Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Interesting. Might you be able to name one? Which of the list of 25 objections would you consider the second most compelling?

It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).


8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionists to describe the survival of the fittest.

No it isn’t. And it is a term coined by Darwin who was an agnostic who started off as being a devout Christian.
[quote] Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, mo ...[text shortened]... /quote]
there is no “ evolutionary scale”.

The rest of your post is just total nonsense.

The rest of your post is just total nonsense.

That is your code for: I have no adequate refutation to the remainer of your post.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).


8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most soph ...[text shortened]... f life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

The Instructor

It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

That law applies to the natural environment of present day Earth but not to early-Earth environment that was radically different from what it is now.

Thus this law is totally irrelevant.

Actually it would be irrelevant to evolution anyway because evolution is not a theory of the origin of the first life.
And Even if, hypothetically, the law of biogenesis applied to all times and places including early-Earth, all that would mean is life never stated because it always existed and has always been evolving. Thus there not being any abiogenesis wouldn't contradict evolution anyway.

All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

Unlike what you falsely imply here, evolution is not a random process but is probabilistic and so has a certain degree of predictability.
Since the current complexity of life is exactly what could happen as a result of evolution, its complexity is not evidence of "intelligent design,". Evolution does not place some mysterious upper-limit to how much complexity it can create in life thus it would be no problem for the theory of evolution if life was a billion billion billion times more 'complex' than what it is today!

Thus your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise -your 'argument' is debunked.


So, now I have totally destroyed your two most "compelling" objections, can you give your third most "compelling" objection so that I/we can debunk that at well?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).


8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most soph ...[text shortened]... f life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

The Instructor

The formation of life from non-life, while an interesting topic of study, is not part of the theory of evolution, so is not relevant to the validity of it. Anyone with basic knowledge of the theory of evolution knows this.

Your second point also does not involve the theory of evolution. Saying that life is too complex to have evolved that way begs the question of how this is so - simply stating it is no argument.

It is peculiar that of the three arguments you find the most compelling, one is debunked with a trivial observation, and the other two don't even involve the theory of evolution!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The formation of life from non-life, while an interesting topic of study, is not part of the theory of evolution, so is not relevant to the validity of it. Anyone with basic knowledge of the theory of evolution knows this.

Your second point also does not involve the theory of evolution. Saying that life is too complex to have evolved that way begs th ...[text shortened]... unked with a trivial observation, and the other two don't even involve the theory of evolution!

I'm in agreement that formation of life is a different topic than evolution;
however, I completely disagree about it being something that isn't relevant
to the validity of it. If evolution were a race, and the finish line is where all
life is now, life's beginning formation would have to be where the race
started, if you cannot get out of the starting block and begin the process
the rest of the discussion is meaningless.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm in agreement that formation of life is a different topic than evolution;
however, I completely disagree about it being something that isn't relevant
to the validity of it. If evolution were a race, and the finish line is where all
life is now, life's beginning formation would have to be where the race
started, if you cannot get out of the starting block and begin the process
the rest of the discussion is meaningless.
Kelly

Well yeah, evolution theory describes systems of replicating, mutating agents (biological or otherwise). If there are no agents to begin with, clearly evolution isn't going to be describing anything relevant.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well yeah, evolution theory describes systems of replicating, mutating agents (biological or otherwise). If there are no agents to begin with, clearly evolution isn't going to be describing anything relevant.

So you agree now that how it began is as valid towards evolution? The
break with reality that would occur if we found it couldn't start naturally
would not be to disprove evolution, but how it works would be in greater
dispute. Much of what evolution is given credit for wouldn't change to much
I think, but how or why things are done now become a completely different
discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you agree now that how it began is as valid towards evolution? The
break with reality that would occur if we found it couldn't start naturally
would not be to disprove evolution, but how it works would be in greater
dispute. Much of what evolution is given credit for wouldn't change to much
I think, but how or why things are done now become a completely different
discussion.
Kelly

Evolution neither describes nor predicts anything concerning how the replicating agents came to be. As I said, it's an interesting question, but not relevant to evolution theory.

Originally posted by humy

avoid just throwing links

you mean links like this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Why not? This DOES show the real physical evidence, right? Surely this is highly relevant to the discussion at hand?

[quote] I' fair enough?

-please fire away with specific question that I WILL try and answer....

“...I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that your 'God' made all living things with a perfect design and then they later lost that perfect design over the course of just a few thousand years? If so, why would this God make perfection only to allow many flaws in his good design rapidly develop over just a few thousand years? And what caused such massive flaws to develop in just a few thousand years! Certainly evolution could not explain how such massive imperfection could have developed from perfect design! Natural selection would simply continuously and relentlessly forever keep weed-out any bad mutations from the genome of each species (like it does anyway regardless of whether life was intelligently designed) thus if it had started off with a perfect 'design' then it should stay that way! ...”

I'm not bring my God or any other god into this discussion you are. If you
want to talk about religion I will, but my question was going to design.

If your against the design discussion resides only due to God could be given
credit shows you that you are more scared of what it could mean is more
important to you than what is in front of you! I've not pushed you to accept
a "perfect design", but just "design" so if we can look at what we should
see when something is designed verses what we get when something is
done naturally without a plan purpose and design?
Kelly

Originally posted by humy

avoid just throwing links

you mean links like this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Why not? This DOES show the real physical evidence, right? Surely this is highly relevant to the discussion at hand?

[quote] I' ...[text shortened]... fair enough?

-please fire away with specific question that I WILL try and answer....

I'll address the rest of your post later.
I'd like you to tell me why you think life is better described as something
that had to occur naturally and why design should be rejected out of hand.

Please note I'm not asking about perfect design, just design over something
that would naturally occur without a plan purpose and design perfect or
otherwise.
Kelly

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution neither describes nor predicts anything concerning how the replicating agents came to be. As I said, it's an interesting question, but not relevant to evolution theory.

You have got to be kidding me! If you cannot start the process without help
than you have a process that isn't what people claim it to be. A process
that wasn't started naturally is not a naturally occurring process.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have got to be kidding me! If you cannot start the process without help
than you have a process that isn't what people claim it to be. A process
that wasn't started naturally is not a naturally occurring process.
Kelly

Who says life did not start naturally? It seems to me that it most likely did, it's just not a question that is addressed by evolution theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll address the rest of your post later.
I'd like you to tell me why you think life is better described as something
that had to occur naturally and why design should be rejected out of hand.

Please note I'm not asking about perfect design, just design over something
that would naturally occur without a plan purpose and design perfect or
otherwise.
Kelly

I'd like you to tell me why you think life is better described as something
that had to occur naturally and why design should be rejected out of hand.

This is my answer:

We have a vast mountain of totally irrefutable physical evidence for evolution (I can show you the websites for this on request) and absolutely NO physical evidence has ever been found that contradicts modern evolution theory (which is punctuated equilibrium evolution theory).
Evolution theory is totally logical self-consistent i.e. contains no self-contradictions.
Evolution explains both the diversity of life and its complexity we see today absolutely fully and perfectly and it does this with absolutely no need for any intelligent design or any intelligent agent having to be involved and no need for a plan or intent to be involved.
Evolution is, by definition, clearly a natural process and not a supernatural process.
There is no rational reason to believe that evolution requires intelligence or any intelligent agent to do what it does.
So the intelligent design hypothesis is rendered a totally unnecessary hypothesis by these facts.
In addition, the intelligent design hypothesis completely fails to explain the vast mountain of totally irrefutable physical evidence for evolution which, in some cases, certainly contradicts some aspects of the intelligent design hypothesis.
In fact, there has never ever been a single piece of physical evidence that favors the intelligent design hypothesis more than evolution but there are numerous pieces of physical evidence that favors evolution over the intelligent design hypothesis (I have already given some examples of such evidence in previous posts).

I don't see how I can answer much more clearly and thoroughly than that.

please note that I do not 'want' nor 'choose' to believe evolution just like I do not 'want' nor 'choose' to disbelieve intelligent design hypotheses.
The only reason why I believe one at the expense of the other is only because of logic and the physical evidence and no other reason.

Originally posted by humy

I'd like you to tell me why you think life is better described as something
that had to occur naturally and why design should be rejected out of hand.

This is my answer:

We have a vast mountain of totally irrefutable physical evidence for evolution (I can show you the websites for this on request) and absolutely NO physical evidence ...[text shortened]... n previous posts).

I don't see how I can answer much more clearly and thoroughly than that.

What do you call evidence, something that someone claims could have
happened millions of years ago, or something we see and test today?
Kelly

Originally posted by humy

I'd like you to tell me why you think life is better described as something
that had to occur naturally and why design should be rejected out of hand.

This is my answer:

We have a vast mountain of totally irrefutable physical evidence for evolution (I can show you the websites for this on request) and absolutely NO physical evidence ...[text shortened]... ] because of logic and the physical evidence and no other reason.

Suggesting that evolution doesn't need design does not explain why you
don't believe design isn't there. You are just spouting off your beliefs you
are not telling me why? Of course you don't think evolution doesn't require
design so you state that as if it were a fact, I'm asking you why you believe
that! I'm not sure why you believe systems with start stop mechanisms
could just pop out without design or why timing issues are so dialed in that
to work just right could have happened naturally without help, since to get
it wrong means something could be crippled or death.
Kelly