Richard Dawkins Origins Symposium Part 1/5

[JungleJargon]

Mutations do not order anything.

The best have fallen throughout history and the genome still makes a selection with variation without the "help" from mutations.

Give credit to the design and the Designer of all of the functions that require a Maker.

Evolution is a false belief.

The Bible got it right talking about life forms reproducing after each kind.

watch?v=HoKVVYJ8KJM

[shea333]

@JungleJargon Unless you have extraordinay evidence for what you are saying keep your opinions to yourself.

[JungleJargon]

@shea333 The ordered function of hydrogen and most of the most common elements in life forms is evidence of a Maker.

Objects making you what you are is illogical and irrational.

Ordered functions requiring a maker is logical and rational.

[shea333]

@JungleJargon Ok all of would be fantastic if you could show that those things were pieces of evidence for a creator. Like most creationists, if they can not find the answer to something they tend to give it to god. Just because we do not know how everything started exactly does not mean there has to be a creator.

[JungleJargon]

@shea333 We do know that ordered functions and the working parts always require a maker.

[shea333]

@JungleJargon Do we know that? If so how do we know that? I bet I can guess your source. The same source that claims the sun revolves around the earth. As far as science goes, it is completely false to say that we know that order and function requires a maker.

[JungleJargon]

@shea333 We know that because working parts that work when ordered require a maker. Are you prepared to show how working parts can make and order themselves?

Prove your belief that objects made you what you are. That is not logical or rational.

Saying that we have a Maker of all of the working parts that work as ordered inside of us is rational, reasonable and logical.

[TGAPOO]

There is at least one group making money from Darwinian principles. Computer Scientists. Evolutionary Algorithms(EA) (or evolutionary programming(EP)) allows us to design and solve all sorts of problems that are largely un calculatable.

For instance: EA has been used to engineer two vastly improved tools. One is a radio receiver (search nasa antenna to find a picture, its the twisty one the size of a nickel). The other is a plausible space elevator (no pic, sorry).

[Muthsera80]

What? The origins of live could have come from Abiogenesis according to University of Manchester experiment published this month of May.

[nordhorny]

@Muthsera80 "What? The origins of live could have come from Abiogenesis according to University of Manchester experiment published this month of May."

- what a monumentally silly comment !

What that comment demonstrates is your personal ignorance of what abiogenesis is, and what eveolution is. Abiogenesis is the name FOR the study of the origin of life ! It is not a theory OF the origin of life !

Evolution explains (and is the process) of how that life diverged into many forms !

[Muthsera80]

@nordhorny

Erm.. I think your taking down strawmen here. Never did I mention evolution. Nor have I used OF or FOR "life" in such a setting. But I now see that my sentence was badly structured. Rather it should have said "UoM in a published experiment that came out this month." I must have been tired. :/

I was merely commenting on Dawkins not having a good explanation where life could have started.

[nordhorny]

@Muthsera80 Now it is my turn to say What ?

What you just replied with makes no sense here at all ! It appears you have no grasp of why I responded to your original comment...not one iota !

I sense an explanation coming on due to you not following all this...

[Muthsera80]

@nordhorny

Lets try to look at the statements then.

I never said anything about evolution. Why do you then assume I have confused Abiogenesis and Evolution? Could you kindly point to where my "personal ignorance of what abiogenesis is, and what evolution is." then?

[nordhorny]

@Muthsera80 PART 1 I inferred from your inept comment that you had no understanding of what evolution is, this inference arose from what you stated about abiogenesis - a comment that demonstrated ignorance. I think any person reading what you said would find it difficult to accept that such a demonstration of ignorance about one basic principle would 'not' suggest the same for another (and related) principle). On that basis, I complimented my response by pointing out the 2 principles in turn.

[Muthsera80]

@nordhorny

1. It was not meant to show a complete argument for the understanding of Abiogenesis. It was there merely to give an example of how life could have originated. The reason I did that, was because Dawkins in this video couldn't think abiogenesis was conclusive yet. I disagree, I think it is. The steps and mechanics to get rna is there. We know how a membrane can manifest itself from nothing. We know how this membrane can retain and accumulate information. And from there we just need T

[nordhorny]

@Muthsera80 You are still not grasping what is wrong with what you said ! I'm off to bed now...I will pcik this up tomorrow and show you why you have been so ignorant...

[Muthsera80]

@nordhorny

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the contradiction here.

You really do have to spell it out for me.

[nordhorny]

@Muthsera80 PART 2

Now I can perhaps accept that you did have a grasp for the principle of evolution, this leaves the original comment to be talked over...

[Muthsera80]

@nordhorny

"that begins spontaneously"

The right words here would be "from natural processes."