Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[AV1611VET]

Living things look designed because they ARE designed - by the trial-and-error process of natural selection.

With a little help from artists too, I imagine?

Find a tooth and a skull cap and next thing you know -- voila:

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Tried, tested and proven.

Huh, I've always thought it was a mess inherently wrought with problems. I gotta' stop reading.

 

[Greg1234]

Huh, I've always thought it was a mess inherently wrought with problems. I gotta' stop reading.

You can look at the car occasionally breaking down, or you can look at the integrated complexity of the car. Either way, it is designed.

 

[Febble]

With a little help from artists too, I imagine?

Find a tooth and a skull cap and next thing you know -- voila:

Well, my point, of course, is that you don't need to invoke an artist if you've got the basics namely replication with modification and natural selection. Because if things replicate with variants, variants that replicate better will be replicated more often, and thus come to dominate the population.

We know this works, because human designers actually set up algorithms like this in order to design things, and the results are often astonishing and counter-intuitive.

So we know that the Darwinian algorithm is an effective designing agent. Which is, as I said, why things look designed.

Well, there could be a Designer in there too, but you can't infer one from the evidence of design because we know of a designing agent that can do the job in the absence of a Designer, namely the Darwinian algorithm.

 

[Assyrian]

As bone-diseased humans, who were once contributing members of the human race.

Any evidence homo erectus and neanderthals had bone diseases?

In fact, the two middle ones remind me of what King David may have looked like, just before he died.

What? Tucked in bed with a fair damsel to keep him warm?

 

[MoonLancer]

Bacteria cannot turn into pink unicorns.

strawman. Thats not my argument.

The fact is you are here. And you have your beliefs about how you got here, not the pink unicorn. That you have attributed to chance. That is your belief. You may attempt to divert attention but start with the human body.

you seem to be writing in english but your not using it in any recognizable pattern.

I am in fact, an amaterialist.

this word does not exist in common dictionaries. You are alos not using the 'a' properly. the use of the a simply implies that your not a materialist. But that doesn't mean your an anti materialist.

Nope, you have to show evidence that chance can build the two story wooden house. Science shows that it is designed.

Why? that has nothing to do with evolution. If you want i can start fighting straw men too.

No, chance cannot build the great pyramid. Tests, along with the integrated complexity of said structure including the language embedded within is design.

And yet the Pyramid themselves are not evidence. It is the details and specifics about the structure that gives it design qualities. Humans do not have these qualities and in many cases contradict all logical design. If god desighned us he is a really bad designer.

Another day chief. And no, not because your muscles get larger it will invariably continue. Or that because a horse gets faster it will invariably continue. There is only adaptation. A feature of design. If you need evidence of bacteria remaining bacteria it is readily available.

Please show that would keep mutations from accumulating. This must be shown in order for your position to even be considered.

Atheism is not required. Science is sufficient. So Darwinism may remain where it is.
Thats your belief.

again using that language but in no meaningful order.

I don't have to present anything.

*bzzz* wrong answer. however you did unknowing just admit you solid foundation for your argument.

Observed Instances of Speciation

See i provide evidence. You... you provide a desire for your position to be self evident when its not. this is

 

[MoonLancer]

As bone-diseased humans, who were once contributing members of the human race.

In fact, the two middle ones remind me of what King David may have looked like, just before he died.

LOL strange how these bone deseased humans fall perfectly into a nested hierarchy.

That trixy Satan.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know this works, because human designers actually set up algorithms like this in order to design things, and the results are often astonishing and counter-intuitive.

So we know that the Darwinian algorithm is an effective designing agent. Which is, as I said, why things look designed.

Yes -- I'm familiar with how scientists use computers to prophesy to them.

Some time ago, I went on a tirade against computer-generated evolutionary paradigms.

Don't get me started again --

 

[Greg1234]

strawman. Thats not my argument.
you seem to be writing in english but your not using it in any recognizable pattern.

this word does not exist in common dictionaries. You are alos not using the 'a' properly. the use of the a simply implies that your not a materialist. But that doesn't mean your an anti materialist.

I'm an amaterialist

Why? that has nothing to do with evolution. If you want i can start fighting straw men too.

You'll get it.

And yet the Pyramid themselves are not evidence. It is the details and specifics about the structure that gives it design qualities. Humans do not have these qualities and in many cases contradict all logical design. If god desighned us he is a really bad designer.

The pyramid is evidence of the pyramid designers. If you encounter a 600 million year old pyramid and your belief entailed that there was no intelligence around capable of building this structure, your view, as a late observer has to change. Not history.

Please show that would keep mutations from accumulating. This must be shown in order for your position to even be considered.

Like I told you, another time. You are the one who has to show mutations accumulate. All evidence shows that there is a limit. See...anything.

*bzzz* wrong answer. however you did unknowing just admit you solid foundation for your argument.

Its snipping time already?

See i provide evidence. You... you provide a desire for your position to be self evident when its not. this is

Your evidence is my evidence actually. Limited adaptation. If you want to show that a man will eventually turn into a forklift, you need more than muscles getting larger and smaller. To be sure, the hijacking of adaptation by atheism is not universally recognized. Not regarded, in creationism

 

[Febble]

Yes -- I'm familiar with how scientists use computers to prophesy to them.

Some time ago, I went on a tirade against computer-generated evolutionary paradigms.

Don't get me started again --

Why not? Sounds like you may have an erroneous view of genetic algorithms. I may be able to help

 

[AV1611VET]

Any evidence homo erectus and neanderthals had bone diseases?

LOL -- read that question slowly.

Any evidence fish are wet?

I don't believe I am a Homo sapiens, and by the same token, I don't believe they were Homos, either.

What? Tucked in bed with a fair damsel to keep him warm?

That's real cute.

His body wasn't generating enough body heat, and he needed assistance.

He didn't live much longer after that.

 

[Assyrian]

Right -- and if you believe that, then we're mutant copy-errors made in the likeness & image of God --

If God can use mud he can use copy errors.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL strange how these bone deseased humans fall perfectly into a nested hierarchy.

That trixy Satan.

Here's your 'trixy Satan':

Put them both together, and you have:

 

[Febble]

And a copy "error" is only an "error" in the sense that it isn't a faithful copy. It may actually be an improvement.

And if it is, it will be recopied more often than the original.

 

[Febble]

Here's your 'trixy Satan':





Put them both together, and you have:

Those are non-nested. They are exactly what is conspicuously absent in living things.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God can use mud he can use copy errors.

He didn't use mud -- mud was the progenitor of spontaneous generation.

The testaceans (shelled molluscs) are characterized by forming by spontaneous generation in mud...

 

[AV1611VET]

And a copy "error" is only an "error" in the sense that it isn't a faithful copy. It may actually be an improvement.

Except God pronounced His creation "very good" (perfect) in Genesis 1:31.

Here is a thread I started some time ago on this subject: 1

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are non-nested. They are exactly what is conspicuously absent in living things.

But they are used to dupe the public -- the koine -- us common people -- (as well as yourselves).

 

[Assyrian]

Any evidence homo erectus and neanderthals had bone diseases?

LOL -- read that question slowly.

Any evidence fish are wet?

I'll take it that's a 'no' then.

I don't believe I am a Homo sapiens, and by the same token, I don't believe they were Homos, either.

Speaking of cute.

That's real cute.

His body wasn't generating enough body heat, and he needed assistance.

He didn't live much longer after that.

Of course But you are the one who compared homo erectus to king David just before he died. It is bizarre enough to compare homo erectus to an old man, when some of the erectus fossils are juveniles, but you compared homo erectus to David without thinking how the bible describes him before he died.

 

[Assyrian]

He didn't use mud -- mud was the progenitor of spontaneous generation.

You go with Aristotle not the literal interpretation of Genesis?