Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Can you post the part's with relevance next time, this is why I object to link spamming.
The entire article is relevant. You argued that macroevolution is untestable, even though speciation has been observed.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Adam where does it state specification as a result of new genetic information (Evolution), this article mentions the definition of species and how species barriers appear.
No, the article explains what a species is, how speciation occurs, lists instances of observed speciation events, and cites references.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The entire article is relevant. You argued that macro evolution is untestable, even though speciation has been observed.
You have to prove macro evolution creating speciation, not just speciation happening because of genetic drift and genetic variation.macro evolution states mutation adds new traits prove that it does occur.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneBased on what experiment, like I said basing a conclusion on a hypothesis really scientific. 🙄
Based on the very ****ing mathematics that you're trying to use to disprove evolution. Man, you're ****ing dense.
It's actually very simple, even without numbers.
Does the possibility exist?
Yes.
Then can it happen?
Yes.
Well there you go.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Based on the very ****ing mathematics that you're trying to use to disprove evolution. Man, you're ****ing dense.It's actually very simple, even without numbers.
Does the possibility exist?
Yes.
Then can it happen?
Yes.
Well there you go.
Here you go again, It has never been observed or recorded but since there is probability that it happens then you assume it did. whether it can happen is non of my concern anything can happen, the question is DID it happen, was there an experiment that proved it happen. Either way coming to a conclusion based on a hypothesis or a small probability without any proof is not scientific so curse and swear as much as you want because you have no "PROOF".
The 'Scientific' Theory of Intelligent Design!
Okay, here's how we do this scientifically. First I'll post the link to tell people what the scientific method is, and give you a brief description of it. Scientific Method
The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:* Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
* Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
* Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
* Experiments (tests of all of the above)
1: Observation
When we look at things like cells and eyes,* we see they are complex. Not only are things complex, but a lot of things have similar design.
2: Hypothesis
Now the laws me made up was, complexity=intelligent designer; similar design=one designer. With this we can say that everything can be designed by one master designer with no proof of existance, apart from the things we just saw, then again, that doesn't really prove it, does it?
3: Predictions
Things don't happen by chance, so evolution is wrong.
4: Testing
Testing? What is testing? I have no knoledge on proving this. Well I have common sense, I think 😕
5: Results
Complexity can't happen by chance, but is more likely to happen by a designer. Therefore we should take note of intelligent design. Hypothesis proven. 😖mart:
*It seems, the only complex systems they use are 'eyes and cells'. Never any other organ even more complex than the eye. Eg. brain, ear, stomach, intestines, liver, kidneys, sexual organs etc.
-------------------------
Yes, Blue did post proof for ID. But if you look further, you'll see my contradiction to it 😉
Originally posted by lord xyz
The 'Scientific' Theory of Intelligent Design!1: Observation
When we look at things like cells and eyes,* we see they are complex. Not only are things complex, but a lot of things have similar design.
Go on...
Originally posted by lord xyz
The 'Scientific' Theory of Intelligent Design!2: Hypothesis
Now the laws me made up was, complexity=intelligent designer; similar design=one designer. With this we can say that everything can be designed by one master designer with no proof of existance, apart from the things we just saw, then again, that doesn't really prove it, does it?
Sorry, your wrong similar design does not equal one designer, the number of designers could be anywhere from 3 to 300 million. also a hypothesis is an educated guess the experiment does the work.
Originally posted by lord xyz
The 'Scientific' Theory of Intelligent Design!3: Predictions
Things don't happen by chance, so evolution is wrong.
Yes. Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures. Each of these predictions may be tested--and have been confirmed through testing!
Intelligent design theorists begin with their theory with observations about how intelligent agents act when designing, to help them understand how to recognize and detect design:Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations): Intelligent agents ...
(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.“Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariably result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. … Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause. For this reason, the biology of the information age now requires a new science of design.”
(Stephen C. Meyer, "The Explanatory Power of Design," in Mere Creation, pg. 140 (William A. Dembski ed., InterVarsity Press 1998))“Agents can arrange matter with distant goals in mind. In their use of language, they routinely ‘find’ highly isolated and improbable functional sequences amid vast spaces of combinatorial possibilities.”
(Stephen C. Meyer, “The Cambrian Information Explosion,” Debating Design, pg. 388 (Dembski and Ruse eds., Cambridge University Press 2004)."Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."
(Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs)
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations."Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter."
(Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).“An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems, without there necessarily being any material or physical connection between those systems. Even more simply, intelligent causes can generate identical patterns independently: We do so, for instance, every time we sign a bank check or credit card slip” (Nelson and Wells, Homology in Biology, in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, pg. 316, 318 (John Angus Campbell, ed. Michigan State University Press 2003).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
Originally posted by lord xyz4: Testing
Testing? What is testing? I have no knoledge on proving this. Well I have common sense, I think 😕
Here we go again:
(1) Biochemical complexity / Laws of the Universe. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another. Yes.
(2) Fossil Record Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example. Yes.
(3) Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example. Yes.
(4) DNA Biochemical and Biological Functionality Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA." Examples include recently discovered functionality in some pseudogenes, microRNAs, introns, LINE and ALU elements. Examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but discovery of function may be expected (or lack of current function still explainable under a design paradigm). Yes.In this manner, intelligent design is clearly testable as it observes how intelligent agents act when designing in order to make predictions about what we should find if an intelligent agent had been at work , and then goes out and tests those predictions to see if they are met !
Originally posted by lord xyz
*It seems, the only complex systems they use are 'eyes and cells'. Never any other organ even more complex than the eye. Eg. brain, ear, stomach, intestines, liver, kidneys, sexual organs etc
Cells exist in all organs, so there using it anyway.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneermm
Go on...
Originally posted by Blue nocturne3-300 million? 🤨 and what are you basing this on and how can you prove this? God you suck at science (and maths and english).
Sorry, your wrong similar design does not equal one designer, the number of designers could be anywhere from 3 to 300 million. also a hypothesis is an educated guess the experiment does the work.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneand the right one is...
Wrong prediction.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneand what do these quotes mean? And where did you get them from? Answer these questions. Don't ignore them like every other fucjking time.
Here we go again:
Originally posted by Blue nocturne🤨 no. They don't specify the organs. They just say 'cells and eyes'. Saying 'cells' isn't saying'brain' and 'ears', it's saying CELLS. It's specifying 'cells' not 'ears' and 'brains' and kidneys' etc.
Cells exist in all organs, so there using it anyway.
Originally posted by lord xyz
3-300 million? 🤨 and what are you basing this on and how can you prove this? God you suck at science (and maths and english).
Maybe because ID never said there is just one designer you moron.
Originally posted by lord xyz
and what do these quotes mean? And where did you get them from? Answer these questions. Don't ignore them like every other fucjking time.
.
Originally posted by lord xyz
🤨 no. They don't specify the organs. They just say 'cells and eyes'. Saying 'cells' isn't saying'brain' and 'ears', it's saying CELLS. It's specifying 'cells' not 'ears' and 'brains' and kidneys' etc.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneso you just assumed 3-300 million with nothing to back it up did you?
Maybe because ID never said there is just one designer you moron.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne🤨 don't make me contradict those again. And WHERE THE **** ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM? WHICH WEBSITE? IF YOU DON'T SHOW ME A REFERENCE AS TO WHERE YOU GOT THESE QUOTES FROM, I'LL ASSUME YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP.
There test and predictions,how stupid can you get?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And cells make up all the organs in the body, and they do mention other organs I mentioned the circulatory system twice.
AND WHY DIDN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS? You selectively comment on peoples' posts, why do you do that?
Originally posted by lord xyz
so you just assumed 3-300 million with nothing to back it up did you?
Do you read, I said the number is not known.
Originally posted by lord xyz
And [b]WHERE THE **** ARE YOU GETTING THIS FROM? WHICH WEBSITE? IF YOU DON'T SHOW ME A REFERENCE AS TO WHERE YOU GOT THESE QUOTES FROM, I'LL ASSUME YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP.[/B]
Why do you assume I'm making it up, I've never assumed the same for yours or anyones post WTF.
Originally posted by lord xyz1. I've never seen you mention the circulatory system.
[/B]
Cause you don't read.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How does this advocate evolution, the mutation does not change the species regardless if a trait is mutated the organism is still the same species.Pay attention, Natural systems are usually complex and more importantly have a purpose, take your circulatory system it's purpose is to provide blood to your various organs that it is purpose, if life is an accident then how do things have purpose furthermore why would life have a design that weeds at the weak according to you Darwinist when it's all an accident. In other words how can something have a purpose without being made with out a purpose. does this sentence make sense
"I accidentally created it for this purpose" No it doesn't it's an oxymoron, yet you Darwinist are basically saying that.
Sorry for the double post.
Originally posted by lord xyz2. The circulatory system is not an organ
It contains organs like the heart moron.
Originally posted by lord xyz
3. I said "mentioning cells isn't mentioning organs." you seem to be confused. By using the logic you're using "cells make up organs" you can just say "you need to melt metal to shape it. Therefore, to shape a plane (which is made out of metal,) you must first melt it." You need better english skills.
Stop posting, your comparing the shape of metal to cells that make up organism are you on drugs?
Originally posted by lord xyz
4. I said "I've never seen anyone mention anything other than 'eyes' and 'cells'." make sure you understand words and sentences. It helps.
Just like you've never heard of homology, germ line, and etc... it's because your not knowledgeable.
Originally posted by lord xyz
.AND WHY DIDN'T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS? You selectively comment on peoples' posts, why do you do that?
I answer all your questions (Despite how stupid they are)
I read your chaos theory it doesn't meantion "order coming from chaos" rather chaos having a purpose or a system and how changes that seem random can have organized changes to a system.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your ID is aliens planting and controlling life on Earth.Isn't it possible?
Don't if it's possible, I don't make assumptions about a designer I don't know.But I already said what my belief in what the designer is.