Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design

Originally posted by humy

rather than there were trillions and trillions and trillions of random occurrences like we won the lottery trillions and trillions and trillions of times in a row,

Why do you use this same moronic straw man over and over again? Do you think that just by repeating it a million times, it magically will foul us?
[b]Natural selection is NOT ...[text shortened]... ten you do that, will NOT change this fact -have you finally got that into your thick skull now?

I did not say natural selection was random. You are apparently not following my argument, but making up a strawman argument for me so that you can attack it.

You can not have natural selection until there is a mechanism to do the natural selecting and there is something to select from. Also natural selection has never been shown to add new information anyway for it only selects from what is already available. Evilutionists never seem to want to understand what is behind this natural selection mechanism and makes it work as it does. Could it also be something that is encoded in the DNA molecule? If so, then there is no natural selecting until that code is put in place by the intelligent designer.

I am only saying what many scientist have been saying, which is, that randomness is nowhere as good as purposeful planning and design by an intelligent designer and randomness is highly unlikely to produce anything orderly, much less something with the appearance of design.

The instructor

Originally posted by humy

Apparently it is also highly unlikely that the right conditions for life would arise by a chance occurrence.

“ Apparently” in what sense? -according to what evidence? -answer, none. You are just making this up.
And what ARE the right conditions for life to occur? -nobody can rationally know this yet.
And why would a “chance” occurrence ...[text shortened]... less assertions without stating any possible premise. You will have to do much better than that.

We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning. So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it, since we don't have it. The Law of Biogenesis states that life arises from life and never arises from non-life. Therefore, that eliminates life arising from pure chance happenings and there is no such thing as natural selection outside of living things.

So even if this super intellect made the conditions right for life, it is still impossible for life to arise from non-life according to the Law of Biogenesis. The complexity of life also prohibits it from arising by chance. It is pure stupidity to think that it could.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning. So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it, since we don't have it. The Law of Biogenesis states that life arises from life and never arises from non-life. Therefore, that eliminates life arising from pure chance ha ...[text shortened]... bits it from arising by chance. It is pure stupidity to think that it could.

The Instructor

There is one major caveat in your reasoning. If humans really were so smart that we could trivially create life from non-life, there wouldn't be any woefully retarded creationists, and therefore the "Law of Biogenesis" wouldn't be misinterpreted.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is one major caveat in your reasoning. If humans really were so smart that we could trivially create life from non-life, there wouldn't be any woefully retarded creationists, and therefore the "Law of Biogenesis" wouldn't be misinterpreted.

The "Law of Biogenesis" is what it is. Evilutionists are really more deceived than retarded or stupid. However, it is still stupid to think life can arise from non-life by chance.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say natural selection was random. You are apparently not following my argument, but making up a strawman argument for me so that you can attack it.

You can not have natural selection until there is a mechanism to do the natural selecting and there is something to select from. Also natural selection has never been shown to add new information an ...[text shortened]... o produce anything orderly, much less something with the appearance of design.

The instructor

Instead of choosing to remain willfully ignorant on this topic, why don't you actually read the book i suggested? I mean, you did actually ask for a book and i recommended one for you. Perhaps if you could be bothered to read up on the subject you wouldn't post such, quite frankly, ill informed drivel such as the post above so often.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Instead of choosing to remain willfully ignorant on this topic, why don't you actually read the book i suggested? I mean, you did actually ask for a book and i recommended one for you. Perhaps if you could be bothered to read up on the subject you wouldn't post such, quite frankly, ill informed drivel such as the post above so often.

I am not willfully ignorant on this topic. I probably know more about Intelligent design than you do. And what is so ill informed about my drivel?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
And what is so ill informed about my drivel?

😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not willfully ignorant on this topic. I probably know more about Intelligent design than you do. And what is so ill informed about my drivel?

The Instructor

Intelligent design, give over will you. You're a Young Earth Creationist Ron trying to legitamise your quite frankly potty ancient Jewish mythology with some kind of fancy science sounding jargon.

Anyhow, i'm not talking about your intelligent design 'knowledge', i'm talking about your (virtually non-existent) knowledge of evolution by natural selection. This is simply pure drivel -

Evilutionists never seem to want to understand what is behind this natural selection mechanism and makes it work as it does. Could it also be something that is encoded in the DNA molecule? If so, then there is no natural selecting until that code is put in place by the intelligent designer.

WTF???????

And this -

Also natural selection has never been shown to add new information anyway for it only selects from what is already available.

is quite simply false. Look up Lenski ecoli experiment.

Now get with the program and read that book i recommended, ignorance is no good to anyone.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say natural selection was random. You are apparently not following my argument, but making up a strawman argument for me so that you can attack it.

You can not have natural selection until there is a mechanism to do the natural selecting and there is something to select from. Also natural selection has never been shown to add new information an ...[text shortened]... o produce anything orderly, much less something with the appearance of design.

The instructor

I did not say natural selection was random.

By making out evolution is purely random like you have been doing, you clearly are.
Natural selection is an essential and inseparable part of evolution. Therefore, saying that evolution is purely random logically implies that natural selection is also purely random -which it isn’t!

The rest of your post is bunk partly because of this and partly because you then repeat the same stupid straw man with “randomness is highly unlikely to produce anything orderly”.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning. So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it, since we don't have it. The Law of Biogenesis states that life arises from life and never arises from non-life. Therefore, that eliminates life arising from pure chance ha ...[text shortened]... bits it from arising by chance. It is pure stupidity to think that it could.

The Instructor

We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning.

so far. That doesn't mean we never will in the lab.

So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it,

that's a stupid inference -your conclusion does NOT logically follow from your premise.
We have been unable to make a full-scale hurricane in the lab -so “ apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it”?

Therefore, that eliminates life arising from pure chance happenings and

I repeat my questions: how do you KNOW that, given the right conditions for life arising, a chance occurrence is needed as opposed to it being an inevitable process?
-answer, you don't. If you deny this, then just TELL US how you know this!..........

So even if this super intellect made the conditions right for life, it is still impossible for life to arise from non-life according to the Law of Biogenesis.

silly man. The “law of Biogenesis” obviously doesn't hold true for the formation of the first life.

The complexity of life also prohibits it from arising by chance.

How do you know that the first life was 'complex'? None of us are suggesting it was.

It is pure stupidity to think that it could.

straw man; nobody here is saying 'complex' life arises spontaneously from none-life because first very simple protocells spontaneously formed (and we know this because such protocell-like structures have been observed to spontaneously form in the lab that simulate early Earth) and only then complex life evolved via evolution from those very simple protocells.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There is one major caveat in your reasoning. If humans really were so smart that we could trivially create life from non-life, there wouldn't be any woefully retarded creationists, and therefore the "Law of Biogenesis" wouldn't be misinterpreted.

Wow, you are really blind here.

But hey, when it comes to one's basic assumptions about reality, we are often blind to reality and our perception of reality.

Originally posted by humy

We are unable to make the right conditions for life to arise even with all our knowledge and planning.

so far. That doesn't mean we never will in the lab.

[b]So apparently it takes a super intellect with enough knowledge and power to do it,

that's a stupid inference -your conclusion does NOT logically follow fr rth) and only then complex life evolved via evolution from those very simple protocells.[/b]

Evilutionists do not want anything presented in science classes in school that cast doubt on their fairy tale theory of evilution, so they seek ways to censor such information from being presented in school. The simplest way is to cry "religious belief" and separation of church and state and of course no one wants to appear to be imposing their religious beliefs on others.

It has been discovered that there is no such thing as simple life for it is all too complex to appear out of thin air on its own. There is no exception stated for the Law of Biogenesis. There is no life that comes from non-life, so even the first life on Earth could not have come from non-life. All life MUST come from other life without exception.

This spontaneous generation idea has been discredited long ago. It doesn't happen and is only an illusion that trick weak minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evilutionists do not want anything presented in science classes in school that cast doubt on their fairy tale theory of evilution, so they seek ways to censor such information from being presented in school. The simplest way is to cry "religious belief" and separation of church and state and of course no one wants to appear to be imposing their religious be at trick weak minds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

The Instructor

Evolutionists do not want anything presented in science classes in school that cast doubt on their fairy tale theory of evolution,

Firstly, this is changing the subject completely for I said nothing about science classes and this is just a way to avoid answering my questions which you have still yet to answer.

Secondly, there is nothing that casts rational doubt on the fact of evolution. Creationism is not science.

so they seek ways to censor such information from being presented in school.

So it is 'censorship' to only allow science in science classes and we should therefore allow religion in the science classes?
Perhaps you think we should also force the Bible and pray to be in the science classes but, sorry, we don't want your religion in our science thank you.

and of course no one wants to appear to be imposing their religious beliefs on others.

-and yet that is exactly what creationists like you want.

It has been discovered that there is no such thing as simple life

What the hell are you talking about now? Exactly when (please specify exactly what day) where how and by who (please specify the persons name) was this 'discovery' that there is no such thing as 'simple' life.....

for it is all too complex to appear out of thin air on its own.

Straw man; nobody is saying this.

There is no exception stated for the Law of Biogenesis. … There is no life that comes from non-life, …. All life MUST come from other life without exception.

I don't know why you think it helps to say the same falsehood three times in three different ways.
HOW do you know this? Please explain..... why do you never say HOW you know this?

This spontaneous generation idea has been discredited long ago.

Now you are deliberately confusing the spontaneous generation with abiogenesis -well done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
“...Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species. ...” (my emphasis)

-thus the two do not equate. The theory of abiogenesis does NOT say life is coming from non-life on a regular bases on Earth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

petty you didn't both read it and comprehend it.

Originally posted by humy

Evolutionists do not want anything presented in science classes in school that cast doubt on their fairy tale theory of evolution,

Firstly, this is changing the subject completely for I said nothing about science classes and this is just a way to avoid answering my questions which you have still yet to answer.

Secondly, there is nothin ...[text shortened]... i/Spontaneous_generation [/quote]
petty you didn't both read it and comprehend it.

Oh, he comprehends quite well. He is simply interested in furthering his sick agenda to kill evolution and force creationism to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution in a science class.

That is ALL he is interested in. All his fake interest in science has that as his ultimate goal.

He is pathologically brainwashed and no amount of argument will change that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Oh, he comprehends quite well. He is simply interested in furthering his sick agenda to kill evolution and force creationism to be taught as if it were a science along side evolution in a science class.

That is ALL he is interested in. All his fake interest in science has that as his ultimate goal.

He is pathologically brainwashed and no amount of argument will change that.

That's both all true and really sad.