, wee seem to be the masters of mutation of covid
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 02:22:07