How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

he cant since its only a skull. actually some skulls are very similar to each other but arent related at all:

(image from Thylacine - Wikipedia).

so even according to evolution similarity doesnt prove a common descent.

When you say things like this, it REALLY shows that you don't understand a single thing about evolution. Who says that that sort of thing doesn't prove common descent?

EDIT: It just struck me as soon as I posted: did you mean to say "common designer" instead of common descent?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

since you have not made any better eye so far (nor anyone else on planet) you cant realy show how it can be better.

Yes you can. It's called engineering design and the people at Zeiss are quite good at designing lenses and optical equipment.

since that "backwards" retina actually improve vision, its not realy a flaw but a design trait. as newscientists admit:

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"

so any claim about "bad design" is bad by itself.

No, you found one blog post claiming that. However, if you look further and see what people who know what they are doing are saying, e.g. lens designers, you can see that the blog is wrong. Also if you read the paper that the blog post was discussing, it does not make the same claims at all. [PDF] researchgate.net It just describes the functions of the cells themselves, and says that vision is better with those cells acting as waveguides than without.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so why you gave this paper as evidence for evolution? if we assume a common designer then the paper is meaningless (its a ctually begging the question). as for evidence for design: i already gave here a spinning motor like the flagellum. do you agree that a spinning motor is evidence for design or not?

There is absolutely no reason to assume a common designer unless there is some actual evidence of design. Can you supply some, as all the evidence we have implies no designer, but naturalistic evolution guided by feedback from the environment.

No, a spinning motor is not evidence for design. It's evidence for a spinning motor. We need to look into it in more detail to see whether it implies a designer or not. An electric motor requires that someone designed it, which is a safe bet as all electric motors that we know of were designed. A biological motor isn't, as we have no evidence that anything biological that predates genetic engineering has been 'designed'.

If I propose that the entire universe was farted out by a gigantic wombat in its current form, then this 'explains' everything. However, even if I did make that claim then we'd still need to look into the evidence of evolution, as while my 'explanation' explains everything, it's incredibly almost certain to be wrong. Can you tell me why the Christian creation story should be taken more seriously than my random creation story as in this paragraph?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Not making a major point, just something I know about the argument Darwin is arguing against. He never really argued against Biblical creation, only the version of creation that was popular at the time. He also mentions in his autobiography that he enjoyed Natural Theology and hated math in college. In the end he found math very useful and couldn't do anything with natural theology.

Yes, but I interpret this 'argument' as a minor consequence of his work, rather than the primary motivation. Note that I'm not saying that you're saying that it is was Darwin's primary motivation. I was just looking for clarification, as there are some people who say that Darwin hated God, and invented ToE specifically to be against God.

Darwin spent little time on evolution, mentioned it only a few times in On the Origin of Species. He was pretty much making a positive argument for natural selection and how species emerge from existing species. When you stretch it back to the chimpanzee/human split your well into the framework of natural history. Darwin's work is largely philosophical and his central focus is natural history.

That makes it even more interesting that some people (not you) describe ToE as 'Darwinism' as if it's the philosophy of a single man. When the modern ToE is the product of work by a very large number of people, over a long time.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes, but I interpret this 'argument' as a minor consequence of his work, rather than the primary motivation. Note that I'm not saying that you're saying that it is was Darwin's primary motivation. I was just looking for clarification, as there are some people who say that Darwin hated God, and invented ToE specifically to be against God.

Darwin didn't invent evolution and he didn't hate God, he was pretty much an agnostic his entire life. He proposed natural selection as a primary means by which one species developed from another, this process was cumulative in his estimation.

That makes it even more interesting that some people (not you) describe ToE as 'Darwinism' as if it's the philosophy of a single man. When the modern ToE is the product of work by a very large number of people, over a long time.

Darwinism can be the same thing as ToE, the terms can be used interchangeably, depending on the context. It's not that big of a deal, I do think you should make a distinction between ToE as a theory and evolution as a phenomenon in nature. What is more Darwin proposed some pretty interesting things in this book and I've always thought it was well written. I get most of my information from evolutionists, even Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. Always wondered why more people don't appreciate the philosophical elements of Darwinism.

 

[Speedwell]

Always wondered why more people don't appreciate the philosophical elements of Darwinism.

We do, but we've been burned too many times by creationists trying to prove that the theory of evolution must amount to metaphysical naturalism because it doesn't agree with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[rjs330]

Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.

The photos show nothing of what you claim. I asked you to show evidence of such and you haven't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The photos show nothing of what you claim. I asked you to show evidence of such and you haven't.

Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.

 

[rjs330]

And yet you claimed just that.



Misunderstanding? Dude, you claimed a bunch of hominid skulls were "human" without even realizing one of the skulls is question is a chimp.

It speaks to the fact that any claims you make about such skulls are invalid. You can believe whatever you want, but making claims about a bunch of skulls when you don't even know what they are is just silly.

Pot calling the kettle again. Nice try. You still can't provide evidence to your claim. Continuing to mention my misunderstanding of what you were claiming is just more evidence obfuscation to the point you have no real evidence. It's a common tactic when you lack an actual argument.

 

[rjs330]

There is absolutely no reason to assume a common designer unless there is some actual evidence of design. Can you supply some, as all the evidence we have implies no designer, but naturalistic evolution guided by feedback from the environment.

No, a spinning motor is not evidence for design. It's evidence for a spinning motor. We need to look into it in more detail to see whether it implies a designer or not. An electric motor requires that someone designed it, which is a safe bet as all electric motors that we know of were designed. A biological motor isn't, as we have no evidence that anything biological that predates genetic engineering has been 'designed'.

If I propose that the entire universe was farted out by a gigantic wombat in its current form, then this 'explains' everything. However, even if I did make that claim then we'd still need to look into the evidence of evolution, as while my 'explanation' explains everything, it's incredibly almost certain to be wrong. Can you tell me why the Christian creation story should be taken more seriously than my random creation story as in this paragraph?

Oh I see, another assumption. You still have no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You have an assumption based upon function and similarities. You can't reproduce it, observe it or test it. But you can sure assume it happened because that's what you desire to be true.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh I see, another assumption. You still have no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You have an assumption based upon function and similarities. You can't reproduce it, observe it or test it. But you can sure assume it happened because that's what you desire to be true.

Are you still on that tack? It is not an "assumption," it's a reasonable inference. Surely you are smart enough to know the difference.

The rest of your post is a despicable smear verging on the reportable. Shame on you.

 

[rjs330]

When you say things like this, it REALLY shows that you don't understand a single thing about evolution. Who says that that sort of thing doesn't prove common descent?

EDIT: It just struck me as soon as I posted: did you mean to say "common designer" instead of common descent?

Because similarities do not prove common descent.
Either does similar functions.

Would you look at a city of buildings and say they all came from the same building? Of course not. You could say they all have a common design. Such as doors and windows or foundations and the way they are structured so they stand up and not fall down.

Evolution claims that the obvious common design shows common ancestry. It's such a huge leap of logic. It's like saying a foundation to a building is evidence that all buildings came from the same building.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because similarities do not prove common descent.
Either does similar functions.

Would you look at a city of buildings and say they all came from the same building? Of course not. You could say they all have a common design. Such as doors and windows or foundations and the way they are structured so they stand up and not fall down.

Evolution claims that the obvious common design shows common ancestry. It's such a huge leap of logic. It's like saying a foundation to a building is evidence that all buildings came from the same building.

That example you used is just completely and utterly wrong that to even imagine to think that that is somehow a good position to come from is really just... it's idiotic.

 

[Speedwell]

The whole line of argument stinks. Calling common ancestry an "assumption" is an outright accusation that it was decided on a priori before the evidence was examined. claiming that it was made because because it was "desired" for other than scientific reasons is nothing but a baseless insult.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Oh I see, another assumption. You still have no evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You have an assumption based upon function and similarities. You can't reproduce it, observe it or test it. But you can sure assume it happened because that's what you desire to be true.

Not an assumption at all. The molecular and genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of common descent. See, for example this paper: The common ancestry of life for a discussion of this.

It isn't an 'assumption' based upon 'function and similarities'. but a extremely well supported scientific theory based upon, function, similarities, genetic evidence, molecular evidence, and so on. See here for loads more evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

What sort of evidence do you have for your beliefs?

 

[rjs330]

That example you used is just completely and utterly wrong that to even imagine to think that that is somehow a good position to come from is really just... it's idiotic.

Really, show me how.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really, show me how.

Show me one person who thinks that all buildings in the world came from one building. If you can't see how that's idiotic, then you've made a step in the right direction.

 

[rjs330]

Not an assumption at all. The molecular and genetic evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of common descent. See, for example this paper: The common ancestry of life for a discussion of this.

It isn't an 'assumption' based upon 'function and similarities'. but a extremely well supported scientific theory based upon, function, similarities, genetic evidence, molecular evidence, and so on. See here for loads more evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

What sort of evidence do you have for your beliefs?

Every single one of those 29 evidences shows common design. It does not show common ancestry. All it does is show commonalities between organisms. Commonalities of life do not show common ancestry. All it shows is commonalities of design. It's illogical to take to similar things and claim they came from the same thing without evidence they actually came from the same thing. All you can say is they have a common design.

 

[rjs330]

Show me one person who thinks that all buildings in the world came from one building. If you can't see how that's idiotic, then you've made a step in the right direction.

Thanks for making my point. We don't do it for anything else, but by golly we will do it for common ancestry evolution. It's illogical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for making my point. We don't do it for anything else, but by golly we will do it for common ancestry evolution. It's illogical.

Except we can see from the fossil evidence and genetic evidence that humans and other animals share a common ancestor!