Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

Why wouldn't a common creator used shared features?

Why would a common creator force those shared features into a nested hierarchy? That's the question I keep asking, and you refuse to answer.

We don't live in the ocean...so i wouldn't expect God to have created us with fins and gills....so I wouldn't expect to see people with fins and gills...would you?

Why wouldn't God give feathers to bats, or three middle ear bones to birds? What was stopping God from mixing features from birds and mammals?

 

[-57]

Birds have hollow bones, Bats do not. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have beaks and no teeth, bats have teeth and no beaks. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have feathers, Bats have fur. Why didn't a common creator use shared features?

Why are fur, teeth, mammary glands and live birth always found together in one set of flying creatures, while beaks, eggs, hollow bones, and hunting for baby food found in the other?

There is an evolutionary answer . . . for this pattern. There is no creation theory to explain this pattern.

Why did God create one way in one species and not the other as with some? Why does a potter make a bowl with handles and another without? Why is one bowl made from clay and the other from wood..or metal?

 

[-57]

Why would a common creator force those shared features into a nested hierarchy? That's the question I keep asking, and you refuse to answer.



Why wouldn't God give feathers to bats, or three middle ear bones to birds? What was stopping God from mixing features from birds and mammals?

...because God made a bat, not a bird. Duh.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why did God create one way in one species and not the other as with some? Why does a potter make a bowl with handles and another without? Why is one bowl made from clay and the other from wood..or metal?

Bowls don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

Out of the trillions of possible patterns of shared features, why did God choose the only one that would match what we would expect to see from evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

...because God made a bat, not a bird. Duh.

Why not a species with a combination of bat and bird features?

We find species with a mixture of human and ape features, a mixture of mammal and reptile features, a mixture of dinosaur and bird features, so why not mammal and bird?

 

[-57]

Bowls don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

Out of the trillions of possible patterns of shared features, why did God choose the only one that would match what we would expect to see from evolution?

You still haven't explained why God could or could not have used nested hierarchy. All I have read is your opinion.

 

[-57]

Why not a species with a combination of bat and bird features?

We find species with a mixture of human and ape features, a mixture of mammal and reptile features, a mixture of dinosaur and bird features, so why not mammal and bird?

Because God didn't create that KIND of animal. Why would God have to create that KIND of animal?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why did God create one way in one species and not the other as with some? Why does a potter make a bowl with handles and another without? Why is one bowl made from clay and the other from wood..or metal?

Uh . . . we are looking for something to justify "same evidence different interpretation" here. Is this how you make the interpretation of the nested hierarchy scientists have discovered in all living things? Because that is not much of an interpretation of the evidence . . . it looks like making an excuse for ignoring the evidence.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

Bowls don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does.

Out of the trillions of possible patterns of shared features, why did God choose the only one that would match what we would expect to see from evolution?

That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.

But, then, when another hypothesis for the same similarities shows up, you say it can't be possible, because the similarities fit your hypothesis and your hypothesis leaves no room for creation.

The crux is not the evidence, it's the assumptions.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, but all you seem to do, Sister in Christ, is take Scripture and use it to build ideas you consider to be scientifically correct without doing any research.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.

But, then, when another hypothesis for the same similarities shows up, you say it can't be possible, because the similarities fit your hypothesis and your hypothesis leaves no room for creation.

The crux is not the evidence, it's the assumptions.

But you are not advancing your hypothesis very effectively. You hypothesize a creator could arbitrarily mimic a nested hierarchy . . . .

but with no reason for the creator to do that. Without a reason, we are left with the creator making random assignments of characteristics, and we don't observe random assignments of characteristics. Therefore the Creator did it hypothesis fails.

With no reason for a Creator to mimic a nested hierarchy, we don't have a hypothesis. Come up with a reason for that behavior on the part of the Creator. Then you have a hypothesis. Without it, you have no hypothesis.

Of course, there is one possibility that preserves a Creator. And that would be that the Creator actually used the process of common descent with variation (AKA evolution) as the method of creation. In that case, the observed pattern of nested hierarchy comes automatically and by necessity from the means of creation. You might try adopting that explanation.

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

But you are not advancing your hypothesis very effectively. You hypothesize a creator could arbitrarily mimic a nested hierarchy . . . .

but with no reason for the creator to do that. Without a reason, we are left with the creator making random assignments of characteristics, and we don't observe random assignments of characteristics. Therefore the Creator did it hypothesis fails.

With no reason for a Creator to mimic a nested hierarchy, we don't have a hypothesis. Come up with a reason for that behavior on the part of the Creator. Then you have a hypothesis. Without it, you have no hypothesis.

Of course, there is one possibility that preserves a Creator. And that would be that the Creator actually used the process of common descent with variation (AKA evolution) as the method of creation. In that case, the observed pattern of nested hierarchy comes automatically and by necessity from the means of creation. You might try adopting that explanation.

Why must I explain why God created things similar in order to have a valid hypothesis? Would it only make sense to have a creator if everything were 100% different? People don't do that. Artists are recognized by their similarities in their works. Their works may be different, but their styles are apparent.

 

[lasthero]

Why must I explain why God created things similar in order to have a valid hypothesis? Would it only make sense to have a creator if everything were 100% different? People don't do that. Artists are recognized by their similarities in their works. Their works may be different, but their styles are apparent.

\\

Firstly, God isn't 'people', so that argument fails right off the gate. God isn't supposed to think like people do, so why would he be subject to the same tendencies we have? Why would he share out limits?

Secondly, people DO do that. Artists change up their style all the time. They can use different materials, focus on different subjects, and completely re-inevent themselves. For instance, this:

This

And this

were made by the same person. If I hadn't just told you that, would you have any way of figuring it out? Can you see any similarity in the style?

 

[Sister_in_Christ]

\\

Firstly, God isn't 'people', so that argument fails right off the gate. God isn't supposed to think like people do, so why would he be subject to the same tendencies we have? Why would he share out limits?

Secondly, people DO do that. Artists change up their style all the time. They can use different materials, focus on different subjects, and completely re-inevent themselves. For instance, this:

This

And this

were made by the same person. If I hadn't just told you that, would you have any way of figuring it out? Can you see any similarity in the style?

First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.

Second of all, you just made a very strong point for creation.

On the surface, these paintings look nothing alike. They are different in pretty much every visible aspect. Yet, they were created by the same artist. Why? We don't know. But they were made unique for a reason.

On a deeper level, there are also many similarities. For instance, each used paint. Each is on a canvas. The brush strokes would be similar. Etc. So, the artist is in fact a painter who uses canvas.

Now, you already jumped to the conclusion of an artist being responsible for creating these works of art, although they may look different, yet share similarities.

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, would suggest these paintings miraculously evolved over billions of years from a primitive oil and painted themselves.

So, since it's obvious these paintings were created, why question the rest of creation?

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's not really a fair argument. You're taking observations found in nature concerning similarities, then building a hypothesis around them. Which is fair according to the scientific method.

But, then, when another hypothesis for the same similarities shows up, you say it can't be possible, because the similarities fit your hypothesis and your hypothesis leaves no room for creation.

The crux is not the evidence, it's the assumptions.

So what makes your assumptions superior to others'?

 

[Loudmouth]

You still haven't explained why God could or could not have used nested hierarchy. All I have read is your opinion.

I have explained it. There is absolutely no reason why any designer would be limited to a nested hierarchy, therefore the common designer hypothesis does not predict a nested hierarchy. Any pattern of shared and derived features is as likely as any other. A fossil or living species with a mixture of bird and mammal features is just as likely as one with a mixture of mammal and reptile features. For just 30 characteristics, there are 4.9518e+38 possible ways of combining those characteristics. That is a 4 with 38 zeros after it.

With evolution, this isn't true. For groups of species that evolve from common ancestors and don't participate in any meaningful amount of horizontal genetic transfer, there is only ONE pattern of shared and derived features that we should see, and that is a nested hierarchy. Going back to those 30 characteristics and 4E38 possible ways to combine them, there are only a handful of possible trees that would fall in line with evolution. So do they? Yes.

"In spite of these odds, the relationships given in Figure 1, as determined from morphological characters, are completely congruent with the relationships determined independently from cytochrome c molecular studies (for consensus phylogenies from pre-molecular studies see Carter 1954, Figure 1, p. 13; Dodson 1960, Figures 43, p. 125, and Figure 50, p. 150; Osborn 1918, Figure 42, p. 161; Haeckel 1898, p. 55; Gregory 1951, Fig. opposite title page; for phylogenies from the early cytochrome c studies see McLaughlin and Dayhoff 1973; Dickerson and Timkovich 1975, pp. 438-439)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience

So why would a designer limit itself to 1 pattern out of 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000? Why pick the one pattern that evolution would produce when there are so many other patterns?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because God didn't create that KIND of animal.

Why not? Why only produce the species that evolution would produce, and no others?

Why would God have to create that KIND of animal?

Why wouldn't God create a group of species with a mixture of bat and bird features? If you can't answer that question, then you have admitted that the common ancestor hypothesis does not predict a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.

We need evidence for these claims.

On the surface, these paintings look nothing alike. They are different in pretty much every visible aspect. Yet, they were created by the same artist. Why? We don't know. But they were made unique for a reason.

Those paintings do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Remember when I said that creationists always ignore this fact?

 

[lasthero]

First of all, God created us in His image. He likes to create, and He created us to create. He separated us apart from every other living thing.

Even if true, I don't see how that necessarily means he has to share out tendencies.

On the surface, these paintings look nothing alike. They are different in pretty much every visible aspect. Yet, they were created by the same artist. Why? We don't know. But they were made unique for a reason.

And they don't share a common design. Common design doesn't equal a common designer.

On a deeper level, there are also many similarities. For instance, each used paint. Each is on a canvas. The brush strokes would be similar. Etc. So, the artist is in fact a painter who uses canvas.

So, basically, it could be any painter ever. If they were all made by different people, you'd have no way of knowing. It's also worth noting that the same artist who made those paintings also made this:

Which doesn't use any of those things.

One of these was made by Picasso, the other is just someone imitating one of him more famous styles. Can you tell which?

Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, would suggest these paintings miraculously evolved over billions of years from a primitive oil and painted themselves.

It proposes no such thing.

So, since it's obvious these paintings were created, why question the rest of creation?

The difference, of course, being that I know how paintings are created. I've seen it. I've done it. There's no reason to think they can or have ever appeared naturally.

I - nor anyone - has ever seen life being created. So I have no a priori reason to think it was created in the same way paintings are.

 

[Hoghead1]

Evolution dos snot at all propose that, Sister in Christ. Look, I realize you are out to ridicule evolution. However, truth is, you have neither the qualifications nor the credentials to do so. You are in no position to sit in judgment on mainstream science, period. And I find it quite arrogant on your part for you to assume your knowledge and approach is superior to that found in mainstream science. Also, you appear to know little about the world of art. You say you don't know why Picasso would paint such different pictures. However, that topic has been amply covered in and Art 101 course. Furthermore, had you taken a basic course in art, you would see that yes, art does evolve over time. For example, in the 19th century, with the invention of pistons, brass instruments underwent a terrific evolution.