Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChurchDude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Be careful now. I did not say religion has answers for science. My argument is that religion answers some questions that evolution can't and those include questions of purpose and nature; e.g. Why are we here? Wat is the meaning of human existence? Why are we, generally speaking, altruistic? These are just some of the questions that in my opinion, lie outside the reach of the scientific method.

</div></div>

not exactly. science can certainly answer these questions. maybe people don't like the answers or it makes them uncomfortable due to cultural or social conditioning.

altruism is a positive trait, and a recent study shows altruistic tendencies in some of our close relatives, and shows how this tendency benefits the whole.

besides which, not every trait passed on is supposed to be either wholly good, wholly necessary, or bad.

there is A LOT of confusion about evolution and what it actually IS.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ChurchDude</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[I have never read any article written by a scientist about a topic on evolution that mentioned any god. Science never mentions God or gods. Some scientists believe in them. </div></div>
well richard dawkins (author of &quot;the god delusion&quot interview in the movie is quite revealing;

he absolutely dismisses the idea of intelligent design but then says it's possible aliens could have created earth life...a.k.a. intelligent design

but then he says those aliens would have had to come about through darwinian means

and these guys are authorities???</div></div>
I thought that part of the movie was pretty funny. It's part and parcel of the &quot;anything but God&quot; argument. </div></div>

that reduces God to a God of the Gaps. It's a form of the argument from ignorance.

We don't know, therefore it's God. Collins fails.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">but there can never be <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">species</span></span> without <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic">life</span></span>
</div></div>
No one has said that there can be species without life.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
life is the absolute pre-requisite...no one can dare say how species originated if they know not how life originated...</div></div>
Well... that is exactly what has happened. There is a whole lot of science backing up the field.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
but it is quite plain they are mistaken in assuming a linear development of species...
evidence points to parallel development of species with species adapting &amp; evolving within the species but not evolving into completely different species;</div></div>
You ought to publish your evidence!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i find this absurd;
why would our ancestor- the fish we ate for dinner not have chosen to evolve out of the water so as to not be our dinner...
what fish in their right mind would not have walked out of the water like we did?
</div></div>
Agreed. That IS absurd. </div></div>


so the fish that stayed in the water were just stupid?
so evolution was voluntary?
some chose to evolve &amp; some didn't?
why did some species go extinct when all they had to do was evolve?
why did dinosaurs not simply evolve warm blood instead of dying out due to cold? </div></div>

I'm going to back up 40 on this. All respect due bredren but you just aren't getting it. This is the problem when you think you are pursuing open inquiry. There is a lot of relatively meaningless clutter in what is actually, scientifically, a non-debate.

As I know I have repeatedly said, we know that evolution is true, because it has never been falsified once. Nobody has ever put forward an alternate theory. In addition, the findings and discoveries and the TRUTH of evolution allow us to do things, like grow a human heart valve. Eventually you will just have to accept that. There is no competing theory as to speciation that would allow us to understand how to do that. Or turn back on our frog regenerate limb gene. That alone basically proves evolution is true, wether Darwin was a crack pot or not is not strictly relevant, however unpalatable some of his opinions might be. I mean, every day you probably have some kind of vehicle effect your life, but do you think you should not believe in cars because of henry ford's racism and anti semitism? That would be absurd.

Generally, creatures don't 'choose' to evolve or not evolve. Some may be able to adapt to various conditions, and these traits of adaptability will then pass down. The batch of kids that don't inherit the adaptability will not be able to withstand the natural pressures of selection. But it is not a choice.

It's not like an apatosaur can say, damn, getting chewed on through the neck by these tyrannosaurs sucks a lot. I should evolve to have armor plated neck. Then POOF, it wakes up the next morning with armor plate.

Nor is it like the fish that could live on land decided, oh snap, I'm gonna walk out of this toilet. It just happened that a fish gained mutations that allowed it to exist. Some kind of pressure then selected this trait to get passed on.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[I have never read any article written by a scientist about a topic on evolution that mentioned any god. Science never mentions God or gods. Some scientists believe in them.

</div></div>


well richard dawkins (author of &quot;the god delusion&quot interview in the movie is quite revealing;

he absolutely dismisses the idea of intelligent design but then says it's possible aliens could have created earth life...a.k.a. intelligent design

but then he says those aliens would have had to come about through darwinian means

and these guys are authorities???

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Csop4ROeNg&amp;feature=fvst"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Csop4ROeNg&amp;feature=fvst" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

you completely missed Dawkins point. The point is if you beg the question of there being intelligent design- and let's not be disingenuous as to what exactly Stein means, he's not at all trying to say some alien life form- anyway any first cause argument deflates because the first cause then needs a cause and so on into absurdity. but the problem is believers in God stop at God. For some reason they never carry the argument to it's logical conclusion.

Dawkins has to admit it's plausible that there 'might' be some other highly evolved race that started off life on this planet. Extremely unlikely as we have no evidence to support such conjecture, but it is plausible. And of course he is going to say that if there was some alien intelligence, it evolved because we know that is how speciation and life develops and advances.

Of course, it's far far more plausible that if we find self organizing proteins and self organizing pieces of early cells, then that is the explanation and we're starting to put the picture together.

I don't think it will be too long actually, before we have a solution about abiogenesis.

As to your supposition that nobody can dare to saythey understand speciation without knowing how life began- I don't get it. You know someone built the pyramids but you don't know how. Are the pyramids a theory?

You don't know how a carburetor is made, but you can see where it fits in an engine and figure out it's purpose.

Evolution is not so much concerned with the start of life now you get that and that is good, but now you need to realize that it's entirely possible to observe how species got here, prove it, without knowing how exactly life first began. Evolution can make some general predictions about the start of life, and these predictions like I said are starting to bear fruit.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
evidence points to parallel development of species with species adapting &amp; evolving within the species but not evolving into completely different species;
</div></div>

REALLY? what evidence, exactly, do you feel proves this?

This statement is falsifiable if we find, say, some segment of our genome which is only inheritable through procreation that is shared between relatives of some common ancestor.

And we find this ALL THE TIME.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i find this absurd;

why would our ancestor- the fish we ate for dinner not have chosen to evolve out of the water so as to not be our dinner...
what fish in their right mind would not have walked out of the water like we did?

ok i'm off on another tangent </div></div>

well it's absurd, but i don't think it's absurd for quite the reason you think.

can you choose to evolve into a fish? say by tomorrow? can you choose to evolve any new trait? how about wings. Give it a try.

but that fish have evolved defenses against being eaten is clear.

You still don't seem to follow the mechanical aspects of evolution.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to your supposition that nobody can dare to saythey understand speciation without knowing how life began- I don't get it. You know someone built the pyramids but you don't know how. Are the pyramids a theory?</div></div>


yes i know something as complex as the pyramids must have had a designer and a builder...
yet you guys want me to accept that a cell, which is infinitely more complex and intricate than a stone structure, just - poof!- appeared on earth by a wonderful accident or coincidence...in that case the pyramids could have just appeared by random chance ...
and yes my statement stands;

THE COMPLETE STUDY OF ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE'S ORIGIN...
as life is the absolute pre-requisite for any species to exist...
they are beginning from a point of ignorance, hence they have no true knowledge to make such sweeping declarations on how species began...

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
evidence points to parallel development of species with species adapting &amp; evolving within the species but not evolving into completely different species;
</div></div>

REALLY? what evidence, exactly, do you feel proves this?

This statement is falsifiable if we find, say, some segment of our genome which is only inheritable through procreation that is shared between relatives of some common ancestor.

And we find this ALL THE TIME.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i find this absurd;

why would our ancestor- the fish we ate for dinner not have chosen to evolve out of the water so as to not be our dinner...
what fish in their right mind would not have walked out of the water like we did?

ok i'm off on another tangent </div></div>

well it's absurd, but i don't think it's absurd for quite the reason you think.

can you choose to evolve into a fish? say by tomorrow? can you choose to evolve any new trait? how about wings. Give it a try.

but that fish have evolved defenses against being eaten is clear.

You still don't seem to follow the mechanical aspects of evolution.

</div></div>

intermediariy species between fish &amp; reptiles (along with intermediary organs) should be plentiful due to the size of the oceans...also intermediaries between reptile &amp; mammal...as well as between reptile &amp; bird...and these should be found alive...if evolution is true these should be in plentiful supply...


<span style="font-style: italic">&quot;The last common ancestor of all terrestrial vertebrates was a lobe-finned fish that started crawling on land 375 million years ago. These fish are the direct ancestors of all human beings&quot;.</span>

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
evidence points to parallel development of species with species adapting &amp; evolving within the species but not evolving into completely different species;
</div></div>

REALLY? what evidence, exactly, do you feel proves this?

This statement is falsifiable if we find, say, some segment of our genome which is only inheritable through procreation that is shared between relatives of some common ancestor.

And we find this ALL THE TIME.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i find this absurd;

why would our ancestor- the fish we ate for dinner not have chosen to evolve out of the water so as to not be our dinner...
what fish in their right mind would not have walked out of the water like we did?

ok i'm off on another tangent </div></div>

well it's absurd, but i don't think it's absurd for quite the reason you think.

can you choose to evolve into a fish? say by tomorrow? can you choose to evolve any new trait? how about wings. Give it a try.

but that fish have evolved defenses against being eaten is clear.

You still don't seem to follow the mechanical aspects of evolution.

</div></div>

intermediariy species between fish &amp; reptiles (along with intermediary organs) should be plentiful due to the size of the oceans...also intermediaries between reptile &amp; mammal...as well as between reptile &amp; bird...and these should be found alive...if evolution is true these should be in plentiful supply...


<span style="font-style: italic">&quot;The last common ancestor of all terrestrial vertebrates was a lobe-finned fish that started crawling on land 375 million years ago. These fish are the direct ancestors of all human beings&quot;.</span> </div></div>

why should there be a croco duck?

when you posit something like that, it shows that you are reading information written by someone who is ignorant as to how evolution functions.

however, examples of living creatures who share common descent DO abound.

it is why it can be said we are somewhat related to a tree frog.

remember we share common genetic material. to suggest this happened due to parallel development is absurd.

right now in your genome you have a gene that would restore a limb to you if lost.

we have this gene, as do others, because in our distant past we inherited it from a common ancestor. ours doesn't work anymore, once we leave the womb. so you are not looking for a man/fish walking and swimming around as evidence of evolution. that is absurd. but because there is no man/fish, that does not falsify evolution.

however speaking to your point, we DO find dinosaurs with feathers, we do find animals being shaped today by evolutionary pressures, for example when flying birds adapt to a niche and become flightless due to natural pressures.

When you understand how evolution works, then ALL forms of life are transitional, because nothing stops evolving.

So while SOME evolution does occur dramatically, the standard rule is very gradual change over great expanses of time. So you will not see a man/fish. But you will find man with inherited traits shared with fish.

And that is what we do, in fact, find.

Not sure why this is so difficult to accept.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to your supposition that nobody can dare to saythey understand speciation without knowing how life began- I don't get it. You know someone built the pyramids but you don't know how. Are the pyramids a theory?</div></div>


yes i know something as complex as the pyramids must have had a designer and a builder...
yet you guys want me to accept that a cell, which is infinitely more complex and intricate than a stone structure, just - poof!- appeared on earth by a wonderful accident or coincidence...in that case the pyramids could have just appeared by random chance ...

</div></div>

The pyramids show clear evidence of being made.

Cells show clear evidence that it is plausible they self organize.

That you can't see the difference is why we continue having this conversation.

Again, if there is some magic poof that mad a cell, it's not being begged from science. What magic Poof created the magic poofer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and yes my statement stands;

THE COMPLETE STUDY OF ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE'S ORIGIN...
as life is the absolute pre-requisite for any species to exist...
they are beginning from a point of ignorance, hence they have no true knowledge to make such sweeping declarations on how species began... </div></div>

Well, no offense, but who cares? I mean honestly. Do you think for one second this statement or demand of yours will have any effect on evolutionary sciences or related fields. No it won't because they understand that life's origin is not necessary to see how life speciated.

Your point is absurd. Again, to resort to the pyramid, conclusions can be drawn about how they were built. Maybe not the whole picture, but enough to know lots of things about them.

We don't need to know their explicit origin to know they are made of rock. Do you see the difference and why your statement is absurd? We don't have to know anything about the origin of life and evolution is still true. You are conflating two separate things.

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I can post these all day long.




<span style="font-weight: bold">Evolution in Action: Lizard Moving From Eggs to Live Birth</span>
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
Published September 1, 2010

Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.

Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.

Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction. (Related: &quot;Virgin Birth Expected at Christmas—By Komodo Dragon.&quot

Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.

(See &quot;Oldest Live-Birth Fossil Found; Fish Had Umbilical Cord.&quot

But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity.

&quot;By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other.&quot;

Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem

One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth.

In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the ovary wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of &quot;extreme&quot; animals in the womb.)

In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source.

Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development. (Related: &quot;Dinosaur Eggs Discovered Inside Mother—A First.&quot

The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.

This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles.

Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus.

&quot;Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles,&quot; Stewart explained.

Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple

Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother.

(Related: &quot;Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution.&quot

For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies.

In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said.

&quot;We tend to think of this as a very complex transition,&quot; he said, &quot;but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought.&quot;

The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to your supposition that nobody can dare to saythey understand speciation without knowing how life began- I don't get it. You know someone built the pyramids but you don't know how. Are the pyramids a theory?</div></div>


yes i know something as complex as the pyramids must have had a designer and a builder...
yet you guys want me to accept that a cell, which is infinitely more complex and intricate than a stone structure, just - poof!- appeared on earth by a wonderful accident or coincidence...in that case the pyramids could have just appeared by random chance ...

</div></div>

The pyramids show clear evidence of being made.

Cells show clear evidence that it is plausible they self organize.

That you can't see the difference is why we continue having this conversation.

Again, if there is some magic poof that mad a cell, it's not being begged from science. What magic Poof created the magic poofer?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
and yes my statement stands;

THE COMPLETE STUDY OF ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE'S ORIGIN...
as life is the absolute pre-requisite for any species to exist...
they are beginning from a point of ignorance, hence they have no true knowledge to make such sweeping declarations on how species began... </div></div>

Well, no offense, but who cares? I mean honestly. Do you think for one second this statement or demand of yours will have any effect on evolutionary sciences or related fields. No it won't because they understand that life's origin is not necessary to see how life speciated.

Your point is absurd. Again, to resort to the pyramid, conclusions can be drawn about how they were built. Maybe not the whole picture, but enough to know lots of things about them.

We don't need to know their explicit origin to know they are made of rock. Do you see the difference and why your statement is absurd? We don't have to know anything about the origin of life and evolution is still true. You are conflating two separate things. </div></div>


conflating?

they love that word...
i guess some magic dust conflated itself and formed itself into cells...
the only thing i find absurd is that you believe a stone structure had to be built but you can state with a straight face that something with specialization of tasks as complex as the cell happened by pure random chance...

[i&quot;]The pyramids show clear evidence of being made&quot;[/i]

i would say so...the possibility that an explosion cut the stones perfectly, moved them in the right place &amp; assembled them in perfect position is highly unlikeley if we use common sense;

[i&quot;]Cells show clear evidence that it is <span style="font-weight: bold">plausible</span> they self organize&quot;[/i].


spoken like a true scientist...PLAUSIBLE is a nice way of saying you are working on guesswork &amp; surmisation...
pyramids could not assemble themselves but cells could have...
i must be a dunce because this makes as much sense to me as santa claus marrying the tooth fairy and parting the red sea together

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

you're not taking into consideration that there is evidence that cells form complex functions over time, and begin from simple structures.

I have already shown you several times now, by your own examples, how you are wrong to say that anything in the cell is irreducibly complex. You have introduced the human heart- we trump it mechanically. You have introduced cell structures. I have shown you evidence as to how these irreducibly complex structures are in fact, reducible.

We can go through it again, but at this point if you do not see that you are wrong to make these statements...well I don't know what to say.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
yes i know something as complex as the pyramids must have had a designer and a builder...

</div></div>

OKAY!!!! STOP right there. Just let that marinate a bit.

So you see we can make observations and then draw conclusions, which can be refined as evidence presents itself. Agreed?

Would you agree then that we can look at the pyramids and make some accurate, <span style="font-style: italic">provable</span> predictions about them? We can make hypotheses, falsify them, and eventually gain consensus? When new evidence comes to light, we can adapt our previous conclusions and incorporate or discard former positions?

For example, we can look at the size of the block, and calculate how much rock would be needed to create one.

Would you agree that we can do this?

And yet, I hope you see, we don't need the origin of the pyramids.

In the SAME way, we don't need to know the origin of life to describe the mechanism by which it has speciated.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
spoken like a true scientist...PLAUSIBLE is a nice way of saying you are working on guesswork &amp; surmisation...
pyramids could not assemble themselves but cells could have...
i must be a dunce because this makes as much sense to me as santa claus marrying the tooth fairy and parting the red sea together </div></div>

follow me now, we have ZERO evidence ever of anything like a pyramid forming spontaneously. curious rock formations, yes.

However once again I remind you that we do not know the exact reason or origin of the pyramids, yet we can know quite a bit about them.

In the EXACT same way, we can know a lot about evolution, without knowing the origin of life.

THAT is the analogy.

There is NO evidence of pyramid spontaneous formation.

There IS evidence that cellular structures, during the initial stage of the formation of life, COULD happen as there HAS been spontaneous formation of molecules observed in the lab.

So there is a weight of evidence which differentiates both statements, which makes your conclusion about evolution wrong, analogically.

If you still do not see that, I will reformulate the analogy until you do.

All day long.

lol.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> you are wrong to say that anything in the cell is irreducibly complex. You have introduced the human heart- <span style="font-weight: bold">we trump it mechanically</span>.</div></div>

are you suggesting that man has made a mechanical heart superior to the natural human heart?

because this, as i suspect you are fully aware--- is utter nonsense

[rudemonk]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

let's stick with the supposition that there are irreducibly complex structures, from which we must necessarily infer design.

please name one.

[jah_yout]

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There IS evidence that cellular structures, during the initial stage of the formation of life, COULD happen as there HAS been spontaneous formation of molecules observed in the lab.</div></div>


spontaneous formation of non-living molecules or of living molecules?
there is a HUGE difference...
the dirt on the street is made up of molecules...

has anyone ever created life in their test tube?

molecules are everywhere-- that is meaningless;
scientists have tried and failed to create life spontaneously...

since science is all about proof, until they can create life spontaneously (instead of re-generating life from previous living tissue/ cells) then they can not prove a single theory about life's origin