Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Double post...

 

[Zoot]

Ok tell me how 1/1000000 wing will develop to 1/100 wing by means of natural selection. Go ahead. Tell me the usefulness of totally useless wing.

It's not about appeal to ignorance, it's knowledge here. We know 1/1000000 wing is not going to be advantagaous, and develop to 1/10000 wing over hundreds of thousnads or millions of years, because 1/1000000 wing is totally useless, and 1/10 wing is totally useless.

Why do you keep saying that when I've shown you that it's not true?

True or false - a slightly wider flap in a tree-dwelling rodent would give it a slight advantage in jumping from one place to another.

 

[AskTheFamily]

By who's estimation?

Estimation?

 

[morningstar2651]

The theory of evolution is the framework that explains the mechanisms by which evolution works. The fact that species evolve is not debated within science. It takes a wealth of evidence for something to reach the point of scientific theory. Scientists use the word theory far differently from the layman and it most definitely does not mean "fanciful guesswork".

It is similar to how the theory of gravitation is a framework to explain the mechanisms by which gravity works.

So why don't we "teach both sides" and let the kids decide? Two very big reasons. First, there aren't two sides. Intelligent design is severely lacking in supporting evidence and is not taken credibly by scientists. If you go to science class, you go there to learn science.

The second, even if there were a serious scientific debate on the subject, the class should teach the current scientifically accepted theories. High school students are not properly equipped to decide which theories are right - that is up to scientists do determine...not high school students.

The process of evolution exists and it explains the origin of species, but not the origin of life - two very different things. The theory says nothing about deity or creation. Conflating the two reveals insecurities in one's faith.

It was Copernicus whose book explaining that the Earth wasn't at the center of the universe was not only banned by the church, but also hedged with a disclaimer that the book was more or less "fanciful guesswork". The book sparked controversy not unlike the controversy over evolution because the Earth not being the center of the universe shook people's faith in God.

"Of all discoveries and opinions, none may have exerted a greater effect on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus. The world had scarcely become known as round and complete in itself when it was asked to waive the tremendous privilege of being the center of the universe. Never, perhaps, was a greater demand made on mankind — for by this admission so many things vanished in mist and smoke! What became of our Eden, our world of innocence, piety and poetry; the testimony of the senses; the conviction of a poetic — religious faith? No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of." - Goethe
​

 

[AskTheFamily]

Why do you keep saying that when I've shown you that it's not true?

True or false - a slightly wider flap in a tree-dwelling rodent would give it a slight advantage in jumping from one place to another.

No it would take a long long process for it to even get to an advantage of gliding and make it jump further.

Explain how it goes from no wing to something that helps it glide further. I put "glide" or "fly".

Go ahead. 1/100000 wing is totally useless for jumping a millimeter further. If anything it would actually just makes it heavier with no advantage at all.

You really don't get it, mutations are very small small changes. They are not huge. You don't get a mutation and bang, useful thing to glide. It's small changes over very very long time. So through out this, it has to be all advantageous mutations and lead up to development with that advantage.

1/100000 wing cannot glide or fly or do anything good.

The same is true of 1/100000 ear. or 1/10 ear or even 1/2 ear.

This is not the only example. There is tons of example. I also talked about systems. A lung is totally useless without heart, they both have develop together. And all the other parts.

So this type of thinking I started with a bird becasue it's simple. And there is more to a bird with their lung structure that allows flight.

 

[Cute Tink]

Ok tell me how 1/1000000 wing will develop to 1/100 wing by means of natural selection. Go ahead. Tell me the usefulness of totally useless wing.

It's not about appeal to ignorance, it's knowledge here. We know 1/1000000 wing is not going to be advantagaous, and develop to 1/10000 wing over hundreds of thousnads or millions of years, because 1/1000000 wing is totally useless, and 1/10 wing is totally useless.

Please try to understand, perhaps whatever it is that mutated might have some advantage, but it won't be developing towards a wing over years for sure by random mutations and natural selection. This is a logical conclusive sure fact we can all rationally conclude. The problem is not the rational behind this, the issue is, is your heart ready to accept a Creator?

Is mutation rational? Is evolution necessarily rational?

As pointed out above, a mutation need not be necessarily advantageous to survive natural selection and continue on. A mutation that practically guarantees death will most likely be lost.

1/1000000 of a wing might be useless as a wing, but can you consider that it might have other possible uses, i.e. drawing attention of a predator away from the nest, drawing the attention of a mate, etc.? What requirement is there that the 1/1000000 of a wing would have to act as a wing to survive?

The problem is, in fact, the rationale behind this. You seem to demand that evolution must react in a rational manner. Why?

 

[Cute Tink]

Estimation?

You say that they will not be able to refute your logic. Do you expect us to believe you will admit to defeat should it come?

 

[morningstar2651]

No it would take a long long process for it to even get to an advantage of gliding and make it jump further.

Explain how it goes from no wing to something that helps it glide further. I put "glide" or "fly".

Go ahead. 1/100000 wing is totally useless for jumping a millimeter further. If anything it would actually just makes it heavier with no advantage at all.

Is that like being born with 1/10000 mouth?

 

[AskTheFamily]

The second, even if there were a serious scientific debate on the subject, the class should teach the current scientifically accepted theories. High school students are not properly equipped to decide which theories are right - that is up to scientists do determine...

No it's for all us to decide for ourselves what to believe or not. As I said in begining, people sell their minds to people. You want to sell your mind to some scientists (not all scientists agree with about macroevolution being possible) you go ahead, but don't tell others they have to let Scienitst to determine and they can't determine things for themselves.

 

[Cute Tink]

No it's for all us to decide for ourselves what to believe or not. As I said in begining, people sell their minds to people. You want to sell your mind to some scientists (not all scientists agree with about macroevolution being possible) you go ahead, but don't tell others they have to let Scienitst to determine and they can't determine things for themselves.

In a science class, do you think we should teach gym, literature, cooking or woodwork? Or do you think we should allow science classes to teach science and leave the other subjects to other classes?

 

[Ayersy]

Microevolution is macroevolution, they are the same thing. It really is that simple.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Is that like being born with 1/10000 mouth?

This is the point, it's so evident there is a Creator. I said bird and wing, but so many features in creation are like this. If they are not fully developed they are useless.

If a wing cannot glide, it's useless. A mouth cannot eat, it's useless.

I talked about some examples. Even if you look at many creation, they are symbiotic, one relies on the other, they cannot exist without each other.

There is much evidence in Design, it get's more and more, pointing to a designer when you reflect.

We take the design in nature for granted, but again, yes, how did a mouth develop? You have to have a mouth to eat, and so you have to have it.

You can't have 1/1000th of a mouth and hope for a useful mouth in the future.

You need a mouth to eat.

Same with eyes, no sight, no sight, then sight all of a sudden? It makes no sense.

It's clear there is a Designer and Creator. And it's willful blindness that people deny a Designer to the universe.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Microevolution is macroevolution, they are the same thing. It really is that simple.

No they aren't.

You say that they will not be able to refute your logic. Do you expect us to believe you will admit to defeat should it come?

I don't expect you guys to believe in anything when you deny your own soul that you witness every day and say you have no soul, just cells and chemicals, so I don't expect you to believe I will admit defeat if it should come.

 

[Zoot]

No it would take a long long process for it to even get to an advantage of gliding and make it jump further.

Explain how it goes from no wing to something that helps it glide further. I put "glide" or "fly".

Different body shapes make for better or worse jumping. A small change in body shape makes for a small advantage in jumping. Doesn't have to be huge. Just a small advantage in jumping.

Do you not agree that air-resistance can be slightly reduced by a slight change in body shape?

 

[morningstar2651]

No it's for all us to decide for ourselves what to believe or not. As I said in begining, people sell their minds to people. You want to sell your mind to some scientists (not all scientists agree with about macroevolution being possible) you go ahead, but don't tell others they have to let Scienitst to determine and they can't determine things for themselves.

I go to scientists when I want to learn about science because science is their specialty.

The Institute for Historical Review denies that the holocaust happened. Should children learn both sides of the debate decide for theirself...or should they learn what Historians actually accept as fact?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Different body shapes make for better or worse jumping. A small change in body shape makes for a small advantage in jumping. Doesn't have to be huge. Just a small advantage in jumping.

Do you not agree that air-resistance can be slightly reduced by a slight change in body shape?

I don't have a problem with that, but 1/10000th wing would not give a small advantage in jumping but even reduce air resistance as you got some useless flesh, and this keeps lumping on top of each other, till one day, it becomes useful to glide? Ofcourse not, natural selection doesn't explain this, because it's not even not simply not advantageous, it's disadvantageous to have 1/1000 wing that don't provide an extra glide or jump or anything.

Your thinking of something appearing designed, that it helps glide, it would take a long process to get there, and that long process to be an advantage each step, but it's not, it's useless.

That is why a wing is impossible.

Now a wing is just one thing, how about what was said about a system? What about an ear? What good is 1/100 of an ear? or 1/10 of an ear?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Should children learn both sides of the debate decide for theirself.

Yes this is the one...they should decide for themselves.

In fact, they can reject everything historians tell them, if they are not convinced of the way they deduce things and should not trust them, until they figure how they deduce facts and conclude things.

 

[Zoot]

AsktheFamily,

I've already explained how what starts off as an advantage in jumping could become an ability to glide, and later become an ability to fly.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7479536-2/#post55119288

Just a few minutes ago.

Can you explain which part of that you don't think would work?

 

[morningstar2651]

Yes this is the one...they should decide for themselves.

In fact, they can reject everything historians tell them, if they are not convinced of the way they deduce things and should not trust them, until they figure how they deduce facts and conclude things.

So you're cool with children debating whether or not the holocaust happened?

 

[AskTheFamily]

AsktheFamily,

I've already explained how what starts off as an advantage in jumping could become an ability to glide, and later become an ability to fly.

Here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7479536-2/#post55119288

Just a few minutes ago.

Can you explain which part of that you don't think would work?

As I said before, to even go to the stage of jump to glide, is many steps. Your talking random stuff.

One makes on jump more is perhaps stronger legs, different design in the structure that it makes it more air resistance, etc... This we on the same page.

However, anything that makes things glide, there is a huge step here, and it's unrelated with jumping, for there to be anything that gives slight gliding, it has to have gone through a long process.

For example, we humans, we can get become better jumpers right? Do you agree. We can develop bigger muscles etc... but to ever develop something that glides, it's a whole new mechanism unrelated with us jumping higher.

For that thing that that makes on glide to even help in jumping, it needs a long process of evolution. And the whole step process inbetween is of no advantage.

I hope you understand what am I'm saying. I told you I have no problem with becoming better jumpers. However, the transition of jumping and gliding by a mechanism that develops to wing, is different then becomg more arial dynamic or being stronger of a jumper with leg musceless develping stronger.

It takes a whole new feature that will not be usefull but by a long process of mutations while it as of no advantage through out the process.

In particualr we are discussing a wing, so have 1/1000thing wing doesn't help glide, this is the point. Other features might help jump further, stay int he earth further, but I'm takking about the thing that becoems a wing, for it be useful as a glider takes steps, all of which would be of no advantage through out the process.