Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: whereislogic

Being flabbergasted by something isnt really sound logic as to why something must be another way considering you probably dont understand alot of stuff about atoms or dna. ...

The debate is over if your points generally orbit around your unawareness or inability to understand things. ...

But they don't, nor am I flabbergasted regarding these subjects and the relevant facts of chemistry and physics, or the well-established known cause for the emergence of machinery and technology (which one can describe with the word "engineering", which has logical implications in terms of some other requirements to perform the act of engineering, such as a level of intelligence, knowledge and technological know-how that corresponds with the machinery and technology in question, as well as foresight). These points are not based on what I don't understand or don't know, but on what I do understand and know.

Of course its amazing. However, people who seem to have this point of view, dare not touch why it is that someone is born handicapped? Where is their perfectly designed brain? Or all the other diseases. Explain why diseases are happening.

Are you sure they "dare not touch" that subject? I've personally addressed this subject many times on this subforum, I've seen others do it, and usually, it's also addressed by those who refer to themselves as proponents of intelligent design (ID). Machinery in time breaks down (as already explained in the article I quoted from*), which when talking about the machinery of life, causes diseases. Pointing to diseases is no argument against the conclusion that the machinery is a product of engineering (or creation). And it certainly isn't an argument in favor of the storylines for an evolutionary origin of the machinery that makes up life based on philosophical naturalism (just a reminder for those attempting to shift the burden of proof in this thread). *: the article mentioned:

Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.*

The answer given by M. Behe to the related question (# 5) in the video below also ties into this (4:54):

In the article I was quoting from there's also a paragraph at the end about the deteriorating human genome that I didn't quote before. It asks and answers the question:

But if God created the human genome, why does it have flaws?

I don't get the impression that they "dare not touch" that subject. Question #3 in the M. Behe interview relates to the first point of yours that I responded to in this comment.

But before I spend more time acting like some type of "Answer Man", did you answer the question(s) in the comment you were responding to? Perhaps they were a bit too rhetorical for you? I'm not sure if you answered them.

'Have you ever tried to make an idea ever????'

Not sure what you mean by that 'Idea' ?

I am a creative and a music composer that creates ideas everyday, amongst everything else I have to create in my day. But that's not what you're interested in.

One thing I am not is a liar.

I don't go round peddling false narratives regarding the origin of humans and nature. And anyone with any common sense can see that the theory of evolution is absolute laughable poppycock.

If what you're trying to get at is 'do have my own theories regarding the origins of humans and nature' yes I do.

I't takes a long time to research and try to place the pieces together in between all the lies we have been fed for centuries. And no one truely knows.

We can only use our own intelligence and and common sense try to work things out the best we can.

As for my own ideas I would never begin to express them it to someone as unperceptive as you.a reply to: thethinkingman

originally posted by: Astyanax
Who said anything about people? The entire living world is a hell of pain, violence, disease and misery.

Turn off the news and take a walk in your neighborhood, things aren't too bad.

a reply to: cooperton

I suppose that's the closest to an admission of defeat your pride will allow you to come. No problem; it'll do.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: cooperton

people's actions that warrant either benefit or detriment. With order comes law, and with law comes justice.

Who said anything about people? The entire living world is a hell of pain, violence, disease and misery.

And then, ya die!

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: whereislogic
...
You dont seem to want to touch, watching how dna will make a life form atom by atom. You can go watch things give birth and develop, you can see it happen. Would you like to explain how thats happening infront of your eyes without any designer involved?

You seem to want to assume there was no designer involved in setting up this automated process that depends on a sophisticated set-up of machinery and a DNA code that instructs that machinery to make more machines, and which specific types of cells to build in the right quantities. Which makes no sense cause all this is evidence for an engineer having been involved in setting up such a sophisticated automated system, using a level of technology that is far more advanced than our own. If engineering or creating such an automated system of machinery is one of the "things" you mean that "atoms CAN do" without an engineer, when you said:

How come all the stuff thats happening does all this stuff with energy? The atoms CAN do all these things without a "designer".

Then I'd like to see some evidence why you believe that. Other than vaguely implying that atoms+energy were the cause for the emergence of both the machinery and code that instructs that machinery that makes up this automated system. We've already discussed what uncontrolled energy does to machines in nature. But let's do it again:

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down. * Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building. * Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

Physical laws do not dictate atoms and molecules towards the opposite direction (turning disorder into order, such as atoms into machines), as you seem to believe if you think atoms + uncontrolled energy will magically turn into such a sophisticated information processing system of highly advanced machinery, if you give it enough time and chance events.

originally posted by: thethinkingman
a reply to: whereislogic

Explain why if a brick lands on your head and smashes it, you're brain dead?

Really? You want me to explain that to you or you want to bring that up as an argument against the conclusion (by induction*) that the human brain is a product of engineering? Cause if it's the latter, I have a question:

If I smash my computer to bits and point out that's it's no longer working, is that an argument against the conclusion that my computer was a product of engineering?

*: Here's how inductive reasoning works and applies to figuring out the truth of a matter, or discovering it:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

It is an "established fact" that machinery is a product of engineering.

Where did Randy go?
2nd line

Sydney Brenner - Virus assembly (124/236)

He's describing some of the history of the research into uncovering viral assembly.

www.youtube.com...

self assembling virus

A very simplified take on viral self assembly

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Violater1
Where did Randy go?
2nd line

God took him.

originally posted by: Randyvine2

...considering the infinite amount of chance.

The amount of chance is evidence for evolution. Considering the large amount of random mutations that are constantly happening, every so often by chance there is a mutation that is beneficial to an organism in it's particular environment.

If that mutation is passed along to its children and it is beneficial to them as well, then the mutation might stay in the gene pool. If the mutation does not provide a benefit, then it will eventually fade from the gene pool.