• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are people who refuse to see many things. Luckily for you there is a physical law that can be seen by everyone in the same way to try to persuade people that your position is correct. Yet even with gravity, you have no real understanding of gravity other than what we do observe in our lives. You might tell someone from a tribe in the rain forest somewhere that there are planets that exist but they don't see it and so they don't believe it. Does that make all of us that know there are planets out there wrong? It is the same thing as you are suggesting. Denial of the facts do not make the facts wrong, just your interpretation of them wrong.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Denial of the facts do not make the facts wrong, just your interpretation of them wrong.

And yet, when that pen drops, my prediction (that it wouldn't) is falsified. Weird.

Seriously, I'm done wasting my time on this. You still haven't offered any means of objectively testing whether an object has "apparent design", and your definition thereof is wildly lacking. "Looks like it was designed"? That's an inherently subjective statement!
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Yet there is still no data, no evidence that can be analysed by scientists to say 'Yep, I conclude that this was deliberately designed by God or other supernatural entity'.

There is no scientific paper that provides data collected and analyzed that concludes that evolution produces the appearance of deliberate design in all living organisms.

Once again the old switcheroo. Even if there wasn't evidence for that claim (which wasn't made in a scientific paper but in a popular science book) that does mean that you automatically conclude deliberate design. You would still need evidence for design.


If evolution hasn't been shown to do something as far as our research goes, that doesn't automatically mean that something else did it.

You are begging the question, you are claiming that information or evidence for evolution producing this appearance is not known but it will be and it will show evolution can produce it. That is not in evidence.

For goodness sake, I didn't say it was evidence. That's how science works. If there's a problem, if something isn't known - you research it. Science has a 100% track record of solving these problems. Supernatural intervention has a 0% success rate. I'm sure you would have told Newton that he was begging the question when he didn't know why planets orbit in ellipses, but that he would work on it - eventually figuring it out and designing calculus.


For the umpteenth time, you haven't shown that it is design. Where's your scientific evidence? Where's your data? What your methodology for testing design to produce this data? We would dearly love to know, then scientists can carry out your test, examine the data produced and conclude yes or no whether there is design. Do you want design to be a serious scientific theory or do you really just want scientists to throw up their hands in defeat and say 'Goddidit'?


Even if that's the case, there still isn't any scientific evidence for design. This isn't difficult to understand, is it?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Yes they have and information about evolution and common descent is seconds away with a quick google. I've given you evidence before and you haven't been bothered to read it.

Why do you care about evidence?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes they have and information about evolution and common descent is seconds away with a quick google. I've given you evidence before and you haven't been bothered to read it.

Why do you care about evidence?

You've done nothing but made baseless claims so far. No evidence, no support, nothing. Zero.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes it is. Do you think that educated and trained biologists would claim they look designed based on "gee these things look designed". No, they base it on the structure, features, and functions that are specifically complex towards a goal in all living organisms.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes they have and information about evolution and common descent is seconds away with a quick google. I've given you evidence before and you haven't been bothered to read it.

Why do you care about evidence?
Can you provide the evidence of the first replicating life form evolving into even one cell of the most simple life form, bacteria?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You've done nothing but made baseless claims so far. No evidence, no support, nothing. Zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence

That's a general overview of the evidence for human evolution. Yes, I know I haven't quoted any bits in my post but sometimes in science you have to read more than a couple of sentences. Sometimes you have to read quite a lot to even start to understand a topic.

There are plenty of links to other scientific articles on that page - sometimes doing research you have to do a bit of hunting around yourself. The links I posted to you before covered common descent, I believe. Before you yet again post 'how' in capital letters the answer is 'evolution'. I'm not a trained scientists or an expert in evolution and I'm not going to try and explain everything about it when you can easily find basic articles for yourself. If in your reading you come across something particular you want to ask questions about, that's cool - then we can talk. You've been given links by me and others to basic information about evolution.

From your posts it doesn't appear you have read any of them as you show no basic understand of the science involved. When you've got round to learning some science, let me know.

I ask again - why do you care? You're clearly, sadly, anti-science so why do you care about evidence?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

Nope, you're not giving a single bit of evidence. Giving a link and saying, there...go find it.....is simply another failure of yours to offer any evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity was created from an alleged single life form of long ago. The reason you're failing is because there's no such evidence out there. When your attempt to switch the discussion to common ancestry failed, you had nothing concerning the HOW of human creation.

Your response, if any, will be devoid of any evidence, based on the scientific method. You'll simply respond with your usual chatter totally absent of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No I can't, but I can give you a link to what it known so far pending further research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cells

Next question?

From your link:

The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolution of life on Earth. The birth of the cell marked the passage from pre-biotic chemistry to partitioned units resembling modern cells. The final transition to living entities that fulfill all the definitions of modern cells depended on the ability to evolve effectively by natural selection. This transition has been called the Darwinian transition.

Evidence please.

Partitioning may have begun from cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids, which are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear much of the basic features provided by cell membranes. Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules could have been the first cellular life forms on Earth.[citation needed]

Another possibility is that the shores of the ancient coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory, aiding in the countless experiments necessary to bring about the first cell. Waves breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further concentrating the molecules throughevaporation. While bubbles made mostly of water tend to burst quickly, oily bubbles are much more stable, lending more time to the particular bubble to perform these crucial experiments. The phospholipid is a good example of a common oily compound prevalent in the prebiotic seas.[citation needed]

Phospholipids are composed of a hydrophilic head on one end, and a hydrophobic tail on the other. They possess an important characteristic for the construction of cell membranes; they can come together to form a bilayer membrane. A lipid monolayer bubble can only contain oil, and is not conducive to harbouring water-soluble organic molecules, but a lipid bilayer bubble [1] can contain water, and was a likely precursor to the modern cell membrane.[citation needed] If a protein came along that increased the integrity of its parent bubble, then that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list.[citation needed] Primitive reproduction may have occurred when the bubbles burst, releasing the results of the experiment into the surrounding medium. Once enough of the right compounds were released into the medium, the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms could be achieved.

Where is the evidence...another possiblity, was likely, If, may have occurred are all stories and no evidence. Stories are not evidence.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Did you even click on the link I provided? That points to a section precisely about the evidence for human evolution! I'm not going to put it all in this post because I don't want to clutter up the thread with a load of pasted text. The evidence is right there is the link. You don't even have to go and find it - the link takes you straight to the evidence. I'll even post it again for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

You really don't know how science works, do you? They are hypotheses based on research up to this point. They aren't saying 'This is definitely how it happened even though I haven't got evidence for it'. They are putting forward possible ideas for further research so that these ideas can be refined and get towards what really happened.

Scientists don't know everything about the evolution of the first cells - that's why they're researching it. I have no idea what you're trying to prove or what point you are trying to make.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do know how science works. You were asking for evidence for design and said there was none but then provide this as evidence for the simple life form evolving into a cell in the Bacteria. Do you see the problem here?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do know how science works. You were asking for evidence for design and said there was none but then provide this as evidence for the simple life form evolving into a cell in the Bacteria. Do you see the problem here?

If you go back and read my post I said 'No I can't, but I can give you a link to what it known so far pending further research'

I didn't say 'This is the evidence for it end of story'

Do you see the difference?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you go back and read my post I said 'No I can't, but I can give you a link to what it known so far pending further research'

I didn't say 'This is the evidence for it end of story'

Do you see the difference?
Ok. Now put that beside the evidence that all living organisms have features, structures, systems and functions that appear to be deliberately designed for a purpose and what we have for evidence for that premise.


How science is using the deliberate design in molecular machines in new design ideas.
Adding:http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rau/phys600/whitesides.htm

We can begin to answer these intriguing questions by asking a more ordinary one: What is a machine? Of the many definitions, I choose to take a machine to be "a device for performing a task." Going further, a machine has a design; it is constructed following some process; it uses power; it operates according to information built into it when it is fabricated. Although machines are commonly considered to be the products of human design and intention, why shouldn't a complex molecular system that performs a function also be considered a machine, even if it is the product of evolution rather than of design? Note this statement is an assumption and has no evidence.

The charm of the assembler is illusory: it is more appealing as metaphor than as reality, and less the solution of a problem than the hope for a miracle.
Issues of teleology aside, and accepting this broad definition, nanoscale machines already do exist, in the form of the functional molecular components of living cells--such as molecules of protein or RNA, aggregates of molecules, and organelles ("little organs")--in enormous variety and sophistication. The broad question of whether nanoscale machines exist is thus one that was answered in the affirmative by biologists many years ago. The question now is: What are the most interesting designs to use for future nanomachines? And what, if any, risks would they pose?

Cells include some molecular machines that seem similar to familiar human-scale machines: a rotary motor fixed in the membrane of a bacterium turns a shaft and superficially resembles an electric motor. Others more loosely resemble the familiar: an assembly of RNA and protein--the ribosome--makes proteins by an assembly line�like process. And some molecular machines have no obvious analogy in macroscopic machines: a protein--topoisomerase--unwinds double-stranded DNA when it becomes too tightly wound. The way in which these organelles are fabricated in the cell--an efficient synthesis of long molecules, combined with molecular self-assembly--is a model for economy and organization, and entirely unlike the brute-force method suggested for the assembler.

So the issue is not whether nanoscale machines can exist--they already do--or whether they can be important--we often consider ourselves as demonstrations that they are--but rather where we should look for new ideas for design. Should we be thinking about the General Motors assembly line or the interior of a cell of E. coli? Let's begin by comparing biological nanomachines--especially the ultimate self-replicating biological system, the cell--with nanoscale machines modeled on the large machines that now surround us. How does the biological strategy work, and how would it compare with a strategy based on making nanoscale versions of existing machines, or a new strategy of the type suggested by the assembler? Emphasis mine.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: whois
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok. Now put that beside the evidence that all living organisms have features, structures, systems and functions that appear to be deliberately designed for a purpose and what we have for evidence for that premise.


*Sigh*

Looks like something doesn't necessarily mean is something.

A few pretty pictures of things aren't enough. If you want design to be a credible scientific theory you need evidence. Where's the data? Where the methodology for gathering that data? What's the proposed mechanism behind design? How can this be tested and what's the evidence for it?
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
Right, there are two separate arguments in this, one is does he possess the knowledge that one would expect someone that claims to be a programmer should know

And that argument is irrelevant to the overall point being made. Whether he is or is not a programmer doesn't affect the merit of his argument.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Read my next post.
 
Upvote 0