20 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you call evidence, something that someone claims could have
happened millions of years ago, or something we see and test today?
Kelly
What do you call evidence, something that SOMEONE CLAIMS could have
happened millions of years ago (my emphasis)
No, not something that “SOMEONE CLAIMS” but rather something that we KNOW happened millions of years ago due to the physical evidence that exists TODAY and we can see TODAY. It isn't about peoples 'claims', just the objective observable verifiable physical EVIDENCE.
or something we see and test today?
BOTH that AND the physical evidence that exists TODAY that we can see TODAY of what happened millions of years ago.
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYou know what happened millions of years ago, and that is supposed to beWhat do you call evidence, something that SOMEONE CLAIMS could have
happened millions of years ago (my emphasis)
No, not something that “SOMEONE CLAIMS” but rather something that we KNOW happened millions of years ago due to the physical evidence that exists TODAY and we can see TODAY. It isn't about peoples 'claims', just the objective ...[text shortened]... ical evidence that exists TODAY that we can see TODAY of what happened millions of years ago.
evidence I have to accept? What if your reading whatever it is your looking
at wrong, how would I know, or how would you know?
Kelly
20 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
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 star ...[text shortened]... y without help, since to get
it wrong means something could be crippled or death.
Kelly
Suggesting that evolution doesn't need design does not explain why you don't believe design isn't there
What are you talking about? That obviously was NOT my argument. I have already explained very carefully and thoroughly why I don't believe in intelligent design in that post. Read it again slowly and carefully again and come back to me.
You are just spouting off your beliefs you
are not telling me why?
I have just told you why. How on Earth is that last post NOT an explanation of why? Just a small part of it is that evolution explains the evidence while intelligent design does not but that is an incomplete explanation and to get the complete explanation of why, you just have to read that post again and take it as it is.
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!
Simple, it is just a trivial observation that one cannot imagine why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution.
OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?
20 Jun 13
10 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
You know what happened millions of years ago, and that is supposed to be
evidence I have to accept? What if your reading whatever it is your looking
at wrong, how would I know, or how would you know?
Kelly
You know what happened millions of years ago, and that is supposed to be
evidence I have to accept?
NO. That is OBVIOUSLY NOT what I said. As I already clearly implied several times, we know many of the events that happened millions of years ago because of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that exists TODAY and can be seen by us TODAY that show what happened back then.
EXACTLY what PART do you NOT understand?
I am NOT saying you should believe this just because I do and I am NOT saying you should believe this because of somebody claiming something nor am I saying you should believe this for any other reason other than the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE we can see TODAY -got it now?
Are you just going to forever fail to acknowledge what I am clearly saying to you? if so, then lets end this talk right now else debate is impossible and this is just completely pointless time-wasting. If not, acknowledge what I am clearly saying to you NOW and without delay else I will end this myself.
21 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYours is an attempt to conceal the unscientific inconsistencies under the gobbledegook of unscientific jargon.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 give your third most "compelling" objection so that I/we can debunk that at well?
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnyone with the basic knowledge of biology knows that the theory of evilution does not even get started without the formation of life. So if life can not come from non-living matter then life must have been created from the living God of the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible says evilution is false.
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!
And your lack of knowledge on the complexity of the DNA code and the complexity of biological systems is no excuse for claiming the arguments do not envolve the theory of evilution or that any argument is debunked just by your say so.
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by humy"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?"Suggesting that evolution doesn't need design does not explain why you don't believe design isn't there
What are you talking about? That obviously was NOT my argument. I have already explained very carefully and thoroughly why I don't believe in intelligent design in that post. Read it again slowly and carefully again and come back to me. ...[text shortened]... volution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?
I don't believe random mutations being filtered through natural selection
can build and maintain anything that requires consistency let alone
developing mechanisms that have strict life or death timing issues. The
nature of any change being random would mean at no time would any
feature within a living system not be subject to alterations. So at every
cycle where new mutations arise where some may be called beneficial the
very next cycle the opposite could also occur.
What life’s design/features has in it in my opinion is much more difficult to
replicate than say you’re CPU, and the work that goes into the CPU is
monumental so each revision and stepping of a processor has thousands of
people working though the issues making changes here and there seeing
results and going at it again until its right. Evolution’s random process has
none of that, either it lives or dies, and the opportunity to live is much
smaller than dying if you just randomly change things.
Also I don't have to tell you what happen millions of years ago for my
arguments to be validated as yours does. Hard to disprove what occured
a billion/million years ago without a time machine.
Kelly
21 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNothing happened concerning biological creatures millions of years ago, because they didn't exist. Prove me wrong if you can.
[b]"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?"
I don't believe random mutations being filtered through natural selection
can build and maintain anything that requires consistency let alone
developing mech . Hard to disprove what occured
a billion/million years ago without a time machine.
Kelly[/b]
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
Anyone with the basic knowledge of biology knows that the theory of evilution does not even get started without the formation of life. So if life can not come from non-living matter then life must have been created from the living God of the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible says evilution is false.
And your lack of knowledge on the complexity of the DNA c ...[text shortened]... the theory of evilution or that any argument is debunked just by your say so.
The Instructor
Anyone with the basic knowledge of biology knows that the theory of evilution does not even get started without the formation of life.
That's totally irrelevant to your debunked claims.
And, as I said before, even if, hypothetically, abiogenesis never happened, all that would mean is life has always existed and has always been evolving thus there being no abiogenesis would not mean there cannot be evolution.
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsnothing happened yesterday because yesterday didn't exist. All the vast mountain of physical evidence of there being a yesterday, along with the vast mountain of evidence that the Earth is millions of years old and life evolved, along with false memories and false records of there being a yesterday and a huge amount of past history before that were all put there by God at midnight last night which is when God created the Earth and the whole universe. Prove me wrong if you can.
Nothing happened concerning biological creatures millions of years ago, because they didn't exist. Prove me wrong if you can.
The Instructor
21 Jun 13
9 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOK, first you said:
[b]"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?"
I don't believe random mutations being filtered through natural selection
can build and maintain anything that requires consistency let alone
developing mech . Hard to disprove what occured
a billion/million years ago without a time machine.
Kelly[/b]
Suggesting that evolution doesn't need design does not explain why you don't believe design isn't there
And then I said:
What are you talking about? That obviously was NOT my argument.
and now you quote what I said earlier which was:
"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? -if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it! Got that?"
So I take it you are suggesting that the above statement of mine is telling you that I do not believe in intelligent design BECAUSE EVOLUTION doesn't require intelligent design?
But, obviously, that is NOT what this statement says! Note that the word “it” (the first and not the second one) in the part were I said “-if not, then THAT is a reason why to believe it doesn't require it!”
That word “it” in this context is obviously referring to evolution because that is what I was talking about in the bit that I just before that i.e. the “can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? “. Thus I was clearly explaining the reason why I don't believe that specifically EVOLUTION requires intelligent design and NOT explaining why I don't believe in intelligent design in ALL contexts.
Thus I was clearly NOT saying I don't believe in intelligent design BECAUSE, specifically EVOLUTION doesn't require it.
I have already explained why I don't believe in intelligent design in some of the other statements that are within what I had said (in answer to your question of why I reject intelligent design) which was:
"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)."
The above comprehensibly explains not only why I do not believe in the intelligent design hypothesis for life but, for the sake of completion, also explains why I do not believe any kind of intelligence needs to be involved for evolution to work. Try not to confuse the two again.
Hard to disprove what occured
a billion/million years ago without a time machine.
Not true. We have the fossil record that can prove or DISPROVE various hypotheses we make of the past. For example, if you claim there was never carnivorous flying dinosaurs many millions of years ago, we can look at the fossil record and if we find a fossil of a carnivorous flying dinosaur that is clearly, according to scientific analysis and verifiable measurement, millions of years old then that disproves that hypothesis -no time machine required for that.
21 Jun 13
Originally posted by humy"OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why intelligent design might possibly be required in evolution? "
OK, first you said:Suggesting that evolution doesn't need design does not explain why you don't believe design isn't there
And then I said:What are you talking about? That obviously was NOT my argument.
and now you quote what I said earlier which was:
[quote] "OK, can you give us a reason to believe that why i ...[text shortened]... years old then that disproves that hypothesis -no time machine required for that.
If you have to write book telling me what you meant, than what you said
was not very clear in the first place.
I gave you a reason why intelligent design might possibley be required,
which was what I was asked to do in my opinion. I don't think you are
really seriously into this discussion, I think we can just stop here.
Kelly
21 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYesterday does not mean a million years ago. Yesterday means the day before today or the day before the present day. So it is easy to prove yesterday existed. However, nobody can prove man or any other creature existed a million years ago. You are just a bald faced liar, if you say they can.
nothing happened yesterday because yesterday didn't exist. All the vast mountain of physical evidence of there being a yesterday, along with the vast mountain of evidence that the Earth is millions of years old and life evolved, along with false memories and false records of there being a yesterday and a huge amount of past history before that were all put ther ...[text shortened]... st night which is when God created the Earth and the whole universe. Prove me wrong if you can.
The Instructor