Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:58:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

No you're not giving anything away. It is not an intentional trap. If an ID advocate has a third option, I'm all ears, but these are the two scenarios I see. The first option is simply not backed by observations, and the second allows for evolution. I simply can not understand why ID proponents fight against evolution so vehemently given this is their own options.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 3:33:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:58:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

No you're not giving anything away. It is not an intentional trap. If an ID advocate has a third option, I'm all ears, but these are the two scenarios I see. The first option is simply not backed by observations, and the second allows for evolution. I simply can not understand why ID proponents fight against evolution so vehemently given this is their own options.

3. The universe was intelligently designed last Thursday, with all fossils and memories etc. in tact.

That's an explanation perfectly consistent with the data. Good luck disproving it.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

What is so crazy about the idea that aliens have been seeding life? It better explains the lack of transitional fossils than evolution does among many things.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:23:32 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

What is so crazy about the idea that aliens have been seeding life? It better explains the lack of transitional fossils than evolution does among many things.

First, they'd have to keep coming back to drop off new forms. They would have had to do that at least half a dozen times to coincide with the major extinctions we see in the fossil record. Second, this supposes that they even exist in the first place, which has the same problem as saying goddidit. Thirdly, there is no "lack of transitional fossils." If you were fossilized right now, you'd be a transitional fossil between our ape ancestors and whatever we wind up evolving into. Everything is in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. And, finally, it still allows for evolution, and is therefore a more complex idea than evolution on its own. Occam's razor makes the idea less reasonable than sole evolution.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 4:51:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:28:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:23:32 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

What is so crazy about the idea that aliens have been seeding life? It better explains the lack of transitional fossils than evolution does among many things.

First, they'd have to keep coming back to drop off new forms. They would have had to do that at least half a dozen times to coincide with the major extinctions we see in the fossil record. Second, this supposes that they even exist in the first place, which has the same problem as saying goddidit. Thirdly, there is no "lack of transitional fossils." If you were fossilized right now, you'd be a transitional fossil between our ape ancestors and whatever we wind up evolving into. Everything is in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. And, finally, it still allows for evolution, and is therefore a more complex idea than evolution on its own. Occam's razor makes the idea less reasonable than sole evolution.

What is wrong with them keep coming back to create new life forms?
What are the problems with "goddidit"?

Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

Humans are transitional between humans and other humans, that is all that has been definitively proven. Humans evolving from apes are just speculation, despite what some would want you to believe.

It allows for evolution, but does not require macro evolution, which is unproven (depending on how you define macro evolution; unfortunately key terms are not well defined) and I would argue macro evolution is less likely.

Evolution lacks improved explaining power necessary to follow Occam's razor. It also has extra assumptions that go against Occam's razor such as the possibility of macro-evolution.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 4:51:36 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:28:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:23:32 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

What is so crazy about the idea that aliens have been seeding life? It better explains the lack of transitional fossils than evolution does among many things.

First, they'd have to keep coming back to drop off new forms. They would have had to do that at least half a dozen times to coincide with the major extinctions we see in the fossil record. Second, this supposes that they even exist in the first place, which has the same problem as saying goddidit. Thirdly, there is no "lack of transitional fossils." If you were fossilized right now, you'd be a transitional fossil between our ape ancestors and whatever we wind up evolving into. Everything is in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. And, finally, it still allows for evolution, and is therefore a more complex idea than evolution on its own. Occam's razor makes the idea less reasonable than sole evolution.

What is wrong with them keep coming back to create new life forms?
What are the problems with "goddidit"?

Both assume the existence of something that we have no other evidence for. Talk about circular reasoning.

Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition. Novel genes have been observed to emerge. Allele frequency has been observed to change in populations over time. That's all it takes to cause transition. The common ancestor idea is a conclusion of evolution, not a core part of the theory.

Humans are transitional between humans and other humans, that is all that has been definitively proven. Humans evolving from apes are just speculation, despite what some would want you to believe.

Humans are apes.

It allows for evolution, but does not require macro evolution, which is unproven (depending on how you define macro evolution; unfortunately key terms are not well defined) and I would argue macro evolution is less likely.

Evolution lacks improved explaining power necessary to follow Occam's razor. It also has extra assumptions that go against Occam's razor such as the possibility of macro-evolution.

None of this changes the fact that evolution + god/aliens/intelligent designer makes more more assumptions than any assumptions you are attributing to evolution alone. Sorry.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:48:58 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:51:36 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:28:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 4:23:32 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:20:26 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:42:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:24:50 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:15:39 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/26/2014 9:04:25 AM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:30:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Someone want to define ID? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?

Intelligent design

1. A n00bish, pseudo-science religious theory that advocates that some phenomenon are just too complicated to be explained by science alone, and therefore God, or an intelligent designer must exist.
2. Excrement.

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

ID seems to come up in every thread when evolution is mention. I just figured if we're going to talk about it, we should have a definition of what ID advocates are referring to.

I normally to with the following:

Design:

"Something is intelligently designed if and only if a conscious agent achieved the design by rational prior planning of the subject"

Intelligent Design:

"The hypothesis that life is at least partially the result of the actions of design."

Nice and vague.

I shouldn't expect a response, eh?

At the risk of giving something away, your question is such a trap for ID folks that I don't think they can answer it. If they say it's an ongoing process of an intelligent being guiding things, they pretty much have to admit that they mean their god or something (equally) ridiculous like repeated seeding of life by invisible aliens. If they say it's a one-time thing, then they have to find some other explanation for the very clear change in life over a couple billion years. Either way, evolution is the best, simplest explanation that incorporates all of the evidence.

What is so crazy about the idea that aliens have been seeding life? It better explains the lack of transitional fossils than evolution does among many things.

First, they'd have to keep coming back to drop off new forms. They would have had to do that at least half a dozen times to coincide with the major extinctions we see in the fossil record. Second, this supposes that they even exist in the first place, which has the same problem as saying goddidit. Thirdly, there is no "lack of transitional fossils." If you were fossilized right now, you'd be a transitional fossil between our ape ancestors and whatever we wind up evolving into. Everything is in transition. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. And, finally, it still allows for evolution, and is therefore a more complex idea than evolution on its own. Occam's razor makes the idea less reasonable than sole evolution.

What is wrong with them keep coming back to create new life forms?
What are the problems with "goddidit"?

Both assume the existence of something that we have no other evidence for. Talk about circular reasoning.

There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Allele frequency has been observed to change in populations over time. That's all it takes to cause transition. The common ancestor idea is a conclusion of evolution, not a core part of the theory.

Humans are transitional between humans and other humans, that is all that has been definitively proven. Humans evolving from apes are just speculation, despite what some would want you to believe.

Humans are apes.
ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

It allows for evolution, but does not require macro evolution, which is unproven (depending on how you define macro evolution; unfortunately key terms are not well defined) and I would argue macro evolution is less likely.

Evolution lacks improved explaining power necessary to follow Occam's razor. It also has extra assumptions that go against Occam's razor such as the possibility of macro-evolution.

None of this changes the fact that evolution + god/aliens/intelligent designer makes more more assumptions than any assumptions you are attributing to evolution alone. Sorry.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 5:23:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:: Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Uh. Do you actually think about any of the rubbish you are talking about? Lets look at your "assumptions".

1.) An advanced alien civilisation exists with the capability of inventing/creating DNA.

2.) They have the motivation to seed life on another planet, and even though they have the ability and technology to seed life in a way that allows them to plant one single protocell and have it evolve into life on this planet; they decide to seed life forms "as-is".

3.) They have some motivation to create types of life they seed happens to match what is expected from evolution; rather than any forms they see fit.

4.) They have some motiviation to include patterns in DNA to make it look like all life is related to each other.

5.) They have some motivation to continually come back and create new life, even though they could have designed the DNA to allow macro-evolution.

6.) They have some motivation to design DNA to allow macro-evolution by it's very nature including mutation, duplication, speciation, and more; but put something in there to stop macro-evolution even though it would make their life simpler.

7.) The technological ability of the aliens to travel interstellar distances regularly and repeatedly, and somehow observe life to know when an extinction event happens from either a distance, or because they are observing the earth is possible.

8.) The aliens have no motivation or no technology to stop the asteroid that caused mass extinction events, yet once it's happened, they reseed life continually after the event over a period of millions of years.

9.) There is some mechanism by which the alien civilisation came about in the first place.

10.) The aliens have the presence of forethought to design complex life with a massive amount of thought to body plan, function and features, yet accidently forgot such basic things such as air hole and food hole being the same; or a giraffe nerve going down it's neck, around it's heart and back up to the larynx.

These are the ones I can think of in about 3 minutes. They are ALL untestable, and are ALL required to be "assumed" in order for this tripe to make any sense at all.

This stands opposed to Descent with modification from a common ancestor, which includes the following untestable assumptions:

1.) The evidence we see around us hasn't been put there in order to fool us.

So no, you make insane assumptions, and evolution doesn't really make any untestable assumptions that I can think of; feel free to point out any you beleive to exist, and I will show you how they are not untestable and have been tested.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:33:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 5:23:19 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:: Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Uh. Do you actually think about any of the rubbish you are talking about? Lets look at your "assumptions".

1.) An advanced alien civilisation exists with the capability of inventing/creating DNA.

We are already at the point where we can genetically alter life. So the idea that we may be able to create new life is not unlikely.


2.) They have the motivation to seed life on another planet, and even though they have the ability and technology to seed life in a way that allows them to plant one single protocell and have it evolve into life on this planet; they decide to seed life forms "as-is".

Again, you are assuming macro evolution is possible without evidence.


3.) They have some motivation to create types of life they seed happens to match what is expected from evolution; rather than any forms they see fit.

Plenty of findings in the fossil record went against what was predicted by evolution. Every time this happens, evolutionists just change what they predict from evolution. There is no reason to think they went out of their way to mimic evolution. Evolutionists just interpret everything they see as evidence of evolution because of confirmation bias.


4.) They have some motiviation to include patterns in DNA to make it look like all life is related to each other.

No. they reuse DNA when designing life because it does not make sense to completely redesign new species from scratch when use can reuse DNA from different organisms. But what happens is that evolutionists interpret similar DNA as evidence of them being related as opposed to evidence of a common designer.


5.) They have some motivation to continually come back and create new life, even though they could have designed the DNA to allow macro-evolution.

Again you are assuming macro-evolution is possible without evidence.


6.) They have some motivation to design DNA to allow macro-evolution by it's very nature including mutation, duplication, speciation, and more; but put something in there to stop macro-evolution even though it would make their life simpler.

Since you obviously don't understand the inherent limitations of evolution can prevent macro-evolution I will explain it to you. Natural selection will only select for traits that give the organisms an immediate advantage. So if the only way to evolve into a more fit state is to first evolve into a less fit state, evolution will never get there. One simple example is that for an organism to evolve wings to allow it to fly, it first must evolve small wings before it can evolve fully sized wings for flight. but wings too small to support flight are not useful and only get in the way which is harmful, so evolution would select against it. This would prevent wings from evolving.

Also the only way speciation was observed is by scientists changing the definition of species to a group that can't reproduce with another group. They inconstantly use this definition. It is not very helpful but it gives evolutionists the ability to claim observed speciation. There are no new genes being added to the gene pool so speciation couldn't be observed when species are defined by DNA differences.


7.) The technological ability of the aliens to travel interstellar distances regularly and repeatedly, and somehow observe life to know when an extinction event happens from either a distance, or because they are observing the earth is possible.

Some of them can stay more locally. There is evidence of this such as UFO siting from credible people such as astronauts. So aliens don't need regular interstellar travel.


8.) The aliens have no motivation or no technology to stop the asteroid that caused mass extinction events, yet once it's happened, they reseed life continually after the event over a period of millions of years.

Under the assumption that aliens created life, it would make more sense that they caused the mass extinctions wanting to fill the Earth with new life, as opposed to some natural event they chose not to stop caused the extinctions. The asteroid explanation is just one theory for the mass extinction.


9.) There is some mechanism by which the alien civilisation came about in the first place.

Evolution from a common ancestor also has the problem of how the first life came into existence.


10.) The aliens have the presence of forethought to design complex life with a massive amount of thought to body plan, function and features, yet accidently forgot such basic things such as air hole and food hole being the same; or a giraffe nerve going down it's neck, around it's heart and back up to the larynx.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe you know the ideal way to design life?


These are the ones I can think of in about 3 minutes. They are ALL untestable, and are ALL required to be "assumed" in order for this tripe to make any sense at all.

This stands opposed to Descent with modification from a common ancestor, which includes the following untestable assumptions:

1.) The evidence we see around us hasn't been put there in order to fool us.

No. Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the evidence.



So no, you make insane assumptions, and evolution doesn't really make any untestable assumptions that I can think of; feel free to point out any you beleive to exist, and I will show you how they are not untestable and have been tested.

Evolution from a common ancestor makes the unproven assumption of the possibility of macro evolution.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 4:54:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:33:14 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/27/2014 5:23:19 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:: Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Uh. Do you actually think about any of the rubbish you are talking about? Lets look at your "assumptions".

1.) An advanced alien civilisation exists with the capability of inventing/creating DNA.

We are already at the point where we can genetically alter life. So the idea that we may be able to create new life is not unlikely.

Yet the assumption that an alien civilisation exists with that capability is indeed an untestable, unevidenced assumption.


2.) They have the motivation to seed life on another planet, and even though they have the ability and technology to seed life in a way that allows them to plant one single protocell and have it evolve into life on this planet; they decide to seed life forms "as-is".

Again, you are assuming macro evolution is possible without evidence.

I could (and have) created dozens of 8000 word posts outlining the evidence.

Bottom line is your assumption is still both untestable, and unevidenced.


3.) They have some motivation to create types of life they seed happens to match what is expected from evolution; rather than any forms they see fit.

Plenty of findings in the fossil record went against what was predicted by evolution. Every time this happens, evolutionists just change what they predict from evolution. There is no reason to think they went out of their way to mimic evolution. Evolutionists just interpret everything they see as evidence of evolution because of confirmation bias.

Name one. All the evidence thus far points unanimously at evolution.

But still, none of this goes against the fact this assumption is untestable, and unevidenced.


4.) They have some motiviation to include patterns in DNA to make it look like all life is related to each other.

No. they reuse DNA when designing life because it does not make sense to completely redesign new species from scratch when use can reuse DNA from different organisms. But what happens is that evolutionists interpret similar DNA as evidence of them being related as opposed to evidence of a common designer.

The patterns found in DNA I speak of do not match reuse. It matches descent with modification.


5.) They have some motivation to continually come back and create new life, even though they could have designed the DNA to allow macro-evolution.

Again you are assuming macro-evolution is possible without evidence.

Nope. I have evidence, again your assumption is both unestable and unevidenced.

6.) They have some motivation to design DNA to allow macro-evolution by it's very nature including mutation, duplication, speciation, and more; but put something in there to stop macro-evolution even though it would make their life simpler.

Since you obviously don't understand the inherent limitations of evolution can prevent macro-evolution I will explain it to you. Natural selection will only select for traits that give the organisms an immediate advantage. So if the only way to evolve into a more fit state is to first evolve into a less fit state, evolution will never get there. One simple example is that for an organism to evolve wings to allow it to fly, it first must evolve small wings before it can evolve fully sized wings for flight. but wings too small to support flight are not useful and only get in the way which is harmful, so evolution would select against it. This would prevent wings from evolving.

This is just your lack of understanding about evolution; and is simply not true.

Also the only way speciation was observed is by scientists changing the definition of species to a group that can't reproduce with another group. They inconstantly use this definition. It is not very helpful but it gives evolutionists the ability to claim observed speciation. There are no new genes being added to the gene pool so speciation couldn't be observed when species are defined by DNA differences.

New genes are added are all the time by duplication. Speciation is the only objective way to distinguish any two species and I can demonstrate it.

None of this, however, counters that this assumption is untestable and unevidenced.


7.) The technological ability of the aliens to travel interstellar distances regularly and repeatedly, and somehow observe life to know when an extinction event happens from either a distance, or because they are observing the earth is possible.

Some of them can stay more locally. There is evidence of this such as UFO siting from credible people such as astronauts. So aliens don't need regular interstellar travel.

Unevidenced and untestable. Thank you for agreeing.


8.) The aliens have no motivation or no technology to stop the asteroid that caused mass extinction events, yet once it's happened, they reseed life continually after the event over a period of millions of years.

Under the assumption that aliens created life, it would make more sense that they caused the mass extinctions wanting to fill the Earth with new life, as opposed to some natural event they chose not to stop caused the extinctions. The asteroid explanation is just one theory for the mass extinction.

So another untestable unevidenced assumption..


9.) There is some mechanism by which the alien civilisation came about in the first place.

Evolution from a common ancestor also has the problem of how the first life came into existence.

Not a problem, a testable assumption, that has evidence to support it,


10.) The aliens have the presence of forethought to design complex life with a massive amount of thought to body plan, function and features, yet accidently forgot such basic things such as air hole and food hole being the same; or a giraffe nerve going down it's neck, around it's heart and back up to the larynx.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe you know the ideal way to design life?

No. But I can point out really stupid errors that a hyper intelligent species wouldn't make.

These are the ones I can think of in about 3 minutes. They are ALL untestable, and are ALL required to be "assumed" in order for this tripe to make any sense at all.

This stands opposed to Descent with modification from a common ancestor, which includes the following untestable assumptions:

1.) The evidence we see around us hasn't been put there in order to fool us.

No. Evolutionists are just misinterpreting the evidence.

Name one.

So no, you make insane assumptions, and evolution doesn't really make any untestable assumptions that I can think of; feel free to point out any you beleive to exist, and I will show you how they are not untestable and have been tested.

Evolution from a common ancestor makes the unproven assumption of the possibility of macro evolution.

Not unproven, well evidenced and testable.

All of your assumptions remain unchallenged, and you have offered neither tests nor evidence in support. This sort if proves my point.

What you are doing is simply wildly speculating; whereas evolution is based on data, evidence and testable predictions.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:34:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

There is evidence for the possibility of alien life, but no evidence that it actually exists. There is zero for intelligent design. If you feel like you have some evidence, feel free to cite it.

Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli: http://www.umich.edu...

A new gene emerged that allowed for the transport of citrate in the presence of oxygen.

ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are based on the same evidence. There are no assumptions made for macro-evolution that aren't also made for micro. If you disagree, please enumerate the supposed assumptions that apply to one and not the other.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 10:15:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 10:34:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

There is evidence for the possibility of alien life, but no evidence that it actually exists. There is zero for intelligent design. If you feel like you have some evidence, feel free to cite it.

Evidence for a possibility of something is a type of evidence for something. So unless you can be more specific on the type of evidence you are looking for, I don't know how to respond.


Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli: http://www.umich.edu...

A new gene emerged that allowed for the transport of citrate in the presence of oxygen.

http://creationwiki.org...

"E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions."

"There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place"


ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are based on the same evidence. There are no assumptions made for macro-evolution that aren't also made for micro. If you disagree, please enumerate the supposed assumptions that apply to one and not the other.

Micro-evolution is just a change in allele frequency. Mutations and natural selection aren't even necessary for micro-evolution to exist. It only requires a population with unique DNA in which new members are born and/or old members die, which causes the allele frequency of the population to be subjected to genetic drift resulting in micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution assumes the possibility of a separation of gene pools.
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:03:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Ramshutu

You repeatedly assert literally all evidence supports evolution, without giving any evidence to back up your claim. You are unable to see even one of the many flaws of evolution. I even explained one problem to you and you just dismiss it by claiming I don't understand evolution. You attack my claims saying they have no evidence, before you even ask if I have evidence. I am starting to think that responding to you is not a productive use of my time.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:20:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 10:15:44 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/27/2014 10:34:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

There is evidence for the possibility of alien life, but no evidence that it actually exists. There is zero for intelligent design. If you feel like you have some evidence, feel free to cite it.

Evidence for a possibility of something is a type of evidence for something.

No it isn't. What is possible is not evidence for what is real. It can be evidence against if something is not possible.

Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli: http://www.umich.edu...

A new gene emerged that allowed for the transport of citrate in the presence of oxygen.

http://creationwiki.org...

"E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions."

"There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place"


ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are based on the same evidence. There are no assumptions made for macro-evolution that aren't also made for micro. If you disagree, please enumerate the supposed assumptions that apply to one and not the other.

Micro-evolution is just a change in allele frequency. Mutations and natural selection aren't even necessary for micro-evolution to exist. It only requires a population with unique DNA in which new members are born and/or old members die, which causes the allele frequency of the population to be subjected to genetic drift resulting in micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution assumes the possibility of a separation of gene pools.

Which we have seen.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:31:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:03:08 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
@Ramshutu

You repeatedly assert literally all evidence supports evolution, without giving any evidence to back up your claim. You are unable to see even one of the many flaws of evolution. I even explained one problem to you and you just dismiss it by claiming I don't understand evolution. You attack my claims saying they have no evidence, before you even ask if I have evidence. I am starting to think that responding to you is not a productive use of my time.

The evidence for evolution is actually a matter of public record, specifically by doing something like googling "evidence for common descent".

Considering my previous post was pointing out that you make innumerable untestable assumptions, you seemed to ignore this point and rather than defend them, you made a number of claims that are simply untrue and not backed up by actual evidence.

Like many creationists, you are misrepresenting or not even understanding what evolution is as evidenced by your misunderstanding of natural selection, something that could have been corrected with a brief google search on the subject.

So yes, responding in the way you are is not a good use of your time. Instead I would actually provide a demonstrative argument concerning any of the rubbish you are saying or, more appropriately, actually researching evolution.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:49:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Intelligent design really started with Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. He points out several flaws in Darwin"s theory of evolution There is some things that at a biochemical level can not be a result of random mutation. Take blood clotting for example. With out many chemicals in perfect balance, released it the right order, and in the right amounts the system breaks down. If even once thing was changed that the animal bleeds to death from even the slightest wound or the blood clots in then animals body.

There is many other good points. Take flowers for example. Flowers are used for reproduction. Evolution would state this is starts from mutation that help plants pass on there genetic information. How did the first flower pass on this genetic information?

Michael J. Behe mostly was re-looking at Darwin"s work with modern eyes. Many things Darwin didn"t know. Back then it was thought that cells were simple. Today we know that cells are more complex in design that any thing we have ever made in human history. That when you look at some of these things that you find some things that have irreducible complexity. Things like blood clotting that to evolve to its current state it means millions of generations with a genetic mutation what would greatly decrease there chances of survivingsurving.

He also points out that there is no scientific papers on this subject. That scientific papers discuss every logical ways that animals can evolve, while completely ignoring the biochemical steps needed to achieve such evolution. Not discussing of such step would allow the survival of that animal or effect its ability to procreate.

In the conclusion he discusses if you found a watch on a beach how you would know it was made by someone with intelligence. If you found a life form that matched up with all same marker wouldn"t you at least say it might have been made by someone with intelligence. Would that not at least be a valid path of research.
Intelligent design does not claim its the right answer, or if it is what that intelligence may be. The whole fire storm started because Michael J. Behe wants his questions answered and not just blown off. I have read many rebuttals to his argument and none of them try to explain his questions in biochemistry. Yes the UFO community and churches are his main supporters. They have made a lot of waves using his work. Michael J. Behe is likely to keep on using them to annoy the scientific community until some one publishes a decent paper answering is question.

It is a really good read if you like science and highly recommend reading it. It will not be the what you think going in. Even if you disagree with him you will be left wondering when will there be proper research in the areas he bring up.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 12:02:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:49:29 AM, gomergcc wrote:
Intelligent design really started with Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. He points out several flaws in Darwin"s theory of evolution There is some things that at a biochemical level can not be a result of random mutation. Take blood clotting for example. With out many chemicals in perfect balance, released it the right order, and in the right amounts the system breaks down. If even once thing was changed that the animal bleeds to death from even the slightest wound or the blood clots in then animals body.

There is many other good points. Take flowers for example. Flowers are used for reproduction. Evolution would state this is starts from mutation that help plants pass on there genetic information. How did the first flower pass on this genetic information?

Michael J. Behe mostly was re-looking at Darwin"s work with modern eyes. Many things Darwin didn"t know. Back then it was thought that cells were simple. Today we know that cells are more complex in design that any thing we have ever made in human history. That when you look at some of these things that you find some things that have irreducible complexity. Things like blood clotting that to evolve to its current state it means millions of generations with a genetic mutation what would greatly decrease there chances of survivingsurving.

He also points out that there is no scientific papers on this subject. That scientific papers discuss every logical ways that animals can evolve, while completely ignoring the biochemical steps needed to achieve such evolution. Not discussing of such step would allow the survival of that animal or effect its ability to procreate.

In the conclusion he discusses if you found a watch on a beach how you would know it was made by someone with intelligence. If you found a life form that matched up with all same marker wouldn"t you at least say it might have been made by someone with intelligence. Would that not at least be a valid path of research.
Intelligent design does not claim its the right answer, or if it is what that intelligence may be. The whole fire storm started because Michael J. Behe wants his questions answered and not just blown off. I have read many rebuttals to his argument and none of them try to explain his questions in biochemistry. Yes the UFO community and churches are his main supporters. They have made a lot of waves using his work. Michael J. Behe is likely to keep on using them to annoy the scientific community until some one publishes a decent paper answering is question.

It is a really good read if you like science and highly recommend reading it. It will not be the what you think going in. Even if you disagree with him you will be left wondering when will there be proper research in the areas he bring up.

As is the Dover vs kitzmiller trial testimony. Which basically summarised why all of those examples are wrong; and how Behe dismisses the alternative explanations as wrong out of hand even though he claimed never read any of them.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 12:17:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 10:15:44 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/27/2014 10:34:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

There is evidence for the possibility of alien life, but no evidence that it actually exists. There is zero for intelligent design. If you feel like you have some evidence, feel free to cite it.

Evidence for a possibility of something is a type of evidence for something. So unless you can be more specific on the type of evidence you are looking for, I don't know how to respond.

Do you not understand the difference between saying "the conditions are present for this thing to exist" and "this thing exists?" There is evidence for the former, not the latter when it comes to aliens. Meanwhile, we have evidence of the actual existence of evolution, by itself. I'm looking for evidence that aliens or a god actually do exist, not just the possibility of their existence. This is what is meant when we say assumptions are made. You're assuming, without evidence that an intelligent designer actually exists.


Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli: http://www.umich.edu...

A new gene emerged that allowed for the transport of citrate in the presence of oxygen.

http://creationwiki.org...

"E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions."

"There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place"

Adorable as that creationism blather is, I didn't say a new function arose. I said a new (novel) gene emerged. Specifically, it was a gene for transporting citrate in the presence of oxygen. The paper I linked explains how the tandem duplication occurred and created the gene. Novel genes and changing allele frequencies allow for transition.


ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are based on the same evidence. There are no assumptions made for macro-evolution that aren't also made for micro. If you disagree, please enumerate the supposed assumptions that apply to one and not the other.

Micro-evolution is just a change in allele frequency. Mutations and natural selection aren't even necessary for micro-evolution to exist. It only requires a population with unique DNA in which new members are born and/or old members die, which causes the allele frequency of the population to be subjected to genetic drift resulting in micro-evolution.

Natural selection causes the change in allele frequencies.

Macro-evolution assumes the possibility of a separation of gene pools.

When something is known to exist (separation of gene pools) it isn't an assumption. It's called reality. Or are you under the impression that populations of organisms are never separated?
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 1:28:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 12:17:26 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/28/2014 10:15:44 AM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/27/2014 10:34:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/26/2014 7:23:20 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
There is plenty of evidence for alien life and intelligent design. Some may try to argue the evidence is weak, but to say the evidence does not exist is completely incorrect.

There is evidence for the possibility of alien life, but no evidence that it actually exists. There is zero for intelligent design. If you feel like you have some evidence, feel free to cite it.

Evidence for a possibility of something is a type of evidence for something. So unless you can be more specific on the type of evidence you are looking for, I don't know how to respond.

Do you not understand the difference between saying "the conditions are present for this thing to exist" and "this thing exists?" There is evidence for the former, not the latter when it comes to aliens. Meanwhile, we have evidence of the actual existence of evolution, by itself. I'm looking for evidence that aliens or a god actually do exist, not just the possibility of their existence. This is what is meant when we say assumptions are made. You're assuming, without evidence that an intelligent designer actually exists.

The way science and evidence works is that every time a theory makes a successful prediction, then that is evidence for the theory, which increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. The theory "X exists" can make the prediction "there exists conditions for X to exist" since it is a prerequisite for the theory to be correct. If the prediction is correct, then that is evidence supporting that the theory, which increases the likelihood of that theory being correct. Therefor evidence for "there exists conditions for X to exist" is evidence for "X exists".

And for the evidence, here is a couple to start off with:

1. there exists ancient texts from multiple cultures documenting beings from the sky who came to Earth and created life.

2. astronauts admitted to alien contact
https://www.youtube.com...



Saying "everything is transitional" doesn't magically solve your problems. You are using the assumption of evolution of a universal common ancestor to defend your point; an example of circular reasoning.

I'm using the knowledge that all beings are in transition.

Novel genes have been observed to emerge.
Source please.

Evolution of aerobic citrate metabolism in E. coli: http://www.umich.edu...

A new gene emerged that allowed for the transport of citrate in the presence of oxygen.

http://creationwiki.org...

"E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions."

"There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place"

Adorable as that creationism blather is, I didn't say a new function arose. I said a new (novel) gene emerged. Specifically, it was a gene for transporting citrate in the presence of oxygen. The paper I linked explains how the tandem duplication occurred and created the gene. Novel genes and changing allele frequencies allow for transition.

Novel genes that don't increase information can't account for evolution from a universal common ancestor.



ok, non-human apes. You know what I meant.

Alien designers + microevolution can make fewer assumptions than microevolution + macroevolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are based on the same evidence. There are no assumptions made for macro-evolution that aren't also made for micro. If you disagree, please enumerate the supposed assumptions that apply to one and not the other.

Micro-evolution is just a change in allele frequency. Mutations and natural selection aren't even necessary for micro-evolution to exist. It only requires a population with unique DNA in which new members are born and/or old members die, which causes the allele frequency of the population to be subjected to genetic drift resulting in micro-evolution.

Natural selection causes the change in allele frequencies.

I didn't say natural selection can't change allele frequencies; I just stated even without natural selection there would still be changes in allele frequencies due to genetic drift. So giving evidence for the most basic example of micro-evolution does almost nothing to support your case of evolution from a universal common ancestor.


Macro-evolution assumes the possibility of a separation of gene pools.

When something is known to exist (separation of gene pools) it isn't an assumption. It's called reality. Or are you under the impression that populations of organisms are never separated?

Species can become separated, but not necessarily due to differences in gene pool.

I guess a better example of an assumption made by evolution from a universal common ancestor would be the absence of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is probably the biggest problem with evolution.
gomergcc
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 2:32:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It had been a while since I read the court transcripts so I reread his testimony.. FYI that was a very boring 700 pages.

"As is the Dover vs kitzmiller trial testimony. Which basically summarised why all of those examples are wrong; and how Behe dismisses the alternative explanations as wrong out of hand even though he claimed never read any of them."

At no point at the trial was Bahe asked about any article on biochemical processes that he didn't bring up.

After being asked about 50 scientific articles:
I recognize most of them. Some of them I
don't recall, but that's fine.

When asked about if they are good enough to prove evolution.
Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very
interesting. They simply just don't address
the question that I pose.

When asked about his claim there is no scientific articles on the biochemical processes of evolution leading to the immune system.
Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more
articles discussing the evolution of the immune
system?

A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had
time to look through these fifty articles, but I
still am unaware of any that address my point
that the immune system could arise or that
present in a detailed rigorous fashion a
scenario for the evolution by random mutation
and natural selection of the immune system.
Q. Is that your position today that these
articles aren't good enough, you need to see
a step-by-step description?
A. These articles are excellent articles I
assume. However, they do not address the
question that I am posing. So it's not that
they aren't good enough. It's simply that they
are addressed to a different subject.

Q. And then all these hard working scientists
publish article after article over years and
years, chapters and books, full books,
addressing the question of how the vertebrate
immune system evolved, but none of them are
satisfactory to you for an answer to that
question?

A. Well, see, that again is an example of
confusing the different meanings of evolution.
As we have seen before, evolution means a number
of things, such as change over time, common
descent, gradualism and so on. And when I say
Darwinian evolution, that is focusing exactly
on the mechanism of natural selection. And none
of these articles address that.

I would highly suggest that you read things like this your self and not take some other persons word for it.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 3:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 1:28:55 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
The way science and evidence works is that every time a theory makes a successful prediction, then that is evidence for the theory, which increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. The theory "X exists" can make the prediction "there exists conditions for X to exist" since it is a prerequisite for the theory to be correct. If the prediction is correct, then that is evidence supporting that the theory, which increases the likelihood of that theory being correct. Therefor evidence for "there exists conditions for X to exist" is evidence for "X exists".

Using that logic, rainbows are evidence of leprechauns.

Anyway, "x exists" is not a theory. A theory is a tested model explaining a group of related observations. The theory of evolution, for example, explains the observed diversity of life on earth, the fossil record, and similarities in DNA (among other observations). "X exists" doesn't explain anything. It's a hypothesis that has to be explored. So let's see your evidence.

And for the evidence, here is a couple to start off with:

1. there exists ancient texts from multiple cultures documenting beings from the sky who came to Earth and created life.

Citation needed.

Regardless, there are also old stories about leprechauns. So far we're equal on evidence for aliens and leprechauns.

2. astronauts admitted to alien contact
https://www.youtube.com...

One guy, probably suffering from altitude sickness, talks about his hallucinations. You'll accept this, but won't accept the mountains of evidence that support "macroevolution." Printing out all of the research done that supports evolution would literally fill a modest sized home to overflowing, but you don't believe it. Yet you're hanging your hat on one guy's testimony of something that he probably saw while delirious. That assumes he actually experienced something at all and didn't just make some stuff up for attention.

I will admit, I have no eyewitness testimony about leprechauns. So your aliens have nosed that out with one potentially crazy attention whore.

Novel genes that don't increase information can't account for evolution from a universal common ancestor.

Please describe what an increase in information is.

I didn't say natural selection can't change allele frequencies; I just stated even without natural selection there would still be changes in allele frequencies due to genetic drift. So giving evidence for the most basic example of micro-evolution does almost nothing to support your case of evolution from a universal common ancestor.

What do you think "microevolution" is if it doesn't involve natural selection? This sounds like you're repeating some bull from a creationist site.

Species can become separated, but not necessarily due to differences in gene pool.

I guess a better example of an assumption made by evolution from a universal common ancestor would be the absence of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is probably the biggest problem with evolution.

Evolutionary theory doesn't assume punctuated equilibrium. Some scientists have made hypotheses about punctuated equilibrium. Some have ideas about evolution that don't involve it at all. Would you like to try again?
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 4:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 3:12:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/28/2014 1:28:55 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
The way science and evidence works is that every time a theory makes a successful prediction, then that is evidence for the theory, which increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. The theory "X exists" can make the prediction "there exists conditions for X to exist" since it is a prerequisite for the theory to be correct. If the prediction is correct, then that is evidence supporting that the theory, which increases the likelihood of that theory being correct. Therefor evidence for "there exists conditions for X to exist" is evidence for "X exists".

Using that logic, rainbows are evidence of leprechauns.
It is extremely weak evidence, but yes.

Anyway, "x exists" is not a theory. A theory is a tested model explaining a group of related observations. The theory of evolution, for example, explains the observed diversity of life on earth, the fossil record, and similarities in DNA (among other observations). "X exists" doesn't explain anything. It's a hypothesis that has to be explored. So let's see your evidence.

And for the evidence, here is a couple to start off with:

1. there exists ancient texts from multiple cultures documenting beings from the sky who came to Earth and created life.

Citation needed.

The Bible is the most famous example.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: "
God lives in the sky (heaven); "our" indicates there were multiple beings like him. So that verse states beings from the sky came to Earth to create life in their image.

Regardless, there are also old stories about leprechauns. So far we're equal on evidence for aliens and leprechauns.

2. astronauts admitted to alien contact
https://www.youtube.com...

One guy, probably suffering from altitude sickness, talks about his hallucinations. You'll accept this, but won't accept the mountains of evidence that support "macroevolution." Printing out all of the research done that supports evolution would literally fill a modest sized home to overflowing, but you don't believe it. Yet you're hanging your hat on one guy's testimony of something that he probably saw while delirious. That assumes he actually experienced something at all and didn't just make some stuff up for attention.

I just gave a couple of the main evidences. With a little research, you could easily find more evidence. There is no one evidence that proves alien creation, but all the smaller evidences combined add up. But as long as you blindly believe everything mainstream scientists tell you, you will never change your mind.

I will admit, I have no eyewitness testimony about leprechauns. So your aliens have nosed that out with one potentially crazy attention whore.

Novel genes that don't increase information can't account for evolution from a universal common ancestor.

Please describe what an increase in information is.

In this case, increase information means the DNA would be able to give more instructions. Humans are more complex than bacteria, and our DNA be able to give more instructions in order to result in humans than bacteria. "transport citrate" contains fewer instructions than "if in anaerobic conditions, then transport citrate" so DNA that instructs the former has less information than DNA that instructs the latter.


I didn't say natural selection can't change allele frequencies; I just stated even without natural selection there would still be changes in allele frequencies due to genetic drift. So giving evidence for the most basic example of micro-evolution does almost nothing to support your case of evolution from a universal common ancestor.

What do you think "microevolution" is if it doesn't involve natural selection? This sounds like you're repeating some bull from a creationist site.
I didn"t say anything about whether or not natural selection exists. It is just not necessarily predicted by micro-evolution.

Species can become separated, but not necessarily due to differences in gene pool.

I guess a better example of an assumption made by evolution from a universal common ancestor would be the absence of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is probably the biggest problem with evolution.

Evolutionary theory doesn't assume punctuated equilibrium. Some scientists have made hypotheses about punctuated equilibrium. Some have ideas about evolution that don't involve it at all. Would you like to try again?
I stated evolution from a universal common ancestor assumes the ABSENCE of punctuated equilibrium.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 5:56:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 4:23:36 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
At 11/28/2014 3:12:19 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/28/2014 1:28:55 PM, RainbowDash52 wrote:
The way science and evidence works is that every time a theory makes a successful prediction, then that is evidence for the theory, which increases the likelihood of the theory being correct. The theory "X exists" can make the prediction "there exists conditions for X to exist" since it is a prerequisite for the theory to be correct. If the prediction is correct, then that is evidence supporting that the theory, which increases the likelihood of that theory being correct. Therefor evidence for "there exists conditions for X to exist" is evidence for "X exists".

Using that logic, rainbows are evidence of leprechauns.
It is extremely weak evidence, but yes.

Anyway, "x exists" is not a theory. A theory is a tested model explaining a group of related observations. The theory of evolution, for example, explains the observed diversity of life on earth, the fossil record, and similarities in DNA (among other observations). "X exists" doesn't explain anything. It's a hypothesis that has to be explored. So let's see your evidence.

And for the evidence, here is a couple to start off with:

1. there exists ancient texts from multiple cultures documenting beings from the sky who came to Earth and created life.

Citation needed.

The Bible is the most famous example.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: "
God lives in the sky (heaven); "our" indicates there were multiple beings like him. So that verse states beings from the sky came to Earth to create life in their image.

Sorry, a book of fables doesn't mean much to me. This sounds like it belongs in the "weak evidence" category, as well.

Regardless, there are also old stories about leprechauns. So far we're equal on evidence for aliens and leprechauns.

2. astronauts admitted to alien contact
https://www.youtube.com...

One guy, probably suffering from altitude sickness, talks about his hallucinations. You'll accept this, but won't accept the mountains of evidence that support "macroevolution." Printing out all of the research done that supports evolution would literally fill a modest sized home to overflowing, but you don't believe it. Yet you're hanging your hat on one guy's testimony of something that he probably saw while delirious. That assumes he actually experienced something at all and didn't just make some stuff up for attention.

I just gave a couple of the main evidences. With a little research, you could easily find more evidence. There is no one evidence that proves alien creation, but all the smaller evidences combined add up. But as long as you blindly believe everything mainstream scientists tell you, you will never change your mind.

So I should believe a bunch of conspiracy theorists with regard to aliens, while ignoring the entire community of astrophysicists, and ignore 99% of biologists when it comes to evolution. Are you joking?

I will admit, I have no eyewitness testimony about leprechauns. So your aliens have nosed that out with one potentially crazy attention whore.

Novel genes that don't increase information can't account for evolution from a universal common ancestor.

Please describe what an increase in information is.

In this case, increase information means the DNA would be able to give more instructions. Humans are more complex than bacteria, and our DNA be able to give more instructions in order to result in humans than bacteria. "transport citrate" contains fewer instructions than "if in anaerobic conditions, then transport citrate" so DNA that instructs the former has less information than DNA that instructs the latter.

I see you didn't read the article I posted. What actually happened was that a duplication occurred. So instead of just "if in anaerobic conditions, transport citrate," the DNA of the E. coli contained that and "if in aerobic conditions, transport citrate." The creationist site you quoted earlier got it wrong (surprise!). The switch didn't get jammed on, a second switch was created that was set to on in the presence of oxygen. So, by your own standard, new information was created.


I didn't say natural selection can't change allele frequencies; I just stated even without natural selection there would still be changes in allele frequencies due to genetic drift. So giving evidence for the most basic example of micro-evolution does almost nothing to support your case of evolution from a universal common ancestor.

What do you think "microevolution" is if it doesn't involve natural selection? This sounds like you're repeating some bull from a creationist site.
I didn"t say anything about whether or not natural selection exists. It is just not necessarily predicted by micro-evolution.

"Microevolution" doesn't predict anything. Why are you talking about what it doesn't predict? I have some serious doubts about your understanding of anything related to evolution. Your citing of creationist sites only reinforces those doubts.

Please describe what "microevolution" looks like without natural selection.

Species can become separated, but not necessarily due to differences in gene pool.

I guess a better example of an assumption made by evolution from a universal common ancestor would be the absence of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is probably the biggest problem with evolution.

Evolutionary theory doesn't assume punctuated equilibrium. Some scientists have made hypotheses about punctuated equilibrium. Some have ideas about evolution that don't involve it at all. Would you like to try again?
I stated evolution from a universal common ancestor assumes the ABSENCE of punctuated equilibrium.

Can you please elaborate on that? How does the conclusion that all life originated from a common ancestor assume the absence of punctuated equilibrium?
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 9:46:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's your succinct definition, lifted from the Discovery Institute website:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process.

Thus, when it comes to life, the theory of ID deals specifically with the question of the origin of life.

Note that this working definition is critical to fields as diverse as archaeology, forensics, plagiarism, and the SETI project. The success of each of these fields depends entirely upon our ability to clearly distinguish purely natural causes from causes of intelligent agency. ID applies this ability to an analysis of the question of the origin of life.

The principles of ID are well established and have allowed us to advance in knowledge and understanding in many areas.