The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[Speedwell]

but you have no evidence that a genome can evolve naturally.

And you have no evidence that it can't. I can freely admit that it may have been designed, but you are in a position to have to prove that it must have been designed.

 

[Shemjaza]

but you have no evidence that a genome can evolve naturally.

No. We do.

Every animal in the wild has a genome that it can pass slightly changed to its offspring.

 

[Shemjaza]

humans also designed genomes. so by this criteria we need to conclude that a genome is the result of design?

Remember:
"Humans build dams."
"Beavers build dams."
Therefore:
"Beavers are actually tiny humans."

You logic is obviously flawed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really, because creation was a long time ago. They imagine some desolate primordial world, where there was no animals or man. They just can't and don't actually cover the time.

I meant the whole world as the creation, not the origin of it all.

 

[dad]

Then "they" aren't having an issue with science. They have an issue with a specific area of study. That is not what you said "they" say.

If you do not consider evolution, cosmology and all origin 'sciences' science, fine. They are part of what most consider science.

 

[dad]

I meant the whole world as the creation, not the origin of it all.

Oh. Ok. So long as they study the current state of creation on and near earth...fine. That would not include the origin sciences.

 

[dad]

Remember:
"Humans build dams."
"Beavers build dams."
Therefore:
"Beavers are actually tiny humans."

You logic is obviously flawed.

Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.

 

[dad]

No. We do.

Every animal in the wild has a genome that it can pass slightly changed to its offspring.

So what? That is just passing what it was created with.

 

[dad]

And you have no evidence that it can't. I can freely admit that it may have been designed, but you are in a position to have to prove that it must have been designed.

No. Creation shouts out that it was designed. All we need to do is stop ignoring it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So what? That is just passing what it was created with.

What part of "slightly changed" don't you understand?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No. Creation shouts out that it was designed. All we need to do is stop ignoring it.

Wait, what?

Cancer, maleria, starvation, and mosquitoes shout that it was all designed?

I would have thought otherwise.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh. Ok. So long as they study the current state of creation on and near earth...fine. That would not include the origin sciences.

What if they want to study last Tuesday? That is no longer current. Are forensic scientists out also? Anybody who examines the crime scene based on scientific evidence is not fine and needs to be excluded from science?

 

[tas8831]

Not really. Both are designed wonderfully.

Question begging fallacy.

Dismissed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Christian: "The wrath of God is falling on mankind, as prophecied!"
Scientist: "Don't bother me, I'm studying a new microscopic biological community in this polluted lake water."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.

Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not really. Both are designed wonderfully. Yet differently. The commonality is that they are fearfully and wonderfully made...not that they are made the same.

You are just saying that. You don't have evidence, just a gut feeling that your reading of the Bible makes all your intuitions correct.

So what? That is just passing what it was created with.

But it changes. We have mutations and random selections

EDIT: I should say random recombinations not random selections.

Christian: "The wrath of God is falling on mankind, as prophecied!"
Scientist: "Don't bother me, I'm studying a new microscopic biological community in this polluted lake water."

When I read this comment I honestly assumed it was an atheist being unkind to Christians.

The scientist is looking into something specific, and learning about the world, and the Christian is making grand pronouncements with no clarity and no detail.

Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.

My beaver comments are to point out the flaws in xianghua's logic.

 

[xianghua]

That is an example of bad logic.

Just because humans have created biological compounds does not necessarily mean that all biological compounds are made by humans.

I hope you can see that point.

that was actually your criteria: "How, exactly, do you know this? (Hint: because humans make robots. We design them."

So you think that bacteria simply "choose" to be killed by various antibiotics until they get tired of it and decide to use systems they have there all along?

So now you need to explain to me why any bacteria would "choose" to die due to poisoning if they can easily just NOT die.

its actually very simple. if the antibiotic target is say a ribosome (the complex that make a peptide bond) all we need is a simple mutation on the ribosome to change its structure a bit and then the antibiotic will no longer can bind to the ribosome (the result- a bacteria that cant be effected by the antibiotic). of course that this step need at least several generations till the bacteria get the correct mutation.

 

[theQuincunx5]

that was actually your criteria: "How, exactly, do you know this? (Hint: because humans make robots. We design them."

No, you worked it backwards. Basic logic. If humans make a biological compound does NOT mean that all biological compounds had to be made by humans.

If I were to make a tree out of pumps and chunks of lumber from the hardware it wouldn't therefor mean that someone had to make a tree out of pumps and chunks of lumber from the hardware store.

its actually very simple. if the antibiotic target is say a ribosome (the complex that make a peptide bond) all we need is a simple mutation on the ribosome to change its structure a bit and then the antibiotic will no longer can bind to the ribosome

Wait...you said "all we'd need is a simple mutation"...that doesn't sound like a designer had anything to do with it. Why suggest design if you allow for mutations to alter how something functions?

(the result- a bacteria that cant be effected by the antibiotic). of course that this step need at least several generations till the bacteria get the correct mutation.

Sure, but it shows it can work. And we see it working pretty much every day! No designer is needed in order to create a "super-bug" out of just a regular "bug".

 

[tas8831]

Wait, what?

Cancer, maleria, starvation, and mosquitoes shout that it was all designed?

I would have thought otherwise.

Why? 'All praise, no blame' is the mantra of a child.

If you insist that the RLN is perfect and that via some miracle contrary to all we know about the nervous system that the aorta can make vocalization impulses, then my gosh you must think that 'Cancer, maleria [sic], starvation, and mosquitoes' shout Design!

Cannot pick and choose!

Oh, never mind - Christians pick and choose all the time.

 

[xianghua]

No. We do.

Every animal in the wild has a genome that it can pass slightly changed to its offspring.

true. but we never seen a creature that evolve into a different kind of creature. so we never seen a genome (which contain many genes) that evolved by a natural process.