The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Loudmouth]

I see absolutely no objectivity in your methodology.

The objectivity is found in phylogenetic methods. The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a matching phylogeny between DNA and morphology. ID/creationism makes no such prediction. This makes evolution objectively testable, something that creationism lacks.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

If we continue with the watch analogy, watches do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is a wide range of features that are mixed and matched between different watches in a pattern that does not produce an objective phylogeny. Life is much different. Life (at least complex eukaryotes) falls into a nested hierarchy, the very pattern we would expect to see from the observed natural process of common ancestry and descent with modification.

Also, ID need not mention God or gods. So your insistence that it must is a cop-out.

I agree. God of the Gaps applies to non-deity explanations as well. This is where you claim that one idea is false which makes your wholly unsupported claims true by default. That's not how objective investigations work.

 

[Chriliman]

If thinking is limited by an extreme aversion to a concept then that mind is shackled by fanatical bias. That is one reason why I try to avoid debates. It is a complete waste of time.

True, I try to only discuss with those who are open to all possibilities, but my hope for each individual tends to keep me invested in the discussion, but it's important to know when to walk away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Machines that theoretically are being planned to reproduce themselves. You are unfamiliar with the concept of the plans being made for self replicating machines to assist is in space colonization? There are also self-replicating machines in the planning stage for medical purposes. Guess you will have to find a way to somehow discredit that.

Bad logic on your part. That we may someday be able to build and design self replicating machines is not evidence that our machinery had to be built.

And you were doing so well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Machines that theoretically are being planned to reproduce themselves.

When they are real, let me know.

If you do start with a simple self replicating piece of machinery that reproduces with variation, plant it on a planet where it can reproduce, and come back 4 billion years, what would you find? You would perhaps find billions of different species of machines that you never designed nor intended to design.

 

[Radrook]

We have an extreme aversion to claims that have no evidence to back them.

The reason that ID/creationism is not accepted by scientists is that there is no evidence to back it. It isn't the fault of science that creationists can't back their claims.

That aversion isn't evident in the abiogenesis assumptions that you believe based practically on blind faith.
As for evidence-proclamations of inability to detect or see aren't very convolving. Especially when you then immediately turn around and see clearly enough when the concept of an ID isn't involved.

 

[Radrook]

When they are real, let me know.

If you do start with a simple self replicating piece of machinery that reproduces with variation, plant it on a planet where it can reproduce, and come back 4 billion years, what would you find? You would perhaps find billions of different species of machines that you never designed nor intended to design.

They don't need to be real in order to appreciate that they will need a designer to get them going.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no evidence for unicorns.

Are you starting to get it?

First rounds' on me, boys!

 

[Loudmouth]

That aversion isn't evident in the abiogenesis assumptions that you believe based practically on blind faith.

What "abiogenesis assumptions" do I believe in? Are you a mind reader?

For the record, I don't know where the first life came from. I don't make any claim as to where it came from.

As for evidence-proclamations of inability to detect or see aren't very convolving. Especially when you then immediately turn around and see clearly enough when the concept of an ID isn't involved.

Huh?

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't need to be real in order to appreciate that they will need a designer to get them going.

We are over 3 billion years past "got them going" when it comes to biology. The complex organisms we see now were not designed like a watch. They evolved.

 

[Chriliman]

We are over 3 billion years past "got them going" when it comes to biology. The complex organisms we see now were not designed like a watch. They evolved.

If we follow this line of thinking then we must conclude that the watch wasn't designed either, it's also a product of evolution because humans are a product of evolution. You begin to see how this line of thinking leads irrational thoughts - of course a watch is designed by people, evolution should not get the credit for the design of a watch because evolution can't think like humans can.

 

[Radrook]

We are over 3 billion years past "got them going" when it comes to biology. The complex organisms we see now were not designed like a watch. They evolved.

If indeed you wish to believe in evolution as the means by which life was created you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

 

[Radrook]

What "abiogenesis assumptions" do I believe in? Are you a mind reader?

For the record, I don't know where the first life came from. I don't make any claim as to where it came from.



Huh?

Sorry! I assumed you were an atheist.

 

[HitchSlap]

Bingo! If a scientist loses objectivity then he no longer practices science.

Yes!

Which is why there are no creation-scientists, and no scientific-creationists.

 

[HitchSlap]

If indeed you wish to believe in evolution as the means by which life was created you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

Yes! That's the point we've been attempting to get you to understand; All the MILE supports ToE as the best explanation. There is no competing hypothesis... none.

 

[Loudmouth]

If we follow this line of thinking then we must conclude that the watch wasn't designed either, it's also a product of evolution because humans are a product of evolution.

That doesn't follow at all.

Watches didn't come about through a 3 billion year process of common ancestry and descent with modification. All of the species we see alive today did come about through this process. No one is claiming that watches evolved. They are claiming that humans evolved. Notice the difference.

The claim of the Intelligent Design crowd is that evolution COULD NOT produce the species we see today. When you claim that Intelligent Design was only involved in getting the very first simple life forms started 3+ billion years ago, it does away with their entire argument. Just arguing against abiogenesis falls well short of the grander claims made by ID.

You begin to see how this line of thinking leads irrational thoughts - of course a watch is designed by people, evolution should not get the credit for the design of a watch because evolution can't think like humans can.

The only irrational thought is the one you voice above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry! I assumed you were an atheist.

I am an atheist. Atheists aren't require to believe in abiogenesis. All that is required is a lack of a positive belief in a deity. I don't believe in any deities. I also don't believe that deities definitely don't exist. I am still an atheist.

You seem to have a very twisted view of what atheism is.

 

[Radrook]

I am an atheist. Atheists aren't require to believe in abiogenesis. All that is required is a lack of a positive belief in a deity. I don't believe in any deities. I also don't believe that deities definitely don't exist. I am still an atheist.

You seem to have a very twisted view of what atheism is.

Sounds agnostic to me. The a before theism means without. Literally, without god. Or lack of belief in a god or gods. So to me your definition seems warped. Let's just agree to disagree. No big deal.

 

[Loudmouth]

If indeed you wish to believe in evolution as the means by which life was created . . .

Did you read my post or not?

"For the record, I don't know where the first life came from. I don't make any claim as to where it came from."

Also, I do accept evolution as the process by which life changed over time once life was here. Evolution is not abiogenesis, and abiogenesis is not evolution. You seem to be confusing the two.

Let's say that some designer dropped off a simple RNA replicator on the Earth 3+ billion years ago and then disappeared off into space, never to return. During that 3+ billion years that simple RNA replicator evolved into the all of the species we see today through the simple process of unguided random mutations and natural selection. If this were true, how much of the theory of evolution would we need to change?

NOT A GOSH DARN PIECE OF IT!!!!!

I don't understand how creationists still can't understand this simple point.

you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

You aren't entitled to your own facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds agnostic to me.

Agnosticism is atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

So now all you need to do is point out the exact reasons why it is a false analogy. Otherwise it is merely voicing an unsupported opinion.

Do you know how you ask others to use Google? Well, Google the transcripts from the Dover trial, which was about getting ID taught in schools. Focus on the testimony of Dr. Behe, ID'S star witness and see him get his head handed to him when questioned about ID. It is priceless stuff.