Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope! It ain't no language thingy.

As I said, in my native language "fish" refers explicitly to modern animals
Kind of how "monkey" is a wrong word to use for referncing chimpansees.

It is a firm belief and part and parcel of the evo tale you tell.

1. not a mere "belief"
2. not what "i" tell, but rather what a well-evidence biological theory states which is accepted by consensus in the scientific community

Here is what your fellow evolutionists are saying:

You mean, biologists.

About a process never observed in nature an unable to be forced to occur in alab being natural? "Thanks but that just doesn't fit the bill. Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Every process currently understood by/through science, was at some point in the past not understood.

You're making a blatant argument from ignorance.

Take lightning, for example. Today, it is very well understood.
Before that, it was Thor / Jupiter / Zeus who "made" it.

No, I'm not saying / predicting that it most certainly will be understood in the future and that it most certainly was a natural process.

What I am saying is that it currently being "unknown" is NOT a valid reason to call it "supernatural" or whatever. When something is unknown, then it is unknown. It means that you need to get to work to make it known.

Scientists like Jack Szostak are doing exactly that, and the field of study is called abiogenesis.

BTW
If life can't come from previous life, then your parents were not alive?

FIRST life. Again, you should pay more attention.
FIRST life, by definition, is the FIRST instance of life. What about the word "FIRST" don't you understand?

Ah you mean that we are composed of minerals, chemicals, and other such material derived from our environment.

No. I mean that FIRST life by definition doesn't come from previous life.

However, you cannot take those components and create life by swishing them around in a test-tube

So?

You need life in order to assemble them into living matter. So life comes only from lite.

Argument from ignorance, again.

Just because you don't know how life comes to be, doesn't justify the claim that it is "impossible".

 

[Radrook]

You guys crack me up with the testable thoughts. You can't test evolution either. No matter how hard you try. Why? Because common ancestor happened so long ago that it can't be found or can't be tested on. Everything that now evolves still remains what it was and what it always has been. Evolutionists have no answer to how an initial single creature evolved into everything there is. And they can't show it is possible either. It's not testable or reproducible.

That's where their standard for evidence is modified in order to make unquestionable, irrefutable belief possible.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's where their standard for evidence is modified in order to make unquestionable, irrefutable belief possible.

Just not in any way you can actually demonstrate.

 

[Speedwell]

Just not in any way you can actually demonstrate.

Or that anyone else is aware of.

 

[Radrook]

Just not in any way you can actually demonstrate.

Not to you.

 

[Radrook]

Or that anyone else is aware of.

anglican doctrine : définition de anglican doctrine et synonymes de anglican doctrine (anglais)

Sorry but I see nothing in common.

 

[Radrook]

As I said, in my native language "fish" refers explicitly to modern animals
Kind of how "monkey" is a wrong word to use for referncing chimpansees.



1. not a mere "belief"
2. not what "i" tell, but rather what a well-evidence biological theory states which is accepted by consensus in the scientific community



You mean, biologists.



Every process currently understood by/through science, was at some point in the past not understood.

You're making a blatant argument from ignorance.

Take lightning, for example. Today, it is very well understood.
Before that, it was Thor / Jupiter / Zeus who "made" it.

No, I'm not saying / predicting that it most certainly will be understood in the future and that it most certainly was a natural process.

What I am saying is that it currently being "unknown" is NOT a valid reason to call it "supernatural" or whatever. When something is unknown, then it is unknown. It means that you need to get to work to make it known.

Scientists like Jack Szostak are doing exactly that, and the field of study is called abiogenesis.



FIRST life. Again, you should pay more attention.
FIRST life, by definition, is the FIRST instance of life. What about the word "FIRST" don't you understand?



No. I mean that FIRST life by definition doesn't come from previous life.



So?



Argument from ignorance, again.

Just because you don't know how life comes to be, doesn't justify the claim that it is "impossible".

First life by YOUR definition doesn't come from life. Fortunately reality doesn't depend on your definition.
I never claimed that an ID should be inferred because of unknown factors. That is a straw man as usual. YOU should be the one paying more attention. As for the word "fish" the ones using it in reference to your ancestral lineage are your atheist evolutionists so you should take your gripe to them. Your consensus isn't 100% and an appeal to majority is fallacious reasoning called bandwagon.

 

[Radrook]

This is an excerpt from a book written by a biochemist which supports the information provided in the thread's video:

In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe explained the surprising discovery that life is based upon machines:

Shortly after 1950 science advanced to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. Slowly, painstakingly, the structures of more and more biological molecules were elucidated, and the way they work inferred from countless experiments. The cumulative results show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines--machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along "highways" made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus, the details of life are finely calibrated and the machinery of life enormously complex. 　 Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pp. 4-5 (Free Press, 1996). Molecular Machines in the Cell | Center for Science and Culture

To me that clearly indicates an ID.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First life by YOUR definition doesn't come from life

No... not by "my" defintion. By definition of what the word FIRST means.

Fortunately reality doesn't depend on your definition.

I don't know in which reality you live, but over here, the first instance of something, is the first instance of something.

Your consensus isn't 100% and an appeal to majority is fallacious reasoning called bandwagon.

Referring to scientific consensus isn't an appeal to majority.

 

[Speedwell]

anglican doctrine : définition de anglican doctrine et synonymes de anglican doctrine (anglais)

Sorry but I see nothing in common.

With what? There's nothing in it about ID.

 

[Radrook]

Or that anyone else is aware of.

With what? There's nothing in it about ID.

it involves a belief in a Creator and a creator is an ID. Or don't you even know what ID stands for? It stands for intelligent designer.

 

[Speedwell]

it involves a belief in a Creator and a creator is an ID. Or don't you even know what ID stands for? It stands for intelligent designer.

ID stands for Intelligent Design, a proposal of the Discovery Institute. Even granting your recently expanded definition, you still have to tell us what design is and the extent to which the Creator engages in it.

 

[Radrook]

ID stands for Intelligent Design, a proposal of the Discovery Institute. Even granting your recently expanded definition, you still have to tell us what design is and the extent to which the Creator engages in it.

Isn't an Anglican supposed to know that?

BTW
Since you have trouble with abbreviations I will from henceforth write intelligent designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Things must be followed to their logical conclusion.

So do it.

 

[Speedwell]

Isn't an Anglican supposed to know that?

.

Not necessarily. Anglicans believe in God as creator, but are generally not much concerned about how designing as an activity figured into the creation process.

 

[Radrook]

As I said, in my native language "fish" refers explicitly to modern animals
Kind of how "monkey" is a wrong word to use for referncing chimpansees.



1. not a mere "belief"
2. not what "i" tell, but rather what a well-evidence biological theory states which is accepted by consensus in the scientific community



You mean, biologists.



Every process currently understood by/through science, was at some point in the past not understood.

You're making a blatant argument from ignorance.

Take lightning, for example. Today, it is very well understood.
Before that, it was Thor / Jupiter / Zeus who "made" it.

No, I'm not saying / predicting that it most certainly will be understood in the future and that it most certainly was a natural process.

What I am saying is that it currently being "unknown" is NOT a valid reason to call it "supernatural" or whatever. When something is unknown, then it is unknown. It means that you need to get to work to make it known.

Scientists like Jack Szostak are doing exactly that, and the field of study is called abiogenesis.



FIRST life. Again, you should pay more attention.
FIRST life, by definition, is the FIRST instance of life. What about the word "FIRST" don't you understand?



No. I mean that FIRST life by definition doesn't come from previous life.



So?



Argument from ignorance, again.

Just because you don't know how life comes to be, doesn't justify the claim that it is "impossible".

Ignorance:

Non acceptance of your godless abiogenesis idea is ignorance? That's the fallacy of name-calling. I prefer to refer to it as heckling and jeckling. Proves nothing actually. Just the need to ridicule in order to elicit a rise.The one who doesn't know how life originally arose is you. All you have is wishful thinking about a process never observed to have happened in nature and one which cant be forced to happen in a lab. To me that's tantamount to believing that Zeus hurls lightning and that Thor helps him out from Europe with thunder by pounding with his hammer.

Fish:
Your gripe or pet peeve concerning the word "fish" to refer to your human ancestors has to be directed at the biologists who are using "fish" to refer to your human ancestors. Since I don't refer to your human ancestors as fish you are bringing your gripe to the wrong person.

Life origin:

First life emerges magically and automatically and independent from an intelligent designer from lifeless matter by whose definition-atheist definition? Please note that there is nothing which obligates us to accept your particular preferred definitions. Learn to live with it.

Superstition:
My belief in an intelligent designer isn't based on superstition but on observation and logical conclusion called an inductive leap. So your comparison with superstition constitutes both a false analogy and straw man. Please note that misrepresenting my views and the reasons for my views is blatant dishonesty and refutes NOTHING.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fish:
Your gripe or pet peeve concerning the word "fish" to refer to your human ancestors has to be directed at the biologists who are using "fish" to refer to your human ancestors. Since I don't refer to your human ancestors as fish you are bringing your gripe to the wrong person.

The gripe is that no fish gave birth to a human, as you would have people believe.

Life origin:

First life emerges magically and automatically and independent from an intelligent designer from lifeless matter by whose definition-atheist definition?

What magical processes did people propose?

Superstition:
My belief in an intelligent designer isn't based on superstition but on observation and logical conclusion called an inductive leap.

Your argument has already been shown to be based on logical fallacies. It isn't logical.

 

[Radrook]

The gripe is that no fish gave birth to a human, as you would have people believe.



What magical processes did people propose?



Your argument has already been shown to be based on logical fallacies. It isn't logical.

Fish birthing humans?

There you go again Jimmy1 I never claimed that you believe or anyone else believes that a fish gave birth to a human. Yet another ridiculous misrepresentation.

Magical:

Well, strange as it might seem to those having blind faith in it, the claim that life suddenly emerged from lifeless matter and eventually mindlessly began to form brains, nervous systems, eyes, hearts, reproductive systems, circulatory systems, skeletal systems, central nervous systems, peripheral nervous systems, eliminatory systems, endocrine systems, respiratory systems, skeletal systems, and such without the help of an intelligent designer does seem like a appeal to magic to many of us who don't buy into that story.

My argument shown to be what? Fallacious? Oh I get it. You mean to atheists who disagree. True. They still disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Fish birthing humans?

There you go again Jimmy1 I never claimed that you believe or anyone else believes that a fish gave birth to a human.

You stated that humans evolved from fish. That would require a fish to give birth to a human.

Magical:

Well, strange as it might seem to those having blind faith in it, the claim that life suddenly emerged from lifeless matter . . .

I don't know how life started. How does that position require faith?

. . . and eventually mindlessly began to form brains, nervous systems, eyes, hearts, reproductive systems, circulatory systems, skeletal systems, central nervous systems, peripheral nervous systems, eliminatory systems, endocrine systems, respiratory systems, skeletal systems, and such without the help of an intelligent designer does seem like a appeal to magic to many of us who don't buy into that story.

Random mutation and natural selection are not magic. We can see them in action in living populations.

My argument shown to be what? Fallacious? Oh I get it. You mean to atheists who disagree. True. They still disagree.

I mean fallacious. That is not a synonym for "disagree". Do you not know how logic works?

 

[Radrook]

You stated that humans evolved from fish. That would require a fish to give birth to a human.


I don't know how life started. How does that position require faith?



Random mutation and natural selection are not magic. We can see them in action in living populations.





I mean fallacious. That is not a synonym for "disagree". Do you not know how logic works?

Fish:

I since I don't believe that humans come from fish I could have never made such a claim. What I said is that evolutionist speak that way and provided a link to demonstrate it which you ignore.

'Your Inner Fish' traces human evolution back to our earliest ancestors

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish - BBC News

From Fish to Human
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210124521.htm

Magic:

My initial reference to magic was circumscribed to godless abiogenesis. You are extrapolating it to evolution. As I repeatedly explain but to no avail-I am NOT arguing against theistic evolution I am referring to godless evolution.

Logic:

If I don't know how logic works I would have failed my logic class which I easly passed with flying colors. So your insinuation is baseless.