Evolution

[Supreme]

So God said "Let there be whatever ... Anything is fine ... I'm not picky ... Use your own judgment."

This is the same God that dictated Leviticus?

God never said that.

 

[wndwalkr99]

There are those that instead of intelligent design for how we came to be believe that all living things came from chemicals that accidentally came together and formed the basic structure for life. I cannot wrap my mind around it. How could something so that is in such chaos turn into something so complex?

It seems like you have several misconceptions about what evolution is (including vs abiogenesis, as has been noted). There's a very good podcast by Dr. Zach Moore that explains in very short (~10min) segments what evolution is, what it is not, and some of the evidence for it. From your post it seems as though you could use an education in those things. I don't mean that as an insult at all; it just seems like you have been listening to people who know absolutely nothing about it and I would suggest that you listen to people who actually DO know about it, instead.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/evolution-101/id121787620?mt=2

 

[LoAmmi]

And the best way to combat old lies is to drag them into the light, ignoring all the kicking and screaming they are inclined to do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

 

[cloudyday2]

Intelligent design as we see in the video "what we still don't know" has even the atheist scientists stating "there is no way that happened by chance"

I wonder what distinguishes intelligent from non-intelligent, designed from undesigned, etc.? To an atheist, a Rembrandt is just a product of random processes instead of an inspired artwork. Artists go through a process of natural selection that is probably more vicious than the jungle in some ways. If you give me a random sequence of bits, I could probably apply some transformations that would make that sequence seem profoundly inspired. We might go to a dead planet and think there is no evidence of intelligent design, but maybe God wanted a dead planet where he/she could enjoy the desolation. It seems very tricky to me.

 

[cloudyday2]

If that were the case I would have no problem with the notion of 'intelligent design" but in practice it has just been a way of trying to sneak creationism into the back door. The term began to be used after the Supreme Court prohibited the use of "creation science" as an alternative to evolution. I don't know of any ID person who accepts evolution or common descent.

I read a little bit on wikipedia, and it appears that you are right. Intelligent design seems to be opposing evolution instead of finding meaning in evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

We might go to a dead planet and think there is no evidence of intelligent design, but maybe God wanted a dead planet where he/she could enjoy the desolation. It seems very tricky to me.

Christians - and the Bible would say in places like Genesis 1 and John 1 and Colossians 2 that the big bang (the way God actually did it) and all solar systems, all galaxies are "Intelligent Design" and that is what the atheists also claim the "what we still don't know" video. But apart from that background level of "design" - we can see it in a single living cell.

Get out your chemistry set - and with all of your "intelligence" -- design this my friends (if you can)

=============================================
The secret to promoting intelligent design - is better science education I always say.

 

[BobRyan]

Or if you prefer a brief intro to this subject - when you see the guy on this video at TED - bring up his video - stop and watch for 3 or 4 minutes.

so this is one tiny example of the difference between the design of "a rock in solar orbit" and the design of life -- with your trusty chemistry set still at a loss as to how to take on the project.

================================

The secret to promoting intelligent design - is better science education I always say.

 

[Anguspure]

Because they are opposite forces which automatically attracted to each other............

There is precisely zero evidence for this statement. In particular DNA and RNA bases have all of the molecular attraction of pen, ink and paper going on between them. There is absolutely no non-intelligent process identifiable that allows specific sequencing of the type found in DNA/RNA, the only known process that creates this sort of structure is an intelligent mind.

 

[smaneck]

Abiogenesis should be touched on, but there aren't enough answers to call it fact.

Ever been to Yellowstone?

 

[MehGuy]

Fossil record, DNA evidence..

Although you're talking to a guy who used to sleep during science class so maybe my opinion shouldn't be trusted, lol.

 

[smaneck]

Fossil record, DNA evidence..

Those things are evidence for evolution. Yellowstone is evidence for abiogenesis.
http://www.britannica.com/science/b...g-Glory-Pool-Yellowstone-National-Park/117751

It is not really algae at all, it is cyanobacteria, one of the earliest forms of life. And that water is hot, hot, hot.

 

[paulm50]

There are those that instead of intelligent design for how we came to be believe that all living things came from chemicals that accidentally came together and formed the basic structure for life. I cannot wrap my mind around it. How could something so that is in such chaos turn into something so complex?

Because it took billions of years with a lot of trial and error, with a load of setbacks.

Bob is wrong and needs to do some resaerch. We have recreated the process and now even growing parts of the Human body in the lab or even recreating life.

As for intelligent design, it's not and the fundamentalist blame a better god, satan, for what goes wrong. Or blame Man. The world was created to kill life nad has come close many times. What's intelligent about that?

And if a god did it, seems to be a silly concept.

 

[Angeltigerr39]

There are those that instead of intelligent design for how we came to be believe that all living things came from chemicals that accidentally came together and formed the basic structure for life. I cannot wrap my mind around it. How could something so that is in such chaos turn into something so complex?

 

[Armoured]

Can man in our limited knowledge produce a living cell?

Not from scratch. Not yet.

We're getting closer though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cell

 

[LoAmmi]

Ever been to Yellowstone?

I meant the method not the idea. Sorry I wasn't clear.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Is there anything more absurd than declaring abiogenesis non-existent simply because we haven't got the means to fully replicate it in a lab as of yet?
Given that this objection comes from people who believe that antique myths serve as a factual history of the planet, and that unfalsifiable deities ought to be regarded as science, that's more than a little bizarre.

 

[BobRyan]

Or if you prefer a brief intro to this subject - when you see the guy on this video at TED - bring up his video - stop and watch for 3 or 4 minutes.

so this is one tiny example of the difference between the design of "a rock in solar orbit" and the design of life -- with your trusty chemistry set still at a loss as to how to take on the project.

================================

The secret to promoting intelligent design - is better science education I always say.

There is precisely zero evidence for this statement. In particular DNA and RNA bases have all of the molecular attraction of pen, ink and paper going on between them. There is absolutely no non-intelligent process identifiable that allows specific sequencing of the type found in DNA/RNA, the only known process that creates this sort of structure is an intelligent mind.

That is certainly true.

viable DNA is not "forming on its own" nor the systems for error correction, transmitting, translating... And remember it is not the entire chromosome that is transcribed and transmitted - it is rather "useful segments".

 

[BobRyan]

Is there anything more absurd than declaring abiogenesis non-existent simply because we haven't got the means to fully replicate it in a lab as of yet?
.

Sort of like saying "did computers just pop up out of sand or were they designed? just because we cannot get one to pop up out of sand does not mean that did not happen" and as we saw in the last two videos - the computer is far less complicated than what we are talking about in a single cell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there anything more absurd than declaring abiogenesis non-existent simply because we haven't got the means to fully replicate it in a lab as of yet?

Yes.

Declaring abiogenesis a viable phenomenon.

Given that this objection comes from people who believe that antique myths serve as a factual history of the planet, and that unfalsifiable deities ought to be regarded as science, that's more than a little bizarre.

I'd still like to know how the angels somehow circumvented this phenomenon.

Any idea?

 

[bhsmte]

Is there anything more absurd than declaring abiogenesis non-existent simply because we haven't got the means to fully replicate it in a lab as of yet?
Given that this objection comes from people who believe that antique myths serve as a factual history of the planet, and that unfalsifiable deities ought to be regarded as science, that's more than a little bizarre.

Strong enough psychological need, can bring about bizarre beliefs.