It’s quite humorous to read what you are saying as if its determined fact. What is science one day is fable the next. You shouldn’t speak of your “idea” as something that is fact either. Scientists a hundred years from now will probably be looking back laughing at your idea of “evolution” as many scientists are already doing today.It is absurd to imagine that an unevidenced designer who has not been shown to have the ability to change even a single base pair of DNA can do anything whatsoever, let alone impart purpose to living organisms. All that is needed to understand the purpose of living organisms is the observation that “If your parents didn’t have any children then the chances are that you won’t either.”
Organisms that don’t reproduce have no descendants. You and I are both descended from billions of generations of organisms that did succeed in reproducing. Not one failure. Not one. That means that you and I both have a very powerful purpose built into us. We are descended from a very long line of winners, not one loser in the whole bunch.
You are proposing an entity with no scientific evidence for its existence and no evidence that it is actually able to do anything at all. That really is absurd.
You do not have my assent. Show me an experiment where the ID designer changes some DNA, even a single base pair, and I will reconsider.
rossum
What is even more humorous is your apparent belief that a scientific theory as robust as evolution, with so much consistent evidence from so many branches of science (and no contradictory evidence whatsoever) will suddenly be overturned. Of course, it’s possible, but it would require a discovery of staggering, epic proportions, to counter the wealth of evidence that supports evolution.It’s quite humorous to read what you are saying as if its determined fact. What is science one day is fable the next. You shouldn’t speak of your “idea” as something that is fact either. Scientists a hundred years from now will probably be looking back laughing at your idea of “evolution” as many scientists are already doing today.
Unless you can show me now such an ID experiment then it is determined fact today. Where is an ID experiment showing the designer changing one single base pair of DNA?It’s quite humorous to read what you are saying as if its determined fact.
I can show you a designer changing one single base pair of DNA about as much as you can show me DNA emerging out of nowhere from nothing on its own.Unless you can show me now such an ID experiment then it is determined fact today. Where is an ID experiment showing the designer changing one single base pair of DNA?
rossum
I would like to see this “wealth of evidence that supports evolution.” I would like to see some evidence of transitional species…one species transitioning into something other than itself, is that anywhere?What is even more humorous is your apparent belief that a scientific theory as robust as evolution, with so much consistent evidence from so many branches of science (and no contradictory evidence whatsoever) will suddenly be overturned. Of course, it’s possible, but it would require a discovery of staggering, epic proportions, to counter the wealth of evidence that supports evolution.
No problem - just walk into your nearest natural history museum. The evidence is all laid out and freely accessible.I would like to see this “wealth of evidence that supports evolution.”
You’re kidding, right? It seems your education on evolution has been given to you by your local religious apologetic. ALL fossils are transitional, that’s the whole point. There are also many clear examples of fossils bridging the gap between previously discovered fossils, which is probably what you mean. Google it, the information’s right there.I would like to see some evidence of transitional species…one species transitioning into something other than itself, is that anywhere?
Why should I show something that I do not claim? I do not claim that DNA emerged “out of nowhere from nothing”.I can show you a designer changing one single base pair of DNA about as much as you can show me DNA emerging out of nowhere from nothing on its own.
Why should I need faith? I have evidence. See Powner et al (2009) Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, for an example of some of the work that is being done on abiogenesis. Pyrimidines make up 50% of DNA and RNA. The C and T (Cytosine and Thymine) in the ACGT of DNA are the pyrimidines. Science has shown how the unintelligent natural forces of chemistry can make pyrimidines. Can ID show us how their intelligent designer made pyrimidines? At the moment ID needs far more faith than I do.It takes faith to believe in either one.
All fossils are transitional? Ha. A fossil is nothing more than bones meaning something died.No problem - just walk into your nearest natural history museum. The evidence is all laid out and freely accessible.
You’re kidding, right? It seems your education on evolution has been given to you by your local religious apologetic. ALL fossils are transitional, that’s the whole point. There are also many clear examples of fossils bridging the gap between previously discovered fossils, which is probably what you mean. Google it, the information’s right there.
A few transitionals are more obvious than others. Archaeopteryx for example:All fossils are transitional? Ha. A fossil is nothing more than bones meaning something died.
Feathers Flight Bony Tail Teeth
-------- ------ --------- -----
Dinosaurs No No Yes Yes
Feathered Dinos Yes No Yes Yes
Archaeopteryx Yes Yes Yes Yes
Early Birds Yes Yes No Yes
Modern Birds Yes Yes No NoBut it does not rest upon our being able to perceive a purpose.ID design rests on purpose.
Maybe not. But if we cannot perceive the purpose then we will not be able to perceive the design either. That does make ID’s job rather hard; trying to perceive the unperceivable.But it does not rest upon our being able to perceive a purpose.
Once it has found a way to perceive the unperceivable. ID has yet to find an objective way to detect design. Purpose is not it. What is the purpose of a rock? A human may use a rock for a particular purpose, but the human did not design the rock.ID stands firm upon the definition you provided and defended.
The scientific community disagrees with your measured assessment.All fossils are transitional? Ha. A fossil is nothing more than bones meaning something died.
Strange that you didn’t care to notice an issue like this until it backed design.Once it has found a way to perceive the unperceivable. ID has yet to find an objective way to detect design. Purpose is not it. What is the purpose of a rock? A human may use a rock for a particular purpose, but the human did not design the rock.
rossum
No it doesn’t, except in your mind and “minds” like it due to obstinacy of ignoring what is outside your narrow scope of unfounded argument. this is a case of emotional investment, not of argument. There is no actual reason that will prevail for you vz71. You will bend everything to your perception. “Bon chance” and goodbye.As stated before, ID stands.
Ad hominem attacks never accomplish much of anything in the sake of debate.No it doesn’t, except in your mind and “minds” like it due to obstinacy of ignoring what is outside your narrow scope of unfounded argument. this is a case of emotional investment, not of argument. There is no actual reason that will prevail for you vz71. You will bend everything to your perception. “Bon chance” and goodbye.
Those are some mighty big shoes you have to fill. You are now speaking for the scientific community?The scientific community disagrees with your measured assessment.