proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

You're just repeating yourself and you're unable to answer that very question. This is discussion is done.

of course. those examples are the exceptional. generally wheel shape is very conserve among vehicles.

 

[rjs330]

How do you know? Seriously how do you know?

Because I believe in reality. All observation in all experience and all testing shows that design and creation must happen in order for things to exist. No one has ever observed or been able to show that anything came out of nothing. Your in the philosophical realm of nothing real exists. I guess you can live there if you want. I don't think you do, I'm just making a point.

 

[Speedwell]

Because I believe in reality. All observation in all experience and all testing shows that design and creation must happen in order for things to exist. No one has ever observed or been able to show that anything came out of nothing. Your in the philosophical realm of nothing real exists. I guess you can live there if you want. I don't think you do, I'm just making a point.

So you don't know. What you have just said is that everything which exists is "designed." All you have done, in effect, is to gratuitously add "designer" to the names of God. Do you even know exactly what it is that the Discovery Institute is proposing?

 

[rjs330]

Even though it was inspired by God?

How do you know it was inspired by God? How do you know who God is? How do you know God exists? Do you not gain that knowledge from the Bible? If it is an allegorical book or a really good story then could it not be that inspiration is also a really good story? If it is Allegory and story then isn't all you know of God also allegory and story? Doesn't the very existence of God become Allegory and story?

 

[rjs330]

So you don't know. What you have just said is that everything which exists is "designed." All you have done, in effect, is to gratuitously add "designer" to the names of God. Do you even know exactly what it is that the Discovery Institute is proposing?

I do know, I just said how. It's called reality. It's called observation of reality. If you can show me any other reality where those things came from nothing and formed themselves into what they are then I'll change my view of reality. Until then I will stick to what is observed and proven throughout the ages.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know it was inspired by God? How do you know who God is? How do you know God exists? Do you not gain that knowledge from the Bible? If it is an allegorical book or a really good story then could it not be that inspiration is also a really good story? If it is Allegory and story then isn't all you know of God also allegory and story? Doesn't the very existence of God become Allegory and story?

LOL! That's good, rjs, the laugh of the day for sure even though it isn't even ten o'clock in the morning yet.

How do I know it was inspired by God? Because Paul says so. How's that for a reason? What's your reason?

 

[Speedwell]

I do know, I just said how. It's called reality. It's called observation of reality. If you can show me any other reality where those things came from nothing and formed themselves into what they are then I'll change my view of reality. Until then I will stick to what is observed and proven throughout the ages.

Obviously you don't know what ID is. The Discovery Institute says something very different.

You are talking about creation, not "design." I think you are just calling it "design" because you think it's sciency-sounding.

 

[pitabread]

It's called observation of reality.

Observation of reality has given us the modern Theory of Evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Observation of reality has given us the modern Theory of Evolution.

its also give us the fact of creation.

 

[bhsmte]

its also give us the fact of creation.

Facts, can be demonstrated.

 

[Jimmy D]

No one has ever observed or been able to show that anything came out of nothing.

Can you really not see the irony of this statement?

 

[bhsmte]

Can you really not see the irony of this statement?

Yea but, different rules for God and special pleading, is allowed.

 

[pitabread]

of course. those examples are the exceptional. generally wheel shape is very conserve among vehicles.

It's a case of function dictating design. Most vehicles are designed to travel across relatively even terrain. Wheels are optimal for that, hence the same basic design is used.

However, there are plenty of cases of vehicles designed to travel other surfaces and therefore requiring other designs optimal for those surfaces. Take airplanes as an example. Airplanes with wheels are designed for traditional (typically paved) landing strips. On the other hand, wheels would be terrible for landing on snow or water. Instead aircraft designed for those environments would have skis or pontoons. And even in the case of amphibious aircraft, some don't even have pontoons but are designed to utilize the basic body of the aircraft for landing.

And this highlights the fact that similarity is not necessarily indicative of functional importance when talking about independently designed objects. I could take three planes, one with traditional wheel-based landing gear, one with skis and one with pontoons, and conclude that the landing gear seems functionally unimportant because it bears no similarity between the thee planes ("conservation" according to you). Yet they are critical to the design of each plane, because without which none of those planes would be able to take off or land.

Another good example of commonalities in design are design standards. These are cases where the design itself isn't functionally restrictive, but commonality serves a different purpose. Typically those purposes can be for cross-compatible operation or basic identification/communication. For example, USB Type A connectors are extremely common. You probably have a couple on your own computer. This allows for manufacturers to design for a particular standard and ensure connectivity with other devices.

Branding is another great example of where commonality serves no function beyond identification. For example, here is a Ford logo on a truck:

And here it is on a mug:

And a roof:

Tell me, what criticial importance does this logo serve with respect to these objects?

 

[ruthiesea]

No, you mean distinct genetic differences that divide them into subspecies, don’t you?

No, I meant what I said. Darwin's finches are divided several species, under four genera. Scientists change species designation as more knowledge is gained. That is what science does. It is continuously changed as the result of further research. You should not confuse geneotype and phenotype. Organisms that are similar in appearance may or may not be similar enough in genotype to be considered the same species. For example, although Homo sapiens comes in many different physical varieties, the differences have been determined to be phenotype adaptations to differing climates.

 

[BradB]

Because I believe in reality. All observation in all experience and all testing shows that design and creation must happen in order for things to exist. No one has ever observed or been able to show that anything came out of nothing. Your in the philosophical realm of nothing real exists. I guess you can live there if you want. I don't think you do, I'm just making a point.

I can see it coming. Here's a good reply when it does.

When we say we have never observed something come from nothing we are obviously not speaking in the absolute sense. This is because we have never observed a state of nothing. What I intend to convey is nothing in the sense of anything of inherent value. An empty shoe box is said to contain nothing when in fact it is quite full of something. We end up spiraling down this endless argument over what is valuable and what is not. However if we are talking from an even reference point my wife would say the shoe box is empty because the reference point is "shoes." So from that scale shoes are the reference line and the existence or absence of shoes becomes the point of the discussion. Here we are talking about "universes" and the formation of them. Therefore when I say we have never observed something come from nothing I obviously mean we have never observed something like a universe form in a space where there was nothing like a universe. In fact when it comes to quantum fluctuations the fact that the laws that govern this universe make it more likely that a qf is actually some yet unexplained conversion process rather than completely new material coming into existence from where no such material existed. The point I am stressing here is that it is merely a moot game of semantics to get tripped up by the mere mention of the word "nothing."

 

[BradB]

Yea but, different rules for God and special pleading, is allowed.

In the case of God creating something from nothing there is in fact a special case to consider. If you have God who is said to contain infinite power, and infinite knowledge, and infinite existence, there are infinite factors involved. In a math equation 0+0 will always equal 0. However 0 plus any other factor will always equal the number of the other factor. What is 0+infinite? Therefore in this case we are not saying the universe was created from nothing we are saying it was created from nothing plus God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Okay I'll play your game. How can foot print impressions get left and preserved in dry sand? Also my understanding is that those foot prints were left by known amphibians. Where do amphibians mainly dwell?

Nobody said it was always desert. The claim is that the dunes were made by wind-blown sand.
Geography changes. Perhaps mountain streams changed course so they started to flow through the desert and form a lake. Animals would gather around the lake and make footprints in the marshy ground. As the lake rose, the footprints could be covered. Over years, the streams would keep bringing sediment down into the lake and permanently cover and preserve the footprints.

Your turn. How is it that we have buried sand dunes with footprints in the Coconino? Were amphibians walking around under a mile of water?

 

[bhsmte]

In the case of God creating something from nothing there is in fact a special case to consider. If you have God who is said to contain infinite power, and infinite knowledge, and infinite existence, there are infinite factors involved. In a math equation 0+0 will always equal 0. However 0 plus any other factor will always equal the number of the other factor. What is 0+infinite? Therefore in this case we are not saying the universe was created from nothing we are saying it was created from nothing plus God.

Yes, special pleading at it's best.

And, who, created God?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Much like the animal trees often shown. The horse evolution is a perfect example of assumptive evolution. The fossils found with various bones supposedly have been linked even though they have been found at different places all over the world.

Wrong. The whole series from Hyracotherium to Equus can be built from fossils in North America. A land bridge allowed some Equus to cross over into Asia to evolve into the donkey, the horse and the zebra. But the vast swath of horse evolution occurred right here in America. See Fossil Horse Gallery .

They find one fossil here and then a different fossil with some different bone structure there and then say"oh look evolution". No where have they found the process in sync.

What exactly does it mean to find "the process in sync?"

When we dig for fossils, the best we can expect is to find one fossil here, one there, and to find that when we arrange them by date, they show a picture of what happened. That is exactly what we found, with the fossils showing a progression to modern horses as well as progressions in various dead end paths.

So what is this "process in sync" you complain about not finding? Were you hoping to find fossils synchronized swimming down there, or what?

In fact they have found fossils of of different types in the same place.

So? New species arrive, but the old species are often still around. This happens all the time. And your point is?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think you are intentionally mischaracterizing what I said. I said the sorting of the fossil record can be accounted to a single cataclysmic event in which mobility and location played a factor. If T-Rex lived primarily in a lower lying region he would obviously get swept away and buried much faster than an animal who's primary habitat was at higher altitudes. One thing we know for certain is that all the fossils were formed under wet conditions in which they were buried too rapid to be eaten or decompose.

All of that might make sense had we found, say, 30 fossils total, and they happened to match the order expected by evolution. Then for each one we could argue that this one was faster than that one, that this one lived on higher ground, or that this one floated, hence they got arranged in this order by a single flood . But when we have many thousands of fossils of thousands of genera, and a world wide pattern in which certain kinds of animals are found only in rocks of certain ages, then the whole concept of trying to explain all of that with ad hoc explanations of why each fossil is found where it is makes no sense. It makes more sense to say the fossils are in strata of different ages, because they lived at different times.