Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
So, you admit you are gullible to your own intuitive inferences without actually looking for evidence??
Intuition is useful in the beginning of research, but not in make finalized conclusions about the nature of reality. It has never been an accepted methodology in science in this specific regard, and until you show this, then you are guilty of special pleading.
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
You have not said anything over my head I just get through all the B.S. and get straight to the point,is that a problem for you ?
It's only reasonable to question the veracity of your claim to have had some association with biology when you describe the cancer cell as "abnormal".By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Hollie cancer cells are abnormal cells that break off and spread and do not die off when they are suppose to like normal cells. They cling to each other forming tumors. The point is Hollie living organisms come from other living organisms can you show otherwise ?
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
I have seen no evidence of cells being formed by anything other then another living organism, Have you ?what are you talking avout ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
What a vivid imagination.
Wrong!!! I have asked you many times for evidence that would falsify and you choose to camel and ignore. Either that or your continued claims the argument is fallacious are intellectually dishonest. Please provide me an example of complex, specifiable digital code in the modern world that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source. Then Meyer's ID argument will be falsified.
Okay, now you are just out right lying, which means my conversation with you is OVER. You have been PROVEN WRONG that the theory IS FALSIFIABLE, and instead of being honest, you choose to just lie to defend your position. Good luck.
Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
What a vivid imagination.
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
Now if we can only explain how only left handed and right handed amino acids bonded in the right sequence to form the right proteins.What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
What a vivid imagination.
Oh, the irony.
Are you ok UR ? I have never seen you thank hollie before.
Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
It's your desperate attempt to inflate a bogus and derailed argument.
On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
What a vivid imagination.
Oh no, not your silly pretensions that you had any training in biology!Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
Oh boy not the miller urey experiment again
Under all the right conditions they could not produce a cell that could reproduce itself. Nobody knew the conditions of the enviornment when this supposedly happened.
If this experiment acheived what you think it did there would be no argument.
