How to choose between creation and evolution.

[rjs330]

They are presented as functional systems, not "designed" systems.

Functional systems are always designed in our observable world.

 

[pitabread]

The Bible is right in how it describes how things were created or evolution from a common ancestor is right on how things came to be. It's always a battle of faith in science or faith in God supported by science.

Are you suggesting that only Biblical literalists (read: creationists) have "faith in God"?

 

[Speedwell]

You know that's not true. Why do you say such things?

Then God spoke all these words:I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You must have no other gods before me.Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the Lord your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy.Six days you may work and do all your tasks, - Exodus 20:1-9 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-9 - Common English Bible

Then God said all these words:א “I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.ב “You are to have no other gods before me.You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.ג “You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.ד “Remember the day, Shabbat, to set it apart for God.You have six days to labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is a Shabbat for Adonai your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work — not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.For in six days, Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why Adonai blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself. - Exodus 20:1-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

Odd use of the third person, never explained, but important in a written language without quotation marks. Maybe you're right, but it's certainly not a slam-dunk.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A heartbeat.

That's a function.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God designed the mountains to do what they do. He designed and created the process for them to be formed to do what they do. It's not that difficult to understand.

So why can't this god also "design" the processes that makes life form and then evolve?

And also, sounds like you are saying that everything is designed, is that correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You interpret what you see. The nested heirarchies are assumptions based upon and interpretation.

I just explained to you how the pattern of nested hierarchies factually exists.
It's the opposite of assumption.

There is no observable testable verifiable evidence that it ever occurred the way evolutionists say

Sticking your head in the sand, will not make testability of theory go away.
The factual existance of nested hierarchies in and of themself, is actually a prediction of evolution, ironically.

They see community, similarity and assume it means we all evolved from the same thing.

no.

Like I said and I have ALWAYS said that things do adapt. Bears might have existed and then adapted to fit the climate or area where they live. But bears were always bears from the start. They we're never ever an original ancestor that crawled out of the sea or whatever.

They weren't.

How do you breath, btw, with your head lodged so firmly up.... errr.... burried so deep underground?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And there you have it. Science is God.

Not at all what I said.

Science is right regardless of what God says.

No.

Rather: science based on empirical objective evidence, trumps faith based beliefs of people who claim to know what an undemonstrable god supposedly said.

When reality disagrees with your faith based beliefs, it's not reality that is wrong.

To say otherwise is about the most intellectually dishonest position one can put himself in.

 

[tas8831]

The presenter of this video strongly suggests that DNA was designed, based on how it functions.

A creationist, no doubt... Ummm... Carl Zimmer wrote a book called "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea", so I am skeptical that he did a video espousing design...

Did you actually watch it? I guess you must have been swayed by the metaphorical language...

What I get from you guys is that evolution deliberately disguised it's designs so that it could proceed without revealing a designer. Pretty crafty.

Confirmation bias bolstered by an admitted ignorance of the material. Pretty typical.

How long did it take for the genome to evolve, or was it already in the first cell ready to go to work?

Are you also going to ask 'If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'

Yours is a question that someone with no knowledge of evolution, genetics, etc., would ask, yet think they are asking something profound. You are asking more about the origin of life, which is not part of evolution. I suggest you start out here:


Evolution 101

and work your way up to the level that most of the evolution proponents on here are at.

Every presentation like this one reinforces creation, not evolution.

And yet you have admitted that you do not understand the science.

How can a rational person ascribe the complexity of the genome to "descent with modification"?

How can a rational person admit that they are ignorant of the relevant science yet draw conclusions like you are?

 

[tas8831]

So you don't understand that illustration? Let me help.

We are made of atoms.
We are made of molecules.
We are made of cells.

What is so difficult about that?

So you are a product of molecules, not Jesus.

Got it.


Look.... Definitions and concepts actually mean things - maybe not in the phony baloney world of economics, but in science, definitions have specific meanings.

Any biology student will tell you that a tissue is a collection of cells of similar shape and function, because that is the definition of tissues.

NOBODY says 'tissues are specialized molecules' because that is stupid.

I get that you are trying to save face, but a much better way to save face is to NOT pontificate on matters that you have admitted ignorance in.

Isn't that the rational thing to do? Some stable genius with a 130 IQ should do?

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[tas8831]

Functional systems are always designed in our observable world.

Those designed by humans, yes.

Are you claiming that Jehovah is human?

 

[Snappy1]

As I said I look at complex, specialized organisms and conclude that they were designed. No religion required. Further, it is science that reveals just how complex and unique things are, thus removing them further from the possibility that they evolved from a common ancestor.

Then show me the scientists that concluded design without an apriori religious belief. I've asked this three times now.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

So you are a product of molecules, not Jesus.

Got it.


Look.... Definitions and concepts actually mean things - maybe not in the phony baloney world of economics, but in science, definitions have specific meanings.

Any biology student will tell you that a tissue is a collection of cells of similar shape and function, because that is the definition of tissues.

NOBODY says 'tissues are specialized molecules' because that is stupid.

I get that you are trying to save face, but a much better way to save face is to NOT pontificate on matters that you have admitted ignorance in.

Isn't that the rational thing to do? Some stable genius with a 130 IQ should do?

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Actually, a tissue is a group of similar or dissimilar cells performing a common function which have a common origin.
The similar in appearance part is actually wrong because (for example) the xylem is a complex permanent tissue. It has 4 components (in angiosperms): tracheids, vessels, xylem parenchyma and xylem fibres. None of these resemble each other.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, a tissue is a group of similar or dissimilar cells performing a common function which have a common origin.
The similar in appearance part is actually wrong because (for example) the xylem is a complex permanent tissue. It has 4 components (in angiosperms): tracheids, vessels, xylem parenchyma and xylem fibres. None of these resemble each other.

Fair enough, but in a general sense, they do look alike.

Regardless, those cells are not referred to by any biologist as molecules.

 

[xianghua]

because all of the electric motors of our previous experience were manufactured and thus designed.

again: its true for a genome too since all genomes we know of are the product of design.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

again: its true for a genome too since all genomes we know of are the product of design.

Do you not know what a genome is?

Fair enough, but in a general sense, they do look alike.

Regardless, those cells are not referred to by any biologist as molecules.

Most tissues do look alike, I guess.
The only time I've heard someone use the word molecule in relation to a cell is in reference to its organelles (which are made of molecules). Still, nobody looks at your arm and says 'what a great assembly of cells'. Same with the cell.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you are a product of molecules, not Jesus.

Got it.


Look.... Definitions and concepts actually mean things - maybe not in the phony baloney world of economics, but in science, definitions have specific meanings.

Any biology student will tell you that a tissue is a collection of cells of similar shape and function, because that is the definition of tissues.

NOBODY says 'tissues are specialized molecules' because that is stupid.

I get that you are trying to save face, but a much better way to save face is to NOT pontificate on matters that you have admitted ignorance in.

Isn't that the rational thing to do? Some stable genius with a 130 IQ should do?

Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Cells are made up of molecules. Two-thirds of your body is water molecules; H20 (water molecule). Think of a brick wall. The "wall" holds up the roof, but is made of "bricks". Without the bricks there is no wall. Without molecules there are no cells. Therefore we are made of cells, which are made of molecules (which are made of atoms).

Why are you arguing this point?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then show me the scientists that concluded design without an apriori religious belief. I've asked this three times now.

Once scientists have drunk the evolution cool aid "design" is permanently removed from their lexicon.

 

[Snappy1]

Once scientists have drunk the evolution cool aid "design" is permanently removed from their lexicon.

I have very little interest in a response from you if it's not an answer to the question I've asked.

 

[xianghua]

Except it doesn't given that it's made out of completely different materials.

so if you will see a car made of wood or special materials you will not conclude design then?

 

[Speedwell]