"More and more scientists are starting to believe in intelligent design."

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Did I say it was sufficient? No, I didn't. What I said was is that it at least supports Abiogenesis. OTOH, nothing supports ID/Creation.

There is simply no way these 2 things can be Scientifically stated as equivalent.
It absolutely, in no way supports abiogenesis. It supports that amino acids can be made under those conditions. Any other conclusions are an over-extrapolation of the data presented (though you would certainly not be the first to commit that sin)
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Not at all, what I'm saying is both are equally improbable, and until one demonstrates itself to be better than the other, both should be held in equal esteem.
"Design" is alleged to be a supernatural phenomenon. Supernatural phenomena should never be "held in equal esteem" to scientifically valid hypotheses.

Ergo, Scientists are no better than religious fundamentalists, and the vitriol on both sides should stop.
Disagree. Scientists have practical methods of investigation, whereas religious fundamentalists do not.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Then what begat the first begetter? The great begetter in the sky?
Who knows? Some have modeled it as god, some have modeled it as some benevolent force. It might be the mythical spaghetti monster in the sky. We don't know. You don't know. George Whitesides doesn't know. I've been saying all along, it's mental masturbation because we'll never know, unless god come back like he says in the bible. Otherwise we'll just have to keep on wondering.

So stop fucking pissing and moaning about it so much.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
It absolutely, in no way supports abiogenesis. It supports that amino acids can be made under those conditions. Any other conclusions are an over-extrapolation of the data presented (though you would certainly not be the first to commit that sin)

Except that it does support it. Without it, the Life we know of would not exist.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
"Design" is alleged to be a supernatural phenomenon. Supernatural phenomena should never be "held in equal esteem" to scientifically valid hypotheses.


Disagree. Scientists have practical methods of investigation, whereas religious fundamentalists do not.
Why not? If both are valid explanations, both are to be held in equal esteem.

You, my friend, have science as religion.

Welcome to the new inquisition!
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Who knows? Some have modeled it as god, some have modeled it as some benevolent force. It might be the mythical spaghetti monster in the sky. We don't know. You don't know. George Whitesides doesn't know. I've been saying all along, it's mental masturbation because we'll never know, unless god come back like he says in the bible. Otherwise we'll just have to keep on wondering.

So stop fucking pissing and moaning about it so much.

There you go again with baseless assertions.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
I don't know how it happened, but no one else does either. Anyone who proclaims otherwise is a liar or Psychotic.

Whaat? If you don't know, no one else can either? Someone thinks highly of himself. Are you the... the great creator in the sky?

Ermergeerd everywern! God is here! So....which God are you? There have been so many! They all kinda sucked too. We've got Gods that create homosexuals, and then hate them. We've got Gods that create flawed life forms and then immolate them for being flawed...I could go on but I wouldn't want to TLDR you to death. Mostly because chances are there's a God who hates that too in some culture.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Except that it does support it. Without it, the Life we know of would not exist.
Again, necessary, but not sufficient.

We know amino acids are required for life, but having amino acids does not create life! I can order up any single fucking amino acid you want from aldrich, but it ain't going to make e. coli in my flask!

So it does NOT support abiogenesis, and until you understand that, I'm done with you.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Whaat? If you don't know, no one else can either? Someone thinks highly of himself. Are you the... the great creator in the sky?

Ermergeerd everywern! God is here! So....which God are you? There have been so many! They all kinda sucked too. We've got Gods that create homosexuals, and then hate them. We've got Gods that create flawed life forms and then immolate them for being flawed...I could go on but I wouldn't want to TLDR you to death. Mostly because chances are there's a God who hates that too in some culture.
argument please.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,849
146
1) What are your qualifications and are they good enough to judge Dr. Tour?
2) Post credentials from #1 so we can be the judge of them as well.
3) Assuming Yes to #1, when are you going to post a copy of your drafted email to Dr. Tour to discuss macroevolution? Keep in mind he wants to know how microevolution (which he agrees with) becomes macroevolution (which he does not agree with).

Dr. Tour's credentials:

James M. Tour, a synthetic organic chemist, received his Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from Syracuse University, his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University, and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. After spending 11 years on the faculty of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of South Carolina, he joined the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University in 1999 where he is presently the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering. Tour’s scientific research areas include nanoelectronics, graphene electronics, silicon oxide electronics, carbon nanovectors for medical applications, green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction, graphene photovoltaics, carbon supercapacitors, lithium ion batteries, CO2 capture, water splitting to H2 and O2, water purification, carbon nanotube and graphene synthetic modifications, graphene oxide, carbon composites, hydrogen storage on nanoengineered carbon scaffolds, and synthesis of single-molecule nanomachines which includes molecular motors and nanocars. He has also developed strategies for retarding chemical terrorist attacks. For pre-college education, Tour developed the NanoKids concept for K-12 education in nanoscale science, and also Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero science packages for elementary and middle school education: SciRave (www.scirave.org) which later expanded to Stemscopes-based SciRave (http://stemscopes.com/scirave/). The SciRave program has risen to be the #1 most widely adopted program in Texas to complement science instruction, and it is currently used by over 450 school districts and 40,000 teachers with over 1 million student downloads.

Tour has over 500 research publications and over 70 patents, with an H-index = 100 (89 by ISI Web of Science) with total citations = 50,000 (Google Scholar). Tour was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014; was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014, and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.

Tour is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governor’s Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center’s Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.
http://www.jmtour.com/

Based on that logic, I can't discuss that at all with you until you present your credentials.

But nice try to deflect. Can you tell me what actual specific issues the guy takes with macroevolution? I'd love to find out what so that then maybe I, or someone else could have an actual discussion about those issues.

Why would it?

Well where would those have come from then? Or are you positing that they existed as part of the

Except it doesn't, because if it did, you'd think it would've been documented at some point, but it hasn't. So really, abiogenesis is really no better than intelligent design. There's no fucking evidence it can actually happen, and thus it is no more scientific than intelligent design.

Which is my whole problem. Religion says "It was designed!"

Science says "Meh, it just kinda happened, here's a couple ways it might have happened"

Except science hasn't ever demonstrated it actually could have happened, and based on what we know, it seems much more likely to be "designed" than "happened".

And again, it's all mental masturbation unless you can go back and DEMONSTRATE a causal relationship.

Until then, it's a nice story. Kinda like the bible.

Edit: Regarding the Urey Experiment: If you believe that prcolaims the origins of life any better than intelligent design, you're a bigger moron that John Connor.

It's equivalent to saying "I've found round rocks, therefore a lamborghini just kinda happened!"

Wow, between the nonsense and false equivalency, you're pretty damn drunk (kudos on keeping pretty good grammar though!). You really need to sleep it off. Get back to us sometime when you're not self-admittedly drunk.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,632
3,045
136
Based on that logic, I can't discuss that at all with you until you present your credentials.

But nice try to deflect. Can you tell me what actual specific issues the guy takes with macroevolution? I'd love to find out what so that then maybe I, or someone else could have an actual discussion about those issues.



Well where would those have come from then? Or are you positing that they existed as part of the



Wow, between the nonsense and false equivalency, you're pretty damn drunk (kudos on keeping pretty good grammar though!). You really need to sleep it off. Get back to us sometime when you're not self-admittedly drunk.
Feel free to highlight my errors.

Edit: and with that, gentlemen, I am done for the night. I look forward to carrying this one on later.

Honestly? This is the shit that keeps me up at night.
 
Last edited:

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
That's just silly. Life was "designed" ... how, exactly? Magic? That's what the ID proponents offer. Magic. You think magic is the more likely "explanation" than natural processes?

There are many supernatural things we still cannot explain. Even in the physical realm, we didn't even know how Cholera technically killed a cell until a couple years ago. Do you know how old Cholera is?
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-cholera-nano-dagger-pathogen-decimates-bacteria.html

I'll leave you with some quotes from famous scientists who are for ID and/or question macroevolution happening by "chance" or any other scientific explanation:

1) “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” -Max Planck, originated Quantum Physics, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918

2) "I had an extended meeting today with two of the nation’s top scientists, one of them a Nobel laureate. The Nobel laureate spoke of evolution as “bankrupt” and thought Intelligent Design would be mainstreamed in five years. The other scientist was not as optimistic about this timetable, but agreed with his colleague’s assessment of evolution." -Dr. Dembski reporting on his conversation with Dr. Richard Smalley, winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1996

3) "So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well." -Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the Nobel prize for Physics in 1973

4) "When asked directly about the origin of humans, Eccles stated that he concluded the evolution of life is an “immensely improbable event” and added that the origin of life and humans “is in fact” a result of “design, a divine design”. -Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963

5) "It is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess." -Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963

6) "This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time." -Dr. Ernst Boris Chain, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 1945

7) "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in an empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’.” ... I am of course getting angry if biologists try to use the general concept ‘chance’ in order to explain phenomena which are so typical for living organisms as, for instance, those appearing in the biological evolution.” -Wolfgang Pauli, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945

8) “The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. -Guglielmo Marconi, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1909
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,849
146
Yeah, yeah I do. In fact, I've spent years of my life studying chemistry, and I've never seen a conglomeration of molecules, amino acids, lipids, or carbohydrates, ever coalesce into a symbiotic "organism". I've spent a lot of years mixing things together, and I've never seen anything do half the shit that scientists are so willing to explain as a happy accident.

If I've worked so hard to do something, and it hasn't gotten anywhere near where others say something else could have gotten by accident, despite my observations, despite my controlled conditions, doesn't that then fly in the face of their arguments?

Especially if those events were to lead to an organism that is so far beyond our capabilities of design that we can't even demonstrate how it could happen?

The key word there is "design". I've designed a lot of chemicals, a lot of reactions in my time, and I've never come up with anything that has even 1/100th of the capacity of a single-celled organism. Yet, empirically, I've studied this for 10 years, and I have capabilities at hand that would never occur in nature, yet I can't replicate it. That, my friend, is the definition of requiring "design" to beget life. I don't know how it happened, but no one else does either. Anyone who proclaims otherwise is a liar or Psychotic.

Have you ever specifically tried to coalesce those things into life? Maybe you're just doing it wrong? :) Oh years. Yeah, that's roughly the same as millions or billions of years, its not like time matters at all, right? But, you're right, why don't amino acids and molecules just burst into lifeforms right in front of our eyes, I mean it's not like Abiogenesis remarks that it takes special conditions (that it openly admits it does not know the formula for, at least yet, who knows if we ever will, I'm certainly not ready to say never like yourself; and hey that's not doing the exact same thing that you're accusing others of).

But hey, yes, let's blanket say that anyone that believes Abiogenesis is the most likely rationale is the same as people that think, well we can't really say exactly what IDers believe because they themselves can't get it straight. Is it aliens? God? But how did he make so many? Only explanation is that God came after Henry Ford and the assembly line. So Earth is even younger than people think! Did he design every single molecule? Yep, those are completely equivalent arguments. Thank you so much for showing us the error of our ways.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Yeah, yeah I do. In fact, I've spent years of my life studying chemistry, and I've never seen a conglomeration of molecules, amino acids, lipids, or carbohydrates, ever coalesce into a symbiotic "organism".

So because you've never seen something happen in your extremely short lifetime, and in your limited lab then it could never have happened?

This is your argument for ID? Look, if life is so unlikely for the universe to spontaneously create, wouldn't GOD be even more unlikely? In fact, much much closer to impossible than a simple life form that later increases in complexity due to evolution by natural selection?

I don't know how it happened, but no one else does either. Anyone who proclaims otherwise is a liar or Psychotic.

True or False?: If uclaLabrat doesn't know something, no one else can either.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
142
106
Based on that logic, I can't discuss that at all with you until you present your credentials.

But nice try to deflect. Can you tell me what actual specific issues the guy takes with macroevolution? I'd love to find out what so that then maybe I, or someone else could have an actual discussion about those issues.

Ok, you just admitted that you're too pussy to post your creds and challenge Dr. Tour to a debate over lunch on macroevolution. The expected result of course. My creds do not matter, I'm not the one questioning Dr. Tour's knowledge of chemistry (of which he is a top ten cited scientist). Put up or shut up. Pussy.
 
Last edited:

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Ok, you just admitted that you're too pussy to post your creds and challenge Dr. Tour to a debate over lunch on macroevolution. The expected result of course. My creds do not matter, I'm not the one questioning Dr. Tour's knowledge of chemistry (of which he is a top ten cited scientist). Put up or shut up. Pussy.

I like how almost none of the people you cite are actually experts in biology.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
The Nazis went after religious artifacts. They too believed in a God. Now if a low life Nazi believes in a God what does that make an atheist? The lowest form of SCUM on the planet!

bunny_profile_pic.jpg

I don't know what argument you think you're making, but it's less coherent than Kesha.

LOL

Seriously, that was a fantastic burn, and totally proportionate to the quoted idiocy.

And now I'm caught up, I'm a little disappointed to have found nothing more than arguing over abiogenesis.

Who cares about abiogenesis anyway? It's not even necessary for an understanding of evolutionary processes, and discussions on evolution would be made an order of magnitude simpler if everyone would stop conflating the two.
 
Last edited:

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
SP33Demon, take a step back and understand that you are presenting an obviously religious chemical scientist who is in no way involved in the study and dissection of the theory of evolution. He is simply taking a principled stand because evolution can't be explained at the molecular level yet.

Imagine a parallel universe where God told us Newtonian gravity didn't exist, instead there was intelligent gravity. Imagine a deeply religious and extremely talented quantum physicist issue a similar ultimatum. Explain to me how gravity works at the most basic levels, if you can't then intelligent gravity must be the answer. Well we can't explain how gravity works at a basic level therefore intelligent gravity is the answer?

There is an incredible wealth of information out there supporting macro evolution, more evidence turns up every day. The eye was a popular subject, we have both fossil records and live specimens now showing almost every stage of the eye development from flat photo sensitive cells to recessed sockets to enclosed sockets. The amount of evidence piling up for all matter of systems, including parallel development of complex systems continues to grow.

Dr. Tour's is blinded by what he was taught as a child on Sundays. He frankly is a bit disgusting for sitting on a high horse of proclaiming how hard molecules are to build therefore..... God. People pour immense amounts of effort into the pursuit of these various fields and to have someone who is so focused on a different subject cast disparagement on the entire theory because he doesn't know how it works is retarded. If God told us intelligent chemistry was the answer and a religious quantum physicist shit all over Dr. Tour's work unless Dr. Tour could tie chemical interactions in with a universal quantum model I think he would come around on his issue with evolution.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
Who cares about abiogenesis anyway? It's not even necessary for an understanding of evolutionary processes, and discussions on evolution would be made an order of magnitude simpler if everyone would stop conflating the two.

No one is conflating the two. The topic is about how life originated. Evolution may explain how it became complex and intelligent, but not how it began. For that, at least in this discussion so far, it's either abiogenesis or creation by a creator.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
There are many supernatural things we still cannot explain.
Like what? What *is* a "supernatural thing," anyway? How do you know?

Even in the physical realm, we didn't even know how Cholera technically killed a cell until a couple years ago. Do you know how old Cholera is?
http://phys.org/news/2012-02-cholera-nano-dagger-pathogen-decimates-bacteria.html
So fucking what? We don't have to know everything to know that the things we *do* know are reliably true.

I'll leave you with some quotes from famous scientists who are for ID and/or question macroevolution happening by "chance" or any other scientific explanation:

1) “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” -Max Planck, originated Quantum Physics, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918

2) "I had an extended meeting today with two of the nation’s top scientists, one of them a Nobel laureate. The Nobel laureate spoke of evolution as “bankrupt” and thought Intelligent Design would be mainstreamed in five years. The other scientist was not as optimistic about this timetable, but agreed with his colleague’s assessment of evolution." -Dr. Dembski reporting on his conversation with Dr. Richard Smalley, winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry in 1996

3) "So I said at some point this theory looks a bit like theology, and I can imagine intelligent design is real. Intelligent Design is rejected just because it’s part of the scientific culture that it cannot be true, you must not talk about it, but it’s not actually disproved. I think it will turn out that there is a design and that the usual theories are wrong there as well." -Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the Nobel prize for Physics in 1973

4) "When asked directly about the origin of humans, Eccles stated that he concluded the evolution of life is an “immensely improbable event” and added that the origin of life and humans “is in fact” a result of “design, a divine design”. -Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963

5) "It is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess." -Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963

6) "This mechanistic concept of the phenomena of life in its infinite varieties of manifestations which purports to ascribe the origin and development of all living species, animals, plants and micro-organisms, to the haphazard blind interplay of the forces of nature in the pursuance of one aim only, namely, that for the living systems to survive, is a typical product of the naive 19th century euphoric attitude to the potentialities of science which spread the belief that there were no secrets of nature which could not be solved by the scientific approach given only sufficient time." -Dr. Ernst Boris Chain, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology in 1945

7) "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in an empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’.” ... I am of course getting angry if biologists try to use the general concept ‘chance’ in order to explain phenomena which are so typical for living organisms as, for instance, those appearing in the biological evolution.” -Wolfgang Pauli, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945

8) “The mystery of life is certainly the most persistent problem ever placed before the mind of man. There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think, it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future – which is undoubtedly the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute. -Guglielmo Marconi, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1909

Quotes are not arguments, nor evidence. I'll simply note that your little list didn't feature a single biologist, nor anyone named Steve.
 

Ruptga

Lifer
Aug 3, 2006
10,246
207
106
No one is conflating the two. The topic is about how life originated. Evolution may explain how it became complex and intelligent, but not how it began. For that, at least in this discussion so far, it's either abiogenesis or creation by a creator.

But why do we argue about any of this crap? They're all stalking horses for the real issue of physicalism/materialism vs. magic as worldviews. Either a person is comfortable with a completely physical/mechanistic universe, or they're not. If they can understand and come to terms with preferring irrationality to rationality, that's fantastic and I really don't care as long as they don't get in my way because of it.