Why ... (2)

[Loudmouth]

"These analyses portray a complex landscape of long-range gene–element connectivity across ranges of hundreds of kilobases to several megabases, including interactions among unrelated genes (Supplementary Fig 1, section Y). Furthermore, in the 5C results, 50–60% of long-range interactions occurred in only one of the four cell lines, indicative of a high degree of tissue specificity for gene–element connectivity"
This was the work of 500 scientists, simultaneously publishing 30 papers. I imagine The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), knew what they were doing by putting these words in their analyses summary:
"These analyses protray a complex......FURTHERMORE...indicative of a high degree of specifity."
They were sending a message. The genome was intelligently designed. Common ancestry with Chimps has been debunked.

How does tissue specific gene expression indicate intelligent design? You left that part out.

 

[Loudmouth]

Codes are not the product of chance processes.

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

I bolded the phrase in anticipation of peoples bias showing.

You only highlighted your own bias. You see the words "complex" and "specificity" somewhere in the same paragraph and conclude that it had to be designed. That is bias.

You're simply denying what is plainly there.

Denying what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By claiming that there are separately created kinds, YOU are saying that there are separate origins. If you are now going to claim that they are not separately created, then quit calling them separately created kinds. Call them a clade instead so that we both know what each other are talking about. A clade is defined as an ancestor and all of its descendants.

You have said that there are separately created kinds. I don't remember calling them that. Perhaps you can show me where I have said that? I have said that there are separate kinds, they are created but I have not in anyway said that each life form is created separately. I have repeatedly told you that what ever kind is mentioned in the Creation Narrative is a kind after its kind, which in itself implies something that came before.

Why would species evolving from a common ancestor be more of a problem for the theory of evolution than the design of separately created kinds?

What came before the universal common ancestor? It isn't consistent with your materialistic worldview. It isn't in evidence, so by a clearly materialistic empirical determined model you don't have one.

We don't know how life first started, but that does not prevent us from determining if life shares a universal common ancestor.

So you accept that you don't need to actually observe the UCA but use supportive evidence to conclude that one existed? You do then accept that although you have no evidence of how the first cell could even possibly replicate itself, you use supportive evidence to conclude it could?

I asked how that paper supports your claims.

It was a case in point when after the DNA was utilized rather than resting on the morphological characteristics, the placement was changed.

You have no logical reason why God would create in a way that it indistinguishable from a natural process when there are an infinite number of ways that life could have been created so that it would not look like a natural process.

First of all, you are not getting the sequence of events here. You claim that life evolved and that there was no need for a designer in the process; just what evidence do you have that life could have even began without the aid of a designer? You have no evidence for how the first life replicated itself to start the evolution process yet you claim no need for the designer. You have no evidence of how the first evolved life form evolved the error checking mechanism so that life forms just didn't die off. In so many areas of ToE there are unexplained events that can not be explained by materialistic evidence.

Now does that prove God...no. However, you can not tell me or anyone else that natural processes explains life and that God was not needed. You can not tell me that you have to have evidence for those things that you believe.

You ask me why God would design to look like natural processes but never stop to consider that those processes were there before Science explained them by the ToE. Those processes are the working of God's design not vice versa. You claim God was creating the way natural processes work but in actuality it is that natural processes work because of God.

What you are arguing is equivalent to claiming that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes.

No what I claim is that God made the crime scene that man is investigating. You would not be able to make sense of an unintelligent and un-uniformed universe.

What I mean is that if you feel supportive evidence is sufficient to be considered actual evidence then it must be for creation too.

You skipped this.

Where is the evidence that God was responsible for that beginning? Let's just start with this one and get to the others after you supply this evidence.

It supports the existence of God. Now you have claimed over and over that supportive evidence is evidence. Now lets see if you will allow the same for me...

Where is your evidence that God is responsible for that design?

It is supportive evidence for the existence of God as was predicted in the Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have said that there are separately created kinds.

No, I have consistently said that all life shares a common ancestor. It is you who are using that term.

I don't remember calling them that. Perhaps you can show me where I have said that? I have said that there are separate kinds, they are created but I have not in anyway said that each life form is created separately.

So they are created separate kinds, but they may not be created and they may not be separate. Is that what you are saying?

Do you see why it is difficult to have a conversation with you?

I have repeatedly told you that what ever kind is mentioned in the Creation Narrative is a kind after its kind, which in itself implies something that came before.

You have also implied that they are separate instead of sharing a common ancestor.

What came before the universal common ancestor? It isn't consistent with your materialistic worldview. It isn't in evidence, so by a clearly materialistic empirical determined model you don't have one.

"I don't know" is not inconsistent with a materialistic empirical model. It never has been. Materialistic and empirical do not mean omniscient.

So you accept that you don't need to actually observe the UCA but use supportive evidence to conclude that one existed?

Do you have to observe a crime in order to use forensic evidence to determine guilt? Do you have to know where the first cell came from in order to use DNA as forensic evidence?

It was a case in point when after the DNA was utilized rather than resting on the morphological characteristics, the placement was changed.

So where the morphological characteristics were incapable of determining fine grade relationships between closely related species, DNA was more helpful. If design is true then we should see massive and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy, not fine grade disagreements between limited morphological phylogenies and DNA phylogenies. That's the problem for your argument.

First of all, you are not getting the sequence of events here. You claim that life evolved and that there was no need for a designer in the process; just what evidence do you have that life could have even began without the aid of a designer?

Abiogenesis is not evolution. How many times have we gone over this?

You have no evidence for how the first life replicated itself to start the evolution process yet you claim no need for the designer.

I have evidence that life did evolve from a universal common ancestor with no need for a designer in the process of evolution. Again, abiogenesis is not evolution. Please stop conflating them.

Now does that prove God...no. However, you can not tell me or anyone else that natural processes explains life and that God was not needed.

Natural processes do explain biodiversity and how life changed over time, which is the topic of discussion.

You ask me why God would design to look like natural processes but never stop to consider that those processes were there before Science explained them by the ToE. Those processes are the working of God's design not vice versa.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

No what I claim is that God made the crime scene that man is investigating.

Which would include the fingerprints.

You skipped this.

You have yet to supply supportive evidence for your claims.

It supports the existence of God.

No, it doesn't. You have not supplied any evidence that God was responsible for the beginning of the Universe as you claim.

It is supportive evidence for the existence of God as was predicted in the Bible.

All you have is a claim, not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then quit using the stereotypes, such as separately created kinds and design.

Define your terms and tell me what you are trying to say. So far, you define separately created kinds as maybe sharing common descent, you don't know. How is that a definition?

I am saying that we don't have evidence for a universal common ancestor. It might have been there and yet we only have supportive evidence for it. Obviously if life forms evolve they share commonality. They would descent from the form they were evolving from. How does that prove UCA or how does it disprove that God didn't design life forms to evolve? You aren't making an argument against that. You want to stick to the stereotype creation that each and every life form was created on its own without anything coming before or after it and that is not true.

I know what I mean when I use the term. How about you?

You have a false idea of what it is.

How did you determine that there were no precursurs? Do you have a time machine?

I don't have time for this right now or I would go back and present each quote that this has been commented on...I said that there are no fossils for precursors of the life in the Cambrian. That says nothing about whether they were actually there.

We have fossils from the Pre-Cambrian. How did you determine that these were not precursors to species found in the Cambrian?

I haven't determined they aren't, although I agree, but it is a fact that throughout all of science literature the life forms are not precursors of the Cambrian life forms. There was a study back in 1999 that looked like they had a hypothesis but that didn't work out.

Are you refusing to clarify your points again?

I can't find this in the past posts.

You don't have supportive evidence. There is nothing to dismiss.

Why do you feel I don't have supportive evidence? Tell me why you feel that the evidence I provided doesn't support my claims.

And this is a problem how?

Pointing out the same thing, you accept no materialistic evidence for some of the events in ToE.

Where does the Bible say that life evolved over 4 billion years through the process of evolution from a single common ancestor?

Granted it doesn't. It doesn't say that life didn't evolve either. It doesn't preclude a UCA. In fact, it does claim that the kinds that are mentioned in the Bible have kinds prior to the ones mentioned.

Then quit using the strawman. If you are trying to say that they share a common ancestor then do not describe them as being created separately. If you are saying that they evolved, do not say that they were designed. You are the one using the terms of creationism, not I.

The ability to evolve was a God given ability. Evolution is what we see looking back at creation.

Once again you are claiming that God plants fingerprints at crime scenes in a way that indistinguishable from the commission of a real crime. It is an Omphalos argument.

Once again, you are wrong. I am not saying that God planted fingerprints at a crime scene, He is the scene in which we investigate the crime.

It makes no sense that a non-evolutionary process would look like evolution occurred. None. The only reason you are making such a claim is to protect your beliefs.

Who said anything about a non-evolutionary process. You are shifting around so much that I can't keep up. Evolution did occur, I have said that during our whole conversation. So you haven't even understood the claim I am making. So how do you claim I am trying to protect my beliefs when you can't even understand what those are?

Then why do you say it?

UH...I haven't.

It most assuredly is:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent



Evolution from a common ancestor falsifies the claim that species were designed and separately created. It always has.

I would certainly agree that your strawman is completely falsified, but that has nothing to do with Creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am saying that we don't have evidence for a universal common ancestor.

And I am saying that we do.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Are you going to deal with the evidence?

It might have been there and yet we only have supportive evidence for it.

Supportive evidence is evidence.

Obviously if life forms evolve they share commonality. They would descent from the form they were evolving from. How does that prove UCA or how does it disprove that God didn't design life forms to evolve?

Commonalities between all life is the evidence for universal common descent, as has been cited. This disproves your claims of separate kinds.

Also, evolution does not require design, nor have you presented any evidence that any deity designed a single organism, an evolving one or otherwise.

You aren't making an argument against that. You want to stick to the stereotype creation that each and every life form was created on its own without anything coming before or after it and that is not true.

Then don't use the stereotype of separately created kinds. You are the one introducing separate kinds, not me.

You have a false idea of what it is.

Then tell me what it is. Define your terms. Explain yourself.

I said that there are no fossils for precursors of the life in the Cambrian.

We do have Pre-Cambrian fossils, like these:

and these:

How did you determine that these are not pre-cursors?

I haven't determined they aren't, although I agree, but it is a fact that throughout all of science literature the life forms are not precursors of the Cambrian life forms. There was a study back in 1999 that looked like they had a hypothesis but that didn't work out.

Please cite this study.

Why do you feel I don't have supportive evidence? Tell me why you feel that the evidence I provided doesn't support my claims.

Saying there was a beginning is not evidence that God was responsible for the beginning.

Let's use the crime scene investigation as our analogy again. The prosecutor gets in front of the jury and states, "I have supportive evidence that the defendant, John Smith, killed Sarah Smith. My evidence? Sara Smith was murdered!!". Would you consider that supportive evidence? I sure wouldn't.

Pointing out the same thing, you accept no materialistic evidence for some of the events in ToE.

I accept all materialistic evidence.

Granted it doesn't. It doesn't say that life didn't evolve either.
It doesn't preclude a UCA. In fact, it does claim that the kinds that are mentioned in the Bible have kinds prior to the ones mentioned.

Where does it say that "the kinds that are mentioned in the Bible have kinds prior to the ones mentioned"?

The ability to evolve was a God given ability.

Based on what evidence?

Once again, you are wrong. I am not saying that God planted fingerprints at a crime scene, He is the scene in which we investigate the crime.

So God is the fingerprints, now? Really?

Who said anything about a non-evolutionary process.

You did when you used such phrases as separately created kinds and designed organisms as your counterargument to universal common descent.

Evolution did occur, I have said that during our whole conversation.

You have also said that life was created and designed which is not evolution.

If life evolved just say that it evolved. Don't say that it was created or that it was designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, I have consistently said that all life shares a common ancestor. It is you who are using that term.

Obviously we differ on what we view as separately created kinds. I said that life is in separate in your own system but you ignore that every time.

So they are created separate kinds, but they may not be created and they may not be separate. Is that what you are saying?

Why would I say that?

Do you see why it is difficult to have a conversation with you?

Considering I didn't say that, it would seem the problem rests in the fact that you continue to claim I say things I don't.

You have also implied that they are separate instead of sharing a common ancestor.

No, I said that is possible but that I don't know and either do you. All we know is that three domains of life are proven to exist.

"I don't know" is not inconsistent with a materialistic empirical model. It never has been. Materialistic and empirical do not mean omniscient.

True, I would agree with that. It becomes a problem though when you claim evidence that isn't there. Actually, the only reason ToE needs a UCA is that it is obvious that those Domains contain too much complex features to have arisen without something previous to evolve from. All the NH does is go from that first three domains. The UCA is only a representation of what must be prior to those three domains that all living forms evolve from.

Do you have to observe a crime in order to use forensic evidence to determine guilt? Do you have to know where the first cell came from in order to use DNA as forensic evidence?

All you have is DNA to link the three domains of life. You have nothing to go back to the UCA. What evidence is there for the UCA itself? We know that life has common decent. DNA proves that but it doesn't prove the UCA.

So where the morphological characteristics were incapable of determining fine grade relationships between closely related species, DNA was more helpful. If design is true then we should see massive and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy, not fine grade disagreements between limited morphological phylogenies and DNA phylogenies. That's the problem for your argument.



Abiogenesis is not evolution. How many times have we gone over this?

Actually I don't think we have gone over this at all. I could be wrong but I mentioned that it is not considered part of ToE but like I said it wasn't that way in Darwin's time. Darwin didn't preclude it from ToE. Even if we study Abiogenesis separately it can't be divorced from ToE.

I have evidence that life did evolve from a universal common ancestor with no need for a designer in the process of evolution. Again, abiogenesis is not evolution. Please stop conflating them.

You do not have evidence for a UCA, why can't you see that. You have evidence of common decent, you have evidence that supports a UCA only in that it is surmised to have had to exist for the three domains of life to be

as complex as they are.

Natural processes do explain biodiversity and how life changed over time, which is the topic of discussion.

No evolution explains biodiversity due to the ability for living forms to evolve which was designed.

Where is your evidence for this claim?

Well it is pretty obvious, evolution was around a long time before man labeled it evolution.

Which would include the fingerprints.

Common design I guess could be considered God's fingerprints.

You have yet to supply supportive evidence for your claims.

Ok, tell me how it doesn't provide supportive evidence.

No, it doesn't. You have not supplied any evidence that God was responsible for the beginning of the Universe as you claim.

Is it supportive evidence of the claim. That is the point.

All you have is a claim, not evidence.

Is it supportive evidence of the claim?

 

[Loudmouth]

Obviously we differ on what we view as separately created kinds. I said that life is in separate in your own system but you ignore that every time.

You ignore it when I show that they what you call separate are actually part of the same clade and not separate.

Why would I say that?

You tell me. You are the one saying it.

Considering I didn't say that, it would seem the problem rests in the fact that you continue to claim I say things I don't.

Then clarify it for us. Define separately created kinds.

No, I said that is possible but that I don't know and either do you.

And I keep telling you that I have the evidence to support the claim.

All we know is that three domains of life are proven to exist.

We also know that a shared genetic and metabolic system is shared between these domains meaning that they are not separate, and that the evidence is consistent with a universal common ancestor.

True, I would agree with that. It becomes a problem though when you claim evidence that isn't there. Actually, the only reason ToE needs a UCA is that it is obvious that those Domains contain too much complex features to have arisen without something previous to evolve from.

The ToE could easily accomodate 3 origins of life.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Darwin, On the Origin of Species

From the very start, the theory has accomodated the possibility of several origins of life and the possibility the lack of a universal common ancestor.

All you have is DNA to link the three domains of life.

Yes, just like I can use fingerprints and DNA to link a suspect to a crime scene. That's how evidence works.

You have nothing to go back to the UCA.

Why would I need to in order to show that all life shares a univesal common ancestor?

What evidence is there for the UCA itself?

The shared genetic and metabolic systems like I have discussed several times now.

Actually I don't think we have gone over this at all. I could be wrong but I mentioned that it is not considered part of ToE but like I said it wasn't that way in Darwin's time. Darwin didn't preclude it from ToE. Even if we study Abiogenesis separately it can't be divorced from ToE.

Do we need to know the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand how molecules change over time? Do we need to know the origin of life in order to use DNA evidence in a court of law?

You do not have evidence for a UCA, why can't you see that. You have evidence of common decent, you have evidence that supports a UCA only in that it is surmised to have had to exist for the three domains of life to be

I have evidence for common descent, but I really don't? Can you please make up your mind?

No evolution explains biodiversity due to the ability for living forms to evolve which was designed.

What evidence do you have that life was designed to evolve?

Well it is pretty obvious, evolution was around a long time before man labeled it evolution.

How is that evidence that God had anything to do with it?

Common design I guess could be considered God's fingerprints.

We don't have common design. We have common descent.

Ok, tell me how it doesn't provide supportive evidence.

Tell me how it is. It is not my job to evidence your claims.

Is it supportive evidence of the claim. That is the point.

What is supportive evidence that God had anything to do with the beginning of the Universe?

 

[Smidlee]

Evidence please.

That's like asking for evidence that gravity always sucks. Codes are a product of an intelligent mind.

 

[OllieFranz]

That's like asking for evidence that gravity always sucks. Codes are a product of an intelligent mind.

Evidence for gravity would be any film or report about an apple falling from a tree. Or almost any film or narrative that does not involve flight. Very easy to supply on demand.

Evidence for intelligent encoding would require, at the very least, arbitrary symbols encoded in some media. DNA codons are not arbitrary symbols, their "coding" is an integral part of their chemistry.

 

[Smidlee]

Evidence for gravity would be any film or report about an apple falling from a tree. Or almost any film or narrative that does not involve flight. Very easy to supply on demand.

Evidence for intelligent encoding would require, at the very least, arbitrary symbols encoded in some media. DNA codons are not arbitrary symbols, their "coding" is an integral part of their chemistry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/s...ores-natures-algorithms.html?ref=science&_r=0

More and more I see more hints of intelligent design with saying "intelligent design"

"The importance of these algorithms in the modern world is common knowledge, of course. But in his insightful new book “Probably Approximately Correct,” the Harvard computer scientist Leslie Valiant goes much further: computation, he says, is and has always been “the dominating force on earth within all its life forms.” Nature speaks in algorithms. "

DNA is totally meaningless without the machines to read it.

 

[JWGU]

That's like asking for evidence that gravity always sucks.

Not really. Largely, this is because a version of gravity that we didn't assume "sucked" would not be a useful logical entity--we could perform no reasoning about it other than the specious. By contrast, a version of code that does not assume its production by an intelligent mind can still be used in nontrivial deductive proofs--it would still possess many (almost all) of the previous properties that made codes distinct. So while there is no reason to have a word for "gravity that might not suck," there is every reason to have a name for "code that might not be the product of an intelligent mind. From my own personal perspective, "code" already has this meaning, but if you would like to introduce a new word that is explicitly imbued with this meaning that is fine with me

Codes are a product of an intelligent mind.

Once again, you are playing word games here. If by your definition codes are always a product of an intelligent mind, and it turns out that the genetic code is not a product of an intelligent mind, it simply means that according to you the genetic code is not a code. What you call it has absolutely no effect on the properties of the actual nucleotide acid sequence. The fallacy of which you are guilty is known as mistaking the map for the territory.

So once again--what would you like to call genetic code so that we may both reason about it as though it might or might not be the product of an intelligent mind, rather than assuming a priori that one or the other is true? If we cannot agree on such a definition, we cannot proceed, and it should be a remarkably easy concession for you to make because you are not actually giving up anything--you are just expanding our shared vocabulary.

 

[OllieFranz]

DNA is totally meaningless without the machines to read it.

Agreed. So where, exactly, are the machines to read the "intelligent code" in DNA?

 

[JWGU]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/s...ores-natures-algorithms.html?ref=science&_r=0

More and more I see more hints of intelligent design with saying "intelligent design"

"The importance of these algorithms in the modern world is common knowledge, of course. But in his insightful new book “Probably Approximately Correct,” the Harvard computer scientist Leslie Valiant goes much further: computation, he says, is and has always been “the dominating force on earth within all its life forms.” Nature speaks in algorithms. "

DNA is totally meaningless without the machines to read it.

In my professional opinion, you are badly confused as to what Leslie Valiant is actually saying (in fairness, it is possible that he is too). His viewpoint is a highly reductionist one common among certain rationalists--see digital physics. I might add that the viewpoint is kind of controversial.

Your last line is actually true... for DNA. It is not true of RNA.

 

[Oncedeceived]

=Loudmouth;64249828]And I am saying that we do.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Are you going to deal with the evidence?

Just realized I missed this post. Ok for the evidence.

From the link: Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.

So, no evidence is to be found other than the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota. No reference to the first UCA other than the pattern we see in nature.

Supportive evidence is evidence.

Yes, you keep saying that but when I show you supportive evidence of my position you will not accept it. The point is that you will accept elements of ToE that are not in evidence, those elements that have no empirical proof in of themselves.

Commonalities between all life is the evidence for universal common descent, as has been cited. This disproves your claims of separate kinds.

Not true. Like I said there are separate kinds in Evolutionary classification. You can't say that there are no separate kinds when in fact there are even within the system you defend.

Also, evolution does not require design, nor have you presented any evidence that any deity designed a single organism, an evolving one or otherwise.

I can give supportive evidence.

Then don't use the stereotype of separately created kinds. You are the one introducing separate kinds, not me.

Again, not true. I went back and reread the entire thread. You are the only one that has specified separately created kinds. Post #202, #217 #222. There may be more but I don't remember and didn't write them down.

Then tell me what it is. Define your terms. Explain yourself.

Kinds are living organisms. The kinds that are listed in the Creation Narrative are after previous kinds.

We do have Pre-Cambrian fossils, like these:

and these:

Interestingly enough, those pre-cambrian fossils just recently were analyzed and it was found that they are not marine life at all. I wasn't aware of this either due to the newness of the study but it is one more thing that substantiates that plant life was on land prior to even the Cambrian Explosion.

Dec. 12, 2012 — Ancient multicellular fossils long thought to be ancestors of early marine life are remnants of land-dwelling lichen or other microbial colonies, says University of Oregon scientist Gregory J. Retallack, who has been studying fossil soils of South Australia.

Australian multicellular fossils point to life on land, not at sea, geologist proposes

How did you determine that these are not pre-cursors?

Above.

Please cite this study.

I just don't have it anymore. I tried to google it and it didn't come up.

Saying there was a beginning is not evidence that God was responsible for the beginning.

No, but like you said, supportive evidence is evidence.

Let's use the crime scene investigation as our analogy again. The prosecutor gets in front of the jury and states, "I have supportive evidence that the defendant, John Smith, killed Sarah Smith. My evidence? Sara Smith was murdered!!". Would you consider that supportive evidence? I sure wouldn't.

In the court of law, in murder trials, there is what is called circumstantial evidence. Forensic evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I accept all materialistic evidence.

I used materialistic evidence to support my position.

Where does it say that "the kinds that are mentioned in the Bible have kinds prior to the ones mentioned"?

I have repeatedly posted the Scripture passages of Genesis 1. After its kind....

Based on what evidence?

Evolution was not known when the Bible claimed that life followed the same kind of life. After its kind was described before mankind had any idea that life forms had previous kinds within the kind.

So God is the fingerprints, now? Really?

Read it again.

You did when you used such phrases as separately created kinds and designed organisms as your counterargument to universal common descent.

No, I didn't. There is no counterargument. I am saying that universal common decent is man's explanation for the processes that God designed.

You have also said that life was created and designed which is not evolution.

Really, you have no evidence for the first life form, you have no evidence for how DNA first arose, you have no evidence of how many of the cellular mechanisms even work. How in the world would you presume that you know that life was not created and designed.

If life evolved just say that it evolved. Don't say that it was created or that it was designed.

Why? Because you don't like to think that is possible?

 

[Davian]

I was just going to message you today, I was worried that something was wrong because I hadn't "seen" you lately. Glad you are ok.

I posted to you, maybe you missed it? Post #469, you never responded.

I have been busy with work and family, and my participation here gets put to the side sometimes.

I see that you went back to clean up that post. There are still several posts of mine waiting for your response.

That being said, what I would like you to do is to answer this question that I have asked you repeatedly since post #73, before I will go back to those posts:

By what testable criteria did you determine that the universe is designed?

Not evidence, but criteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have been busy with work and family, and my participation here gets put to the side sometimes.

I understand completely.

I see that you went back to clean up that post. There are still several posts of mine waiting for your response.

Clean it up? What do you mean?

That being said, what I would like you to do is to answer this question that I have asked you repeatedly since post #73, before I will go back to those posts:

By what testable criteria did you determine that the universe is designed?

Not evidence, but criteria.

When determining whether or not the universe is designed or if it is rather a result of a naturalistic explanation I use the consistency of the two worldviews. Naturalistic explanations for the principles and laws of nature are not consistent within the purely materialistic worldview. The actual opposing alternatives are not in keeping with a purely materialistic worldview.

Those who have a great deal of knowledge of physics and quantum physics acknowledge the appearance of design and fine tuning in the universe. In fact, many of them are looking for a grand theory to encompass the entire universe due to the fact that everything in our universe is so uniquely connected and it is so improbable for it to be from chance.

While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview.

It then becomes which is a more rational and logical conclusion; is the world fine tuned because (as in the Christian worldview) God fine tuned it or is it even possible to use reason and logic in the opposing materialistic worldview to deny it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Davian I am not finding the posts. I know that I left two unanswered, I believe two anyway.

 

[Davian]

...
When determining whether or not the universe is designed or if it is rather a result of a naturalistic explanation I use the consistency of the two worldviews. Naturalistic explanations for the principles and laws of nature are not consistent within the purely materialistic worldview. The actual opposing alternatives are not in keeping with a purely materialistic worldview.

I am still unfamiliar with this "materialistic" worldview that you keep referring to.

Those who have a great deal of knowledge of physics and quantum physics acknowledge the appearance of design and fine tuning in the universe.

Appearance of design is not necessarily evidence of design. That is why I ask, by what testable criteria do you determine design? Testable, that is, outside of your worldview.

In fact, many of them are looking for a grand theory to encompass the entire universe due to the fact that everything in our universe is so uniquely connected and it is so improbable for it to be from chance.

Odds that cannot be calculated in the absence of access to other universes, correct?

While it is understood that there is no proof that God is behind this design or whether or not it is The Christian God, it does prove that the design of the universe and those governing principles fit within the worldview of the Christian consistently but fail in the naturalistic worldview.

Where does this "naturalistic" worldview make the presupposition that the universe was designed, as yours does?

Do you see the problem with your worldview-based arguments yet?

It then becomes which is a more rational and logical conclusion; is the world fine tuned because (as in the Christian worldview) God fine tuned it or is it even possible to use reason and logic in the opposing materialistic worldview to deny it?

To summarize, you believe the universe is designed because you believe it to be so?