A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[lesliedellow]

Except it doesn't do that either.

Yes it does.

As for OOL, anything will do for the materialist, as long as it doesn't allow God's foot in the door. I'm not saying that satirically. None other than Richard Lewontin openly stated it - as an enlightned position to take, moreover. How you managed to get taken in by materalist dum-dums I do not know.

An atheist doesn't believe in God. Core, now there's a surprise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Macroevolultion says a baby [common ancestor]* left Boston, took baby steps to Los Angeles, and arrived a full-grown human being.

* Technical term for "I don't know what it was".

 

[lesliedellow]

Macroevolultion says a baby [common ancestor]* left Boston, took baby steps to Los Angeles, and arrived a full-grown human being.

* Technical term for "I don't know what it was".

How wonderfully vacuous.

 

[AV1611VET]

How wonderfully vacuous.

Macroevolution is more than just vacuous though, it's blasphemous.

 

[lesliedellow]

Macroevolution is more than just vacuous though, it's blasphemous.

Upsetting YECs doesn't make something blasphemous. There is a good chance that it makes it right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Macroevolution is more than just vacuous though, it's blasphemous.

I thought that a Christian telling God how he had to create the world was blasphemous.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Macroevolultion says a baby [common ancestor]* left Boston, took baby steps to Los Angeles, and arrived a full-grown human being.

* Technical term for "I don't know what it was".

No, it doesn't. If the baby [common ancestor] left Boston but a human being arrived in Los Angeles then the [common ancestor] did not arrive in Los Angeles and at no stage on its part of the journey was it anything other than a [common ancestor]

 

[DogmaHunter]

You got that right !

Yep.

 

[AirPo]

Good grief! You wouldn't get me up in one of those things...

Well of course not. It's a transitional. It went extinct.

 

[AirPo]

so a cat will always stay as a cat because it cant get any big step like evolving into something that isnt a cat.

No, it will stay a cat because it's a cat. A cat does not evolve. A dog does not evolve. An ape does not evolve.

because even you as intelligent designer cant make a car flying by adding only one part to a non-flying car.

Does not speak well to it's intelligence then.

 

[AirPo]

And Evolution cannot begin to explain the coded language of the DNA string in a cell,

Why would it?

which plainly exhibits the extremely subtle and sophisticated workings of an egregious super-intelligence

No it doesn't.

of the kind Einstein, the deist, was always enthusing about, far beyond man's capability. Wake up Christmas ! What's your explanation for it ?

 

[xianghua]

If life was intentionally designed the way it is, it was an extremely bad job.
It's ugly, ineficient, wasteful,...

I can heavily motivate it as well and give you loads of examples. But it's obvious that you aren't interested in hearing it.

why not? what do you think about the eye design for instance?

 

[DogmaHunter]

why not? what do you think about the eye design for instance?

The human eye?
If done on purpose, it is very poorly designed indeed.

If we draw an analogy to a Sony camera for example, it would mean that the sony camera had all the wires concentrated on a point IN FRONT of the lens wich would result in the equivalent of the "blind spot". The camera then would require additional software to "fill in the blanks" based on the stuff "seen" surrounding the blind spot. This results in an unecessary extra battery drain as such "rectification" requires additional energy. That's very poor design.

The design itself is ugly: wiring in front of the photoreceptors
The design is inefficient: it requires additional energy to compensate for backwards design

It's exactly what happens in the human eye. The wiring is essentially backwards. The nerves need to cross the retina which creates a blind spot. Our brain then needs to do additional "computation" to fill in the blanks to create the delusion of not having a blind spot. Otherwise, we would consistently see a black spot in our field of view.

But make no mistake, it's still there. You can test it for yourself by holding up a pencil inside your field of view, but on the exact spot that makes the image reflect on the blind spot.

As you move accross that point, the object will "disappear" from your field of view and re-appear again once it is crossed.

In an evolutionary context, this makes sense... Evolution can not go "back to the drawing board" and rectify "historical mistakes". Way back in our lineage, our eyes initially happened to evolve "backwards" (a backwards eye is still better then no eye). So evolution is stuck with that "bad" initial design. The only thing it can do from that point forward is "tinker" with it to make it more efficient. So additional mechanisms to "rectify" the image are expected.

An octopus, for example, doesn't have this problem.

 

[AirPo]

why not? what do you think about the eye design for instance?

An eye with a blind spot. Seems id means idiot design.

 

[Radrook]

not realy. again; we only need the ability to add small changes over time (therefore the logic small steps+time=big step). and a regular car can indeed to that.

now, the interesting part is that even a car will have the ability to reproduce, it will not change into something like an airplane or a submarine. because we dont have a functional s t epwise way from a self replicating car into an airplane. so they cant evolve from each other even if they was self replicating.

That's where they appeal to mutations. Your car has to include the ability to mutate and pass on occasional beneficial mutations [changes] to other cars it replicates. Otherwise the analogy begins to unravel. So you must include a glitch in its programming so that it makes mistakes now and then-umm-the vast majority being of course detrimental to the car's functioning but just enough beneficial ones to keep it going via improvements and voila! An evolving automobile!

 

[Radrook]

An eye with a blind spot. Seems id means idiot design.

Or maybe a consequence of simply wanting it that way for a multitude of motives?

 

[VirOptimus]

Or maybe a consequence of simply wanting it that way for a multitude of motives?

What motives?

 

[createdtoworship]

Could I care less what a jounalist thinks about Evolution? No, not really. Some of his remarks which are frankly fallacious.

what about richard dawkins, saying nothing created everything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what about richard dawkins, saying nothing created everything?

Not quite what is being said. Have you ever watched the video "A universe from nothing"? It goes over the physics of that and explains how no laws of physics would have been broken by such an event. I could link it for you. The video is about an hour long. It is entertaining, Lawrence, the narrator, gets his science across rather well. And people at all levels can learn from it. Just ask and I will post it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite what is being said. Have you ever watched the video "A universe from nothing"? It goes over the physics of that and explains how no laws of physics would have been broken by such an event. I could link it for you. The video is about an hour long. It is entertaining, Lawrence, the narrator, gets his science across rather well. And people at all levels can learn from it. Just ask and I will post it.

Seriously?

It takes about an hour?

And let's see ...

1. A universe from nothing.

2. No laws of physics were broken by such an event.

Sounds to me like he's saying the laws of physics were present first.

But ... but there was no universe yet.

No wonder it takes about an hour.