thehomer:


They're all linked and I find them all pretty convincing. I'll go with evidence from comparative anatomy and comparative biochemistry.

What evidence of intelligent design creationism do you find most convincing?

The arguments from consciousness and complex specified information. If you explain why you find comparative anatomy and biochemistry convincing I'll explain my position.

thehomer:


How long do you think it takes for aberrations in DNA to manifest in adults?

I can help you think this through but I won't teach you biochemistry on a public forum for free.

You are sounding ignorant. A change in DNA could take years or seconds to affect the body. What really matters is how it is changed. Evolution takes years.


How would your organs still be able to work if all your DNA just ceased to exist? You would be instantaneously be dead on a cellular level.

Sorry but you can't intimidate me with your knowledge of bioligy/chemistry. This is basic science.

thehomer:


Why should I exclude life when it is a natural process? The precursors are already available.

Because life is the natural process in need of an explanation. Either life was created by God or natural processes made it. What's in question here is the plausibility of ABIOTIC natural factors effecting biochemicals
, you haven't demonstrated it.

thehomer:
An off neuron is a dead neuron. A neuron that isn't firing isn't "off", it hasn't acquired enough action potential to fire. They need to contract muscles. They need to be biological for the analogy to even start getting close to working. And you're being unreasonable in comparing nanotechnology to biological organisms in order to arrive at the claim that biological organisms that evolved over millions of years are also designed in a similar way.

By that logic transistors aren't off, since transistors said to be off merely transmit lower currents. The basis of my comparison of human inventions and living systems is that they work on similar principles, I mentioned earlier how brains and computer both process inputs and hearts and pumps both work by differential pressure. Nanotech is comparable to biological organisms in their scale. Genetic engineering feats such as making an artificial chromosome are biological.

thehomer:
This is stupid. You have to explain the world better than evolution does if you want your argument to even be considered. How exactly can you show that a scientific theory is incorrect without having a better theory that does more than that theory does? Note that I said incorrect not incomplete.

You are the stupid one. It is foolish to ask for a better theory in order to debunk a poor theory. Louise Pasteur didn't have to present a better theory before debunking spontaneous generation.

thehomer:
Do you really have any suggestion of just how big the universe is because that would let you know of just how ridiculous your talk about "one other planet would be good" actually is. It's amazing that you hold on to myths and superstition and think that they better explain the world than actual reason and logic.

The universe being infinite doesn't help your position. One can play that game of "we'll find extra-terrestial life in the future" perpetually. The rational position would be to be skeptical of claims that alien life must exist, the rational position is that there isn't any evidence showing that vastly different environments in other planets can effect life.

thehomer:
You still don't see the flaw of your argument. Again man designing such entities can only lead to the conclusion that humans were created by other humans or human like entities not a magically unknown being.

Reasons like the universe not being designed, life evolved and continues to evolve, Gods aren't needed for moral reasoning and many others.

It doesn't have to. Humans didn't always exist and any other physical beings would require an explanation for their existence given their contingent nature. Insofar as we know from humans that intellectual effort is crucial to design, and know that whatever effected life must be non-contingent, the inference to God is justified. That said, ID theory actually allows that aliens could have created life. I don't believe that and I think it only shifts the problem back.

If the universe not being designed is your 'philosophical reason' you are showing that your bias clouds your judgement of the facts I've stated and the arguments presented. Your other reasons are disputable but I won't deal with them now. But this fact is more important and is worth repeating you couldn't present evidence for your own position that life arose naturally.

thehomer:


That isn't "circular logic", that is the actual answer. I'm presenting you with factual information. What exactly is the point you're trying to make? How does the fact that humans use L-isomers mean that God did it? Why didn't God make humans use both L-isomers and D-isomers?

You typically revel in your ignorance. Saying humans use L-isomers (that make up proteins) is because the proteins use L-isomers is clearly circular reasoning.

thehomer:


That isn't "circular logic", that is the actual answer. I'm presenting you with factual information. What exactly is the point you're trying to make? How does the fact that humans use L-isomers mean that God did it? Why didn't God make humans use both L-isomers and D-isomers?

You typically revel in your ignorance. Saying humans use L-isomers (that make up proteins) is because the proteins use L-isomers is clearly circular reasoning.

thehomer:


Look stop trying to rescue a failed assertion. If a human cannot literally be a DNA molecule, how can humans quite literally be their DNA?

Because 'quite literally' means they aren't literally the same but are only literally similar to an extent.

thehomer:

That is because they are literally the same. That is why I've said over and over again that you are not literally your DNA.

They aren't. The president of Nigeria is a position of authority. General Buhari is a person. Is your case so bad that you need to be taught grammar ?!

thehomer:

The environment determines how the DNA will manifest itself. The environment is the basis on which an organism's DNA responds.

Only to a very limited extent. That is why putting two different species in the same environment won't make them the same since their DNA is different.

thehomer:

I didn't say it would completely erase an organisms DNA, I said it is one line of evidence that can help us know what would happen if all our DNA suddenly disappeared. Waterbears aren't humans are they?

Well if our DNA disappeared we would die for certain.

UyiIredia:


You agree there's a deist God ! Aren't you an atheist ?

I said you can open another thread where I agree that there is a deist God but that still doesn't lead to your Christian God.

UyiIredia:


The arguments from consciousness and complex specified information. If you explain why you find comparative anatomy and biochemistry convincing I'll explain my position.

In anatomy, there are vestigial structures which would be pointless if the organisms were intelligently designed. Then there's the fact of homologous structures in embryonic and adult organisms.

In biochemistry, we have the fact that certain protein structures are remarkably conserved across life forms.

Now, please explain your position.

AllNaijaBlogger:



You are sounding ignorant. A change in DNA could take years or seconds to affect the body. What really matters is how it is changed. Evolution takes years.

You are actually ignorant. The change in DNA that occurs e.g in chemotherapy and radiotherapy doesn't kill you within seconds.

AllNaijaBlogger:

How would your organs still be able to work if all your DNA just ceased to exist? You would be instantaneously be dead on a cellular level.

Cellular death is a process. It doesn't happen instantaneously.

AllNaijaBlogger:

Sorry but you can't intimidate me with your knowledge of bioligy/chemistry. This is basic science.

I don't want to intimidate you. I want you to actually think through concepts that may be new to you.

UyiIredia:


Because life is the natural process in need of an explanation. Either life was created by God or natural processes made it. What's in question here is the plausibility of ABIOTIC natural factors effecting biochemicals
, you haven't demonstrated it.

I don't know the exact steps but that still doesn't mean your God did it. You do realize that you don't have the exact steps that your God used to create life and the plausibility of your God doing this is even less.

UyiIredia:

By that logic transistors aren't off, since transistors said to be off merely transmit lower currents. The basis of my comparison of human inventions and living systems is that they work on similar principles, I mentioned earlier how brains and computer both process inputs and hearts and pumps both work by differential pressure. Nanotech is comparable to biological organisms in their scale. Genetic engineering feats such as making an artificial chromosome are biological.

No, transistors that are said to be off aren't transmitting current unless they're special transistors for that particular reason. The basis of your comparison is an abstraction not the actual physical structures involved. Hearts work by contracting muscles but pumps don't work that way. Did the results of genetic engineering arise by evolution?

UyiIredia:

You are the stupid one. It is foolish to ask for a better theory in order to debunk a poor theory. Louise Pasteur didn't have to present a better theory before debunking spontaneous generation.

You must be a fool. He was working based on his theory that there were germs which caused things to grow rather than spontaneous generation. You've brought in Pasteur and an experiment. Do you have experimental evidence supporting your stupid views?

UyiIredia:

The universe being infinite doesn't help your position. One can play that game of "we'll find extra-terrestial life in the future" perpetually. The rational position would be to be skeptical of claims that alien life must exist, the rational position is that there isn't any evidence showing that vastly different environments in other planets can effect life.

I didn't say it was infinite. I was pointing out the fact that you made a stupid request.

UyiIredia:

It doesn't have to. Humans didn't always exist and any other physical beings would require an explanation for their existence given their contingent nature. Insofar as we know from humans that intellectual effort is crucial to design, and know that whatever effected life must be non-contingent, the inference to God is justified. That said, ID theory actually allows that aliens could have created life. I don't believe that and I think it only shifts the problem back.

The theory of evolution shows that intellectual effort isn't needed.
You still don't know what conclusions you're justified in drawing from what you've said. What you're saying is that all design we know is from humans (though I've told time and again that evolution shows otherwise), therefore humans were made by God. A non-physical entity. You first have to show that there is such an entity as this God and that it can actually do something in this universe for it to even start being considered. You've not done that.

UyiIredia:

If the universe not being designed is your 'philosophical reason' you are showing that your bias clouds your judgement of the facts I've stated and the arguments presented. Your other reasons are disputable but I won't deal with them now. But this fact is more important and is worth repeating you couldn't present evidence for your own position that life arose naturally.

That is a philosophical reason. That fact helps me see the problems with what you've been saying. The facts you've stated tend to be irrelevant, useless or just wrong.
I don't know the exact steps for how life arose naturally. Do you have evidence for your position that life arose supernaturally? Do you have the exact steps for how life arose supernaturally?

UyiIredia:


You typically revel in your ignorance. Saying humans use L-isomers (that make up proteins) is because the proteins use L-isomers is clearly circular reasoning.

You ignorant buffoon, that is the fact of the matter. I'm not making a philosophical argument there, I'm telling you the fact of the matter.

thehomer:


You are actually ignorant. The change in DNA that occurs e.g in chemotherapy and radiotherapy doesn't kill you within seconds.

This is a serious strawman. I never said that chemotherapy and radiotherapy will kill you in seconds. What I argued for was death within seconds through the thorough removal of all of one's DNA. Two very different things.

Who's ignorant now?

thehomer:

Cellular death is a process. It doesn't happen instantaneously.



I don't want to intimidate you. I want you to actually think through concepts that may be new to you.

Really? If all your red blood cells exploded right now, you would still be alive in the next 10 seconds?

You havent given the concept good thought. Your DNA is literally you. While it is not 100% you. I would put it at least 75% you. What is an animal without DNA?

UyiIredia:


Because 'quite literally' means they aren't literally the same but are only literally similar to an extent.

Oh your God. What is wrong with you people? "Quite literally" means not literally but only literally? I think it is too early. I guess quite fast means not fast but only fast.

UyiIredia:

They aren't. The president of Nigeria is a position of authority. General Buhari is a person. Is your case so bad that you need to be taught grammar ?!

Are you going insane? Go back and read your response. You agree that the current president of Nigeria and General Buhari are equal in their power now you're saying the president is a position of authority? You're no longer making a serious argument.

UyiIredia:

Only to a very limited extent. That is why putting two different species in the same environment won't make them the same since their DNA is different.


Well if our DNA disappeared we would die for certain.

Did I say we won't?

thehomer:


Oh your God. What is wrong with you people? "Quite literally" means not literally but only literally? I think it is too early. I guess quite fast means not fast but only fast.

. . . only literally to an extent. So also fast is not fast but only fast to an extent.

thehomer:
Are you going insane? Go back and read your response. You agree that the current president of Nigeria and General Buhari are equal in their power now you're saying the president is a position of authority? You're no longer making a serious argument.

I agreed that since Buhari is the president he can do what the president can. However, General Buhari and the president of Nigeria are 2 different things.

thehomer:


I don't know the exact steps but that still doesn't mean your God did it. You do realize that you don't have the exact steps that your God used to create life and the plausibility of your God doing this is even less.

I'm not asking for exact steps. Simply evidence that natural processes effect biochemicals.

thehomer:

No, transistors that are said to be off aren't transmitting current unless they're special transistors for that particular reason. The basis of your comparison is an abstraction not the actual physical structures involved. Hearts work by contracting muscles but pumps don't work that way. Did the results of genetic engineering arise by evolution?

Actually, transistors can transmit lesser currents while off. This is a well-established fact. By your statements, you show a lack of willingness to accept the fact living systems and human designs are similar in scale, function and application of principles not to mention your constant ignorance of genetic engineering feats which are biological in nature and clearly involve intelligent effort.

thehomer:

You must be a fool. He was working based on his theory that there were germs which caused things to grow rather than spontaneous generation. You've brought in Pasteur and an experiment. Do you have experimental evidence supporting your stupid views?

Nevertheless, a theory must be evaluated on its own merits, and so, it is completely foolish to say that I must present a better theory to debunk evolution.

thehomer:

I didn't say it was infinite. I was pointing out the fact that you made a stupid request.



The theory of evolution shows that intellectual effort isn't needed.
You still don't know what conclusions you're justified in drawing from what you've said. What you're saying is that all design we know is from humans (though I've told time and again that evolution shows otherwise), therefore humans were made by God. A non-physical entity. You first have to show that there is such an entity as this God and that it can actually do something in this universe for it to even start being considered. You've not done that.

When it comes right down to it, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever showing that natural processes can synthesize and or organize biochemicals into living systems. The problem in question is the origin of life, so stating evolution doesn't help your case, in fact, if one can't account for how life arose naturally it is ridiculous to claim it evolved naturally.

thehomer:

That is a philosophical reason. That fact helps me see the problems with what you've been saying. The facts you've stated tend to be irrelevant, useless or just wrong.

I don't know the exact steps for how life arose naturally. Do you have evidence for your position that life arose supernaturally? Do you have the exact steps for how life arose supernaturally?

@ bold: They only seem so because your judgement is poor.

I didn't ask for exact steps, I made it easier by asking for a natural process, that in principle, could have synthesized and organized life. One can't know the details of how life was created, such would be speculative, but there is a basis to infer life was created. If you won't accept the simple fact that there are similarities between human designs and living things, it's no wonder you won't see the inference to design.

thehomer:


In anatomy, there are vestigial structures which would be pointless if the organisms were intelligently designed. Then there's the fact of homologous structures in embryonic and adult organisms.

In biochemistry, we have the fact that certain protein structures are remarkably conserved across life forms.

Now, please explain your position.

As I've stated before on an old thread, vestigiality is an argument from ignorance. Over time functions have been found for vestigial structures. Also, it simply presumes evolution. The same applies to your other arguments.

What's the basis for the belief that structures in living things, homologs in embryos and adults and protein conservation support evolution ?

That said, I'll explain my position.

Consciousness is immaterial. It is not neural activities in the brain, it is an immaterial effect resulting from it. Chemical reactions as a matter of principle are limited to chemical products and a use/release of energy. Within brains, there is an exception to this since consciousness is a by-product. If you agree with what I've stated so far I'll proceed, if not, we need to sort things out.

Complex specified information refers to patterns that are complex in that they aren't easily predicted, and specified since one can point out their function. Intelligence is key to producing such patterns as seen in human languages and digital codes, hence the inference to design.

AllNaijaBlogger:


This is a serious strawman. I never said that chemotherapy and radiotherapy will kill you in seconds. What I argued for was death within seconds through the thorough removal of all of one's DNA. Two very different things.

Who's ignorant now?

You're still the one who is ignorant.

Why should death occur within a few seconds? Do you know what DNA actually does in cells?

AllNaijaBlogger:

Really? If all your red blood cells exploded right now, you would still be alive in the next 10 seconds?

Huh? Why should they explode? As I said, cellular death is a process. Look up apoptosis.

AllNaijaBlogger:

You havent given the concept good thought. Your DNA is literally you. While it is not 100% you. I would put it at least 75% you. What is an animal without DNA?

You don't seem to understand how to use the word "literally". You need to figure that out first.

UyiIredia:


. . . only literally to an extent. So also fast is not fast but only fast to an extent.

Still saying rubbish.

UyiIredia:

I agreed that since Buhari is the president he can do what the president can. However, General Buhari and the president of Nigeria are 2 different things.

Who is the current president of Nigeria?

UyiIredia:


I'm not asking for exact steps. Simply evidence that natural processes effect biochemicals.

The fact that the precursors are available.

UyiIredia:

Actually, transistors can transmit lesser currents while off. This is a well-established fact. By your statements, you show a lack of willingness to accept the fact living systems and human designs are similar in scale, function and application of principles not to mention your constant ignorance of genetic engineering feats which are biological in nature and clearly involve intelligent effort.

More nonsense. I won't accept your ridiculous claims because they're ridiculous. Look for a better argument or a better analogy.

UyiIredia:

Nevertheless, a theory must be evaluated on its own merits, and so, it is completely foolish to say that I must present a better theory to debunk evolution.

It is foolish to say that you overturn an actual scientific theory without having a better theory.

UyiIredia:

When it comes right down to it, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever showing that natural processes can synthesize and or organize biochemicals into living systems. The problem in question is the origin of life, so stating evolution doesn't help your case, in fact, if one can't account for how life arose naturally it is ridiculous to claim it evolved naturally.

Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. You have failed to present any evidence that your God can and has actually done anything. As I've said before, there are several hypothesis about the natural origin of life. What is the evidence for your God doing anything at all?

UyiIredia:

@ bold: They only seem so because your judgement is poor.

It is actually the case. Your response is because your reasoning is poor.

UyiIredia:

I didn't ask for exact steps, I made it easier by asking for a natural process, that in principle, could have synthesized and organized life. One can't know the details of how life was created, such would be speculative, but there is a basis to infer life was created. If you won't accept the simple fact that there are similarities between human designs and living things, it's no wonder you won't see the inference to design.

Living things appear designed because they evolved. You won't see the fact of evolution because you're tied to your creationism. Natural processes like geothermal energy and carbon fixation? Simply look at the literature about the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

UyiIredia:


As I've stated before on an old thread, vestigiality is an argument from ignorance. Over time functions have been found for vestigial structures. Also, it simply presumes evolution. The same applies to your other arguments.

Vestigial organs refer to something specific in biology. How is it an argument from ignorance? Finding other functions for vestigial organs doesn't mean those organs aren't vesigial.

UyiIredia:

What's the basis for the belief that structures in living things, homologs in embryos and adults and protein conservation support evolution ?

They are similar in structure. Protein conservation implies that certain functions have been consistently transmitted across multiple generations.

UyiIredia:

That said, I'll explain my position.

Consciousness is immaterial. It is not neural activities in the brain, it is an immaterial effect resulting from it. Chemical reactions as a matter of principle are limited to chemical products and a use/release of energy. Within brains, there is an exception to this since consciousness is a by-product. If you agree with what I've stated so far I'll proceed, if not, we need to sort things out.

All you've said here is that consciousness is subjective and that it needs brains. Unless your God has an actual brain, then you've not made an argument for your God.

UyiIredia:

Complex specified information refers to patterns that are complex in that they aren't easily predicted, and specified since one can point out their function. Intelligence is key to producing such patterns as seen in human languages and digital codes, hence the inference to design.

All you've done here is to say that humans exist and can produce patterns. Where is the argument for your God?

thehomer:


You're still the one who is ignorant.

Why should death occur within a few seconds? Do you know what DNA actually does in cells?



Huh? Why should they explode? As I said, cellular death is a process. Look up apoptosis.



You don't seem to understand how to use the word "literally". You need to figure that out first.

I dont have time to waste with you.

You are dishonest and very pretentious.


When did "literally" mean "exactly"? Please go and read a dictionary

How is someone alive when he has no DNA? Removing DNA from a cell wont kill a cell (red blood cells, especially) but removing it from all other cells that have DNA would kill the person. You are assuming that all cells operate like the red blood cells (some of which dont need DNA)

UyiIredia:

Because 'quite literally' means they aren't literally the same but are only literally similar to an extent.

The bolded is the part in Uyi's response that thehomer is just about to conveniently miss in order to help his lie along.

thehomer:

Oh your God. What is wrong with you people? "Quite literally" means not literally but only literally? I think it is too early. I guess quite fast means not fast but only fast.

Actually "quite fast" means "fast to an extent". Why are you so dishonest? Why is it so hard for you to accurately represent what your opponent is saying?

thehomer:

I'll tell you. Fossils show that there were different species living in earlier times and that current species weren't present in those times. The fossils are some samples of the "transitional forms" we've found. How would you explain fossils? You didn't answer that question.

You didn't answer his question. He wanted to know how fossils explain evolution but all your answer shows is that there were once some animals which are now dead. It doesn't explain in any way how the dead animal progressed to currently living ones. Your claim that these fossils are transitional is a baseless one as you haven't actually shown a transition.

KingEbukasBlog:
Because something cant come from nothing

thehomer:
Who says nothing was ever the state of things?

So you admit that something created the universe. Does this thing have physical properties? If so, what properties what are they? . . . .or are you saying that the universe has always existed?

thehomer:

Living things appear designed because they evolved. You won't see the fact of evolution because you're tied to your creationism. Natural processes like geothermal energy and carbon fixation? Simply look at the literature about the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

I see, so you admit that living things actually appear designed (which makes it apparent that living things have a designer). But while we hold that they appear designed because they are designed, you argue that they aren't actually designed rather they evolved (an undirected process) to look as if they were designed.

The burden of proof now lies upon you because you are urging us to reject what is apparent to us (you included) in favour of an explanation that isn't readily obvious. So please explain to us how a purposeless process can create purposeful things.

Please explain to us how a human being and a bacterium for example both evolved. Mind you, your explanation must describe how they evolved (without design) from a non-living thing to a living thing. Showing me a living thing to evolving to another living thing will not count as both already fall within the apparently designed category.

thehomer:


I ran from davidylan? Please sing his praises. Sure he has superior knowledge. If you have the time, you can ask him about our previous encounters of just scroll through our history together. You can resurrect those topics if you like or ask him to resurrect just the ones where he revealed my fear and his superior knowledge.


You've literally made me laugh out loud in my house.

Yet you were the one evading him. Pretending to laugh doesn't hide your fear

thehomer:


Are you this stupid, are you drunk or are you merely pretending to be this dense? I said you would die but it won't be instantaneous. It won't be as rapid as if you've been decapitated you stupid buffoon. The brain doesn't multiply rapidly. Neither do the heart and lungs. The cellular machinery like the ion pumps and cell membrane would still work for a while if all your DNA magically disappeared instantaneously.

Seriously just where and for how long did you study biology? Or did those chemicals permanently damage your brain?

davidylan:


that's virtually impossible. Ion pumps and the cell membrane are proteins that are constantly in flux - how do they work for hours if your DNA vanished? The ion pumps require ATP to function... if you have no DNA, your mitochondria cant function... if mitochondria cant function, you have no ATP... so i ask, outside of passive channels which require no ATP, how does an ion PUMP work? Liposomes are an example of vesicles with bilayer cell membranes - they have no DNA or other cellular organelles to speak off and would be the most relevant example of a cell without DNA. You should note that a liposome has ZERO function other than as a vehicle for drug delivery.

Perhaps you should do a bit more thinking and less wasteful, immature blustering. You've been caught lying and basically have to use bravado to cover.

The bolded most accurately describes thehomer.

We also didn't fail to notice that he had to lace his response with personal insults in a failed attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable.

Dear thehomer, you should know by now that calling someone an idiot does nothing to make your argument valid. Your fear is beginning to show.

thehomer:


You're still the one who is ignorant.

Why should death occur within a few seconds? Do you know what DNA actually does in cells?

Please educate us, what does DNA actually do in cells?

thehomer:

Appetite is a desire to eat. What exactly is your point besides definitions of words?

But it was you who said that hunger is different from appetite yet both are a desire to eat. I want clarity and your contradictions are not helping.

Let me quote you:

thehomer:
Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

thehomer:

Appetite is different from hunger and can sometimes be due to hunger. Looks like you're the one making this confusion in your attempt to be pedantic.

So please can you explain how two things that (according to you) have the same definition are different?

Why exclude hunger pangs? That is an acceptable physical property and should be enough for you to make your point if you have one. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

Now the evasions have begun. Do I also scare you like davidylan does?

Let me remind you what you said in case you have forgotten:

thehomer:
Wrong again. Hunger is the perception that you want to eat. You can feel hungry without the hunger pangs.

Since you claim that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs, then please what are these physical properties of what you are experiencing that inform you it is hunger when the hunger pangs are absent? Or is the hunger you are experiencing non-physical?

And here you reveal the fact that you're unable to actually think things through and it looks like I'll have to make you think things through. Hunger pangs are physical contractions. Contractions have the physical property of changes in length. Unless you're saying hunger pangs aren't a physical property or that length isn't a physical property, then you're simply demonstrating that inability of working through clearly stated propositions.

Yes I am saying that hunger pangs are not a physical property while you on the other hand, claim that they are a physical property and also have a length. So how aren't you saying that physical properties can have physical properties? Or is it that you don't actually understand what you are saying?

Please explain with some examples.

The physical effects of water include dissolving, soaking, diluting etc. A physical property of water is it's boiling point. The physical effect of fire include burning and melting, the physical properties of fire include temperature and colour. One describes what matter does while the other describes how matter is. Do you get the distinction now?

Oh your God. Hunger pangs describe the contractions the stomach undergoes under certain conditions. Unless you don't think the stomach is matter, then you're very confused. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

You seem to be finding it difficult maintaining a consistent strand of thought or maybe you are just trying to shift the goal posts. You never described hunger pangs as the physical properties of the stomach but as the physical properties of hunger. So the question is not whether the stomach is matter but whether hunger is matter. Is hunger matter?

What exactly do you mean by you know you're hungry the same way I know my mind? Can you rephrase that? Also, what is the point of putting (according to me)? Don't you agree that the mind is non-physical? Do you mean that hunger pangs are an effect of the mind not the physical body?

I said I know hunger the same way you know your mind (as they are both non-physical). Do you know your mind exists? How do you know that? Your answer to that question is similar to how I know my hunger exists.

davidylan:


Perhaps you should do a bit more thinking and less wasteful, immature blustering. You've been caught lying and basically have to use bravado to cover.

MrAnony1:



We also didn't fail to notice that he had to lace his response with personal insults in a failed attempt to make himself sound knowledgeable.

Dear thehomer, you should know by now that calling someone an idiot does nothing to make your argument valid. Your fear is beginning to show.

I thought I was the only one who noticed.

thehomer:


The fact that the precursors are available.

Examples of such precursors please.

thehomer:
More nonsense. I won't accept your ridiculous claims because they're ridiculous. Look for a better argument or a better analogy.

In other words, you refuse to consider, much less accept, the facts. Suit yourself.

thehomer:
Abiogenesis is different from the theory of evolution. You have failed to present any evidence that your God can and has actually done anything. As I've said before, there are several hypothesis about the natural origin of life. What is the evidence for your God doing anything at all?

Abiogenesis may be different but it is linked to evolution since both require that life is a result of natural mechanisms. Since they are different, you can't assert life evolved to do away with the design argument as it applies to life's origin.

All hypotheses on abiogenesis are have serious problems which is why several have been discarded, the only popular one which is the RNA world scenario is still a work-in-progress and even at that has flaws and obstacles as stated by both creationists and evolutionists respectively..

thehomer:

Living things appear designed because they evolved. You won't see the fact of evolution because you're tied to your creationism. Natural processes like geothermal energy and carbon fixation? Simply look at the literature about the hypothesis of abiogenesis.

There's nothing about geothermal energy and carbon fixation showing that they can result in life. Evolution assumes living things so using it to explain life's origin is poor reasoning. Not to mention that evolution is outrightly ridiculous. As I've said before abiogenesis is fraught with problems which make it untenable.

thehomer:


Vestigial organs refer to something specific in biology. How is it an argument from ignorance? Finding other functions for vestigial organs doesn't mean those organs aren't vesigial.

It does when such vestigial organs were presumed to have no function whatsoever.

thehomer:
They are similar in structure. Protein conservation implies that certain functions have been consistently transmitted across multiple generations.

I'll rephrase the question just to be sure you got it.

You point to so-called vestigial structures, similar structures in embryos and adults and protein conservation across various lifeforms as evidence for evolution. What's the basis on which you infer evolution from such facts ?

Keep in mind that you are inferring that all lifeforms evolved from a common ancestor from the said facts.

thehomer:
All you've said here is that consciousness is subjective and that it needs brains. Unless your God has an actual brain, then you've not made an argument for your God.

No, that's not all I said. I also said consciousness is immaterial and I said chemistry is constrained to effecting chemical products while using or releasing energy. I stated consciousness contradicts this principle then I asked if you agreed with me. If you do I will move on, if you don't there's no point moving on since that's the premise.

thehomer:
All you've done here is to say that humans exist and can produce patterns. Where is the argument for your God?

The type of patterns is what's in question. I'll try a step-by-step approach.

information: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

Do you agree with this definition of information ?