We can always rely on Dan for sophistry.

Firstly, he criticises me for providing a quotation and link from Wikipedia to support my contention that when "Intelligent Design" is being discussed, the term does not refer to such human activities as selective breeding of pets or genetic modification of other organisms. He seems to have missed the fact that I was returning vanna et al's favour of a Wikipedia link in his post to which I was responding, not to mention my suggestion that vanna et al read the many references linked to by the Wikipedia article.

I certainly don't regard Wikipedia as "gospel" or "authoritative", but it's a good place for the ignorant to begin to explore a topic, which in this case seems entirely appropriate.

Dan claims not to know the provenance of the quotation I provided. I thought it was pretty clear that it's straight from Wikipedia, since I provided the URL immediately after it.

Pericles may be in awe of Dan's sophisticated debating techniques, but I regard them as quite typical of the disingenuous sophistry deployed by godbotherers.

Dan,

I’m not playing with a two headed coin, the issue comes back to the definition of science again. Supposing there were three theories of why the dinosaurs died out

1) a giant meteor hit the earth,
2) there was abrupt climate change caused by volcanic activity, and
3) God must have done it because he protects the earth from giant meteors.

The first two are candidates for scientific theories, the third is not. It is not testable. If it turns out that a giant meteor actually hit the earth, theory 3 is disproven. If it turns out there was no meteor impact, theory 1 is disproven and theory 2 might hold a bit more credibility, but theory 3 is still not science. Hence, if it was certain that there had been no meteor, I believe the overwhelming majority of scientists would choose option 2 over option 3 as the next best explanation. That’s why I said that, even if Darwinian evolutionary theory were to be disproved, this would not mean that ID is vindicated.

However, like the meteor, evidence for evolution does discredit ID, which is why I said that ID is scientifically untenable. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and ID arguments such as irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong.

I see important distinctions between the theologies of e.g. Polkinghorne and ID, the most important being that
1) Poklkinghorne doesn’t deny evolution or any other accepted scientific explanations of the natural world;
2) his understanding of god’s activity in creation is not physical/supernatural but metaphysical/natural, and
3) his account of god's engagement in creation is theology not a scientific theory.

Evolution and the anthropic principle are not mutually incompatible. Evolution and ID are.

Still dodging my questions, Vanna? No matter, we’ll press on. I wouldn’t dream of holding you to providing me with any answers. The last time I held Dan to something, he stomped his feet like a child and said he was never going to play with me again.

<<I’m not threatening you. You seem to get scared very easily.>>

Whether or not you were actually threatening me was a side issue. The words you used and the way in which you used them were specifically threatening.

<<I’m just giving you some kindly advice. If you directly call someone “ignorant” outside of an online forum...>>

The important thing to remember here is that your ignorance is demonstrable. I wouldn’t dream is throwing around unfounded accusations. In fact, I don’t even have to do anything, you do it for me.

Observe...

<<Its all got to do with genetic mutations, although they do have to be very good genetic mutations.>>

It’s nice to know you been absorbing what I’m, saying*

<<I promise I’ll never doubt the theory of evolution every again.>>

Why? That’s the best way to learn. That’s how I learned when I was a creationist. Unfortunately what you’re doing though doesn’t constitute “doubt”. It’s blind, willful ignorance probably due to childhood indoctrination.

<<You say that cells are “ made of materials that can replicate themselves.”. I guess your thinking of DNA, although you seem reluctant to mention it.>>

Yes, DNA formed from RNA, formed from polynucleotides, formed from nucleotides, formed from the bonding effect that ribose and phosphate groups have on the four nucleobases adenine, cytosine, thymine, guanine. Lipids eventually formed a protective shell around the DNA to create the first primitive cell.

That’s a very abbreviated version. If you want to point out ‘gaps’ or ‘problems’ with this, then go ahead, it won’t mean much considering the theory is still in it’s infancy, and it’s certainly better than doing what appear to prefer - throwing our hands in the air, giving up and simply declaring that a god musta’ dun it.

Continued...

...Continued

Are you starting to see now what I mean by “ignorance”? Here are some more examples...

<<So how did cells discover DNA?>>

Cells discover DNA? DNA would have existed long before complete cells did.

<<And what did cells do before they discover DNA.?>>

They sat around playing poker.*

But wait. It gets worse...

<<And how could cells carry out a genetic mutations before they discovered DNA?>>

Oh dear.

I think we’d better stop there. But if you want to know these things, then why don’t you do what I did and look them up?

<<I guess I’ll have to wait for someone who doesn’t mindlessly follow the theory of evolution to answer such questions.>>

I’m answering your questions. You’re not listening.

Actually, one question... Since you’ve mentioned the scientific method several times now, what are your thoughts on the fact that creation “scientists” never adhere to the scientific method as opposed to evolutionary biologists, who adhere to it perfectly?

*Denotes sarcasm.

runner and OUG,

Please tell davidf that you believe the earth is over 65 million years old and prove me wrong.

Were bears an dogs separate creations? Were whales and hippopotami separate creations? Or did thes creatues evolve from a common ancestor?

Davidf,

I correctly specified that multicelluar organisms sit on the Eucarya path cited. It was an aside, because the path leads to us. I was clearly discussing RNA diversity between the three paths and earlier hypothesised primitive RNA-like replicators. Equally, a journalist could describe the 200 passangers and 30 crew on an aircraft and not mention the four dogs and two cats in the Hold.

De Novo creation of life: Feinberg and Shapiro (1980).

There are several references in the Bible that point to a flat earth. Some Christians take the Bible literally.

Do you believe you are a Great Ape or something special that a God conjured up? Or, both? I will tick the first box eek, eek.

Vanna and davidf,

What physical constituent of the human body cannot be broken down to known elements. Where is the error in the link-model. I provided and Vanna has not responded to?

oliver..<<..difinive proof of Jesus' first sentence?>>lol...what was dorkins..or darwins first words,..or yours...lol..great redirection/as allways

Can't produce it? Hmm..you cant recall even your own first sequence...lol..how droll

from your link<<We report the design,synthesis,and assembly of the 1.08-Mbp..Mycoplasma mycoides/JCVI-syn1.0..genome>>yet at two oclock this morning bbc..claimed...it was new life..when all that..preceeding goggildy/doo...was about making dna/sequencing...

that was inserted..into a living..god created cell..
[that lived..before inserting/their/new dna...and lived after]..
thus not life from 4 chemicals...as was reported..on bbc

continue quote..<<starting from digitized genome sequence...>>get it/dna...
PLUS A LIVING CELL..<<..information..>>ie/..dna

<<and its transplantation...lol...into a Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cell>>>

get it..<<to create new Mycoplasma mycoides cells...that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome.>>>

only its..an egsajuration...as the cells/working bits..still made the cell/myco-plasma;capri-colum..[a bacteria...]..live

that replicated/..lived..pre inserting the new program...and post...how great is god

<<The only DNA..in the cells
is the designed synthetic DNA sequence,>>.lol...there must be rna/..bits..plus the inherant mitrachondia..present..that they didnt scroop out...

so this too..is distortion

<<including "watermark" sequences/and other designed gene..deletions>>[so deleting bits...and the cell still works...how great god is

<<..and poly-morphisms,..and mutations/..acquired during the building process>>[how many other attempts..the usual is to do thousands...then one works...because..mutations/poly-morpisms..are deliterious..to the bateria surviving.

<<The original cell..was not completely/"synthetic,"..but its DNA was.>>note..the trickey wording..ALL THEY DID..WAS PUT THEIR DNA IN...

not completly synthetic indeed...only their dna was...lol

<<So this..is not quite the ultimate realization..of the project of organic chemistry,..i.e. to create living matter..from completely lifeless matter,..>>>

in fact not even close...first make your/own..cell mem=brain..
till you/can do thus...all else is deception..regardless of how the media spins it

of course virus mutates..[as i previously said/in the other evolution/posted topics...one in 100 cell divisions mutate..[our body contains millions of mutations]

thats why god made dna...in pairs...
half of the chomosopnal pair/often still does the job...

both halves of a dna strand/can/do..supply rna..
[thats what dna does..MAKES..the rna..

rna/that/makes them other bits...that make/life
sustain a cell to life/..to live...minerals and dna..do not life make