Yes or no, and the reason why

Originally posted by lemon lime
Something that intentionally reproduces or replicates itself is a huge clue, but it's not necessarily the only clue, or even the most important marker for determining if something is naturally formed or intentionally constructed.

Any archaeologist will tell you that an unearthed clay pot was made by human hands, but no one assumes the clay pot might be ...[text shortened]... happenstance as a result of pursuing a purpose (such as leaving literal footprints in the soil).

Something that intentionally reproduces or replicates itself is a huge clue, but it's not necessarily the only clue,

Who said it was? Obviously, ALL clues should be taken into account and nobody implied that they shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that something being able to do reproduction is a clue that should be ignored nor one that is insignificant.

Actually, if you have been paying attention, you would know that, unlike what you imply above, we were mainly not talking about things reproducing as a possible indicator of NO intelligent creator involved but rather mainly talking about things NOT reproducing as a possible indicator of intelligent creation involved for NOT reproducing would mean mindless Darwinian evolution being ruled out as a possible explanation of how there could be no intelligent creation involved -and then it is just a process of elimination by considering other possible alternative explanations of how there could be NO intelligent creation involved to work out if involvement of intelligent creation involvement is probable.

All your questions have been answered in full by me and others so I don't understand you confusion here.
Did you read my first and second post of this thread? If not, go back and read them and that would answer all your questions to the full. If you have read them, did you understand them? If not, say which parts did you not understand and how so so that I can then explain it to you to clarify and thus remove your confusion. If yes, then why are you still appear confused by apparently talking as if your questions are still unanswered?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Something that intentionally reproduces or replicates itself is a huge clue, but it's not necessarily the only clue, or even the most important marker for determining if something is naturally formed or intentionally constructed.

Any archaeologist will tell you that an unearthed clay pot was made by human hands, but no one assumes the clay pot might be ...[text shortened]... happenstance as a result of pursuing a purpose (such as leaving literal footprints in the soil).

You're trying to make some analogy with biological life. Replication is one of the essential ingredients of evolution. To suggest that it simply doesn't matter tells me you lack a basic understanding of what evolution means. I recommend reading a bit about it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're trying to make some analogy with biological life. Replication is one of the essential ingredients of evolution. To suggest that it simply doesn't matter tells me you lack a basic understanding of what evolution means. I recommend reading a bit about it.

Good luck with that one. They don't read the devil's work.

Originally posted by humy

Yes, or no

Yes. Reason:

Computers cannot reproduce thus cannot evolve to have ever greater complexity via mutation and natural selection from less complex forms of computer. That means, assuming that each computer didn't always exist, the full complexity from each must have either been created by:

1, some kind of intelligence.

...[text shortened]... and comprehensively answered your question and more.
Does this end this debate?
Any questions?

I have above correctly and comprehensively answered your question and more.
Does this end this debate?

No, because first of all it's not a debate, and secondly the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible to weigh in with their reasons. It's not a contest, it's not over yet, and I'm sorry to inform you that when it is over no one will be winning a prize. It may seem like a debate because of my initial participation, but this was only because I understood the need to explain in more detail what this is about.

So now I'm posting this message to encourage you to go back and try to understand what I'm asking for. And for the record, I will accept reproduction or replication as an answer. There are two ways of approaching this, and both approaches are valid. One is to examine form (or structure) and the other is to examine function. Reproduction falls under function, but I'm assuming an observer is not staying in one place for an extended period of time waiting to see signs of reproduction... I am assuming there are other valid ways of making a determination, one way or the other.

If you go back and read my first few posts this should be evident. So far the only one I've seen who has understood my intent and has answered in good faith is GKR. He identified an important marker for recognizing the difference between designs in nature and an intentionally constructed design.

If you want to treat this as a debate or as a joke then fine, but I intend to ignore ad hominens, self validating circular reasoning, the inevitable side trips off the reservation, and trolls looking for something to nibble on.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Good luck with that one. They don't read the devil's work.

If that was intended as an invitation to RJ for you two to continue your ongoing feud, would you please extend this invitation to him from somewhere else?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I have above correctly and comprehensively answered your question and more.
Does this end this debate?

No, because first of all it's not a debate, and secondly the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible to weigh in with their reasons. It's not a contest, it's not over yet, and I'm sorry to inform you that when it is over no ...[text shortened]... g, the inevitable side trips off the reservation, and trolls looking for something to nibble on.[/b]

No, because first of all it's not a debate

Does that mean you were never willing in this thread to listen to any view or reasoning that opposes your own because you say goddidit and that is that! ?

and secondly the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible to weigh in with their reasons.

-which you then opposed. Sounds like you made it into a contest to me!

And for the record, I will accept reproduction or replication as an answer.

Then what's the problem?

OK, just answer these few question:

If something cannot reproduce, do you accept it cannot evolve? Yes or No?
If Yes, then:

Do you accept that something not reproducing means one less explanation of how it could have formed without an intelligent creator? Yes or No?
If Yes, then:

Do you accept that if something doesn't reproduce and if you can by process of elimination reason that all other possible explanations of how something could have formed without an intelligent creator is improbable, this would then give a high probability of involvement of an intelligent creator? Yes or No?
If Yes, then there is the answer to your question i.e.

If you by process of elimination can show via reason and observations all possible explanations of a natural cause for the formation of X not involving an intelligent creator is improbable then conclude an intelligent creator involvement is probable ELSE conclude an intelligent creator involvement is improbable.

This is what I have basically been saying repeatedly and other posters from other people here have implicitly been saying to you throughout this thread.
How does the above NOT answer your question in your OP?

but I'm assuming an observer is not staying in one place for an extended period of time waiting to see signs of reproduction...

But, in reality, we HAVE “ staying in one place for an extended period of time waiting to see signs of reproduction” and seen living things reproduce!
So, GIVEN the fact that we HAVE observed living things reproducing in the ACTUAL REAL world as opposed to any hypothetical world you may propose here, how we can determine whether living things can reproduce is not a contentious issue that throws into question whether living things can evolve by mindless evolution.
So, the issue that you bring up here of how we can determine whether something can reproduce is, not only is something you didn't mention in your OP, but is purely and completely academic here. Obviously that doesn't mean you are not allowed to bring it up; you are obviously free to bring it up if you like, but this would be changing the subject of your OP and be irrelevant to your OP here and also I guess just about irrelevant to anything else of any interest here because it doesn't even relate to our sound ACTUAL determination of how species of living things forming via mindless evolution in the REAL world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Good luck with that one. They don't read the devil's work.

That is painfully obvious.

Originally posted by humy

No, because first of all it's not a debate

Does that mean you were never willing in this thread to listen to any view or reasoning that opposes your own because you say goddidit and that is that! ?

and secondly the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible to weigh in with their reasons.

-which you then ...[text shortened]... determination of how species of living things forming via mindless evolution in the REAL world.

If you want to try changing the parameters of my OP that's fine too, but I will ignore that as well.


By the way, what's up with the I am the great and powerful wizard of OZ tone of your messages? I thought KazetNagorra was supposed to be the wizard and you the wizards apprentice. He stays mostly in the background and says very little, and you pick up on what little he does say and run with it. This isn't the first time I've encountered inflated egos working in tandem, but don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining because it is somewhat entertaining... along with the unecessary confrontation that goes with it. But seriously, it does grow old after awhile.

I'll wait a bit longer to see how this goes...

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you want to try changing the parameters of my OP that's fine too, but I will ignore that as well.


By the way, what's up with the [b]I am the great and powerful wizard of OZ tone of your messages? I thought KazetNagorra was supposed to be the wizard and you the wizards apprentice. He stays mostly in the background and says very little, and you ...[text shortened]... riously, it does grow old after awhile.

I'll wait a bit longer to see how this goes...[/b]

If you want to try changing the parameters of my OP that's fine too, but I will ignore that as well.

I didn't try and change it but merely observe you change it as you got answers you didn't like and chose to move the goal posts. Where did you mention “reproduction” in your OP? It is just an observation that you didn't say ANYTHIG about “reproduction”. We have answered all your questions to the full and you haven's answers mine. I suppose you will “ ignore that as well” just as you already have repeatedly done ? 😛

I repeat:

the answer to your OP is "yes" and:

If you by process of elimination can show via reason and observations all possible explanations of a natural cause for the formation of X not involving an intelligent creator is improbable then conclude an intelligent creator involvement is probable ELSE conclude an intelligent creator involvement is improbable.

How does the above NOT answer your question in your OP?

The rest of your post is gibberish.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, because first of all it's not a debate, and secondly the purpose of this is to get as many people as possible to weigh in with their reasons. .

You ask people to give an opinion and then support that opinion with argument.

And you say it's not a debate?

What is it? ... a beauty contest?

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you want to try changing the parameters of my OP that's fine too, but I will ignore that as well.


By the way, what's up with the [b]I am the great and powerful wizard of OZ tone of your messages? I thought KazetNagorra was supposed to be the wizard and you the wizards apprentice. He stays mostly in the background and says very little, and you ...[text shortened]... riously, it does grow old after awhile.

I'll wait a bit longer to see how this goes...[/b]

I cast my magic wand and use it to post this link:

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

I suggest you browse through it. Note the emphasis on three main factors contributing to biological evolution: replicating DNA, mutations therein and an interaction with the environment (natural selection). Perhaps if you have read and understood it, we can then go on to discuss evolution at more length.

Glad to be of service!

Originally posted by humy

If you want to try changing the parameters of my OP that's fine too, but I will ignore that as well.

I didn't try and change it but merely observe you change it as you got answers you didn't like and chose to move the goal posts. Where did you mention “reproduction” in your OP? It is just an observation that you didn't say ANYTHIG about ...[text shortened]... es the above [b]NOT answer your question in your OP?

The rest of your post is gibberish.[/b]

I've already said, reproduction or replication is acceptable as one of the markers or clues leading to a yes or no determination... so what the h*** have you been going on and on about?

I've read everything you've written, but frankly you are all over the map and then some. You're ignoring much of what I've said and assuming things I haven't even implied, so if you can get a grip over your imagination and not assume this is some rehash of the same old arguments that have undoubtly be churning in and out of these forums for the past 10 years then maybe, just maybe, you will be able to grasp the one simple premise contained not only in the OP but also in the follow up messages that attempt to explain the OP. How the h*** do you imagine to convince anyone of your immense knowledge of science and clear grasp of logic when you go blathering on and on about anything and everything that happens to pass through your mind?

Are you seriously unable to understand this? I could go back and copy and paste the main explanatory points onto an edited version of this message, would that help to refresh your memory or clarify anything for you?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I cast my magic wand and use it to post this link:

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

I suggest you browse through it. Note the emphasis on three main factors contributing to biological evolution: replicating DNA, mutations therein and an interaction with the environment (natural selection). Perhaps if you have read and understood it, we can then go on to discuss evolution at more length.

Glad to be of service!

Uh huh... so you'd rather talk about evolution, and are suggesting I read up on it so we might discuss it. That's cute. Maybe I'll join in sometime at a thread where evolution is the intended topic.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Uh huh... so you'd rather talk about evolution, and are suggesting I read up on it so we might discuss it. That's cute. Maybe I'll join in sometime at a thread where evolution is the intended topic.

Abiogenesis is a much more difficult topic than evolution, both from a theoretical and experimental point of view. I suggest you start by understanding evolution first, which is pretty simple and is supported by overwhelming evidence. This puts abiogenesis in the proper perspective.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I've already said, reproduction or replication is acceptable as one of the markers or clues leading to a yes or no determination... so what the h*** have you been going on and on about?

I've read everything you've written, but frankly you are all over the map and then some. You're ignoring much of what I've said and assuming things I haven't even impli ...[text shortened]... ted version of this message, would that help to refresh your memory or clarify anything for you?

So you say. But you don't convince anyone here.
It is plainly obvious to everyone else here that we have answered your questions but you just don't like the answers (because, unlike what you hoped by starting this thread, the answers don't support your religious belief that God made living things and could not have formed by mindless natural forces -this is clearly your very thinly disguised motive here ) so you pretend they are invalid as answers and we have somehow 'not read' your question in the right way when we have read it correctly and actually understand it perfectly and it is quite frankly very rude of you to pretend the contrary esp as some of us have put some genuine effort and time in carefully answering you question.
You should at least acknowledge other peoples time and effort in answering you question and have just a bit of gratitude for that.

If I was you, I would think about that and then apologize for this and then read our answers again but this time with a more open mind with some humility and just a bit of respect for other people's reasoning even if you don't like where their reasoning leads. After all, I have sometimes been shown to be wrong about something in a thread (albeit not this one ) but admitted it (even sometimes apologizing ) and learned something new and then just moved on, so why can't you?

Would you claim you are always right and everyone that disagrees with you is always wrong?
-because I claim to sometimes be wrong and would not claim to be always right.

I find that even just a tiny bit of humility and respect for others goes a very long way to making these debates much more fruitful else all you will get is a thread degrading into a pointless futile verbal warfare were you both learn absolutely nothing and convince other people of absolutely nothing.