A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[paul becke]

Um, 1.) a car doesn't have DNA, 2.) a car doesn't reproduce.

I seem to recall that you posted this kind of nonsense before.

And Evolution cannot begin to explain the coded language of the DNA string in a cell, which plainly exhibits the extremely subtle and sophisticated workings of an egregious super-intelligence of the kind Einstein, the deist, was always enthusing about, far beyond man's capability. Wake up Christmas ! What's your explanation for it ?

 

[lesliedellow]

And Evolution cannot begin to explain the coded language of the DNA string in a cell, which plainly exhibits the extremely subtle and sophisticated workings of an egregious super-intelligence of the kind Einstein, the deist, was always enthusing about, far beyond man's capability. Wake up Christmas ! What's your explanation for it ?

Evolution, as its name implies, explains the evolution of species; not the origin of life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again- according to evolutionnery logic small steps+time= big step.

do you agree or disagree?

I already disagreed. It's hopelessly incomplete as a description of the process..

the only fact here is that you ignore the claim even when we add to this the self replicating trait (like a living thing). i guess that you understand well why this argument hold water.

It does not hold water and there is no need to play silly "what if" games. We HAVE systems that exhibit all the properties required for an evolutionary process to work. It's called biological life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Except that that is exactly what evolution explains. The irony is delicious.

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

Err no...
If one of my software engineer employees would design things like life, he'ld be fired on the spot for being wastefull, ineficient and just plain amateuristic.

What's your explanation for it ?

Evolution. It's been known for little over 2 centuries now. Maybe you should catch up...

 

[xianghua]

Disagree.

small steps+time= a lot of small steps.

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

How do you know, were you there?

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

 

[xianghua]

I already disagreed. It's hopelessly incomplete as a description of the process..

so you agree that small steps+time doesnt means big step then.

It does not hold water and there is no need to play silly "what if" games.

why not? because you understand well that its impossible?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you agree that small steps+time doesnt means big step then.

Dear me...
What part of "it's hopelesly incomplete as a description of the evolutionary process" did you not understand?

What do you hope to gain here, by making such stilly statements?
I accept evolution theory, have no problems with it at all. But I accept evolution theory - the theory of biology- , not whatever nonsense you are talking about.

why not?

Because they are just silly "what if" games.

because you understand well that its impossible?

Yes, the nonsense you pretend evolution to be, is impossible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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. Cats stay cats because that's how evolution works.
Cats don't turn into dogs. Cats might speciate into sub-species. It might split into other branches. But all its descendents will remain felines.

Just like humans remain primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.

It never ceases to amaze me how creationists think they are qualified to argue against evolution theory, when it is so painfully clear that they don't even have high-school level knowledge on the subject............

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

Not how evolution works, extremely bad analogy. How many times must it be repeated?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

your delectation, boys and girls, at the link appended below :

https://uncommondescent.com/evoluti...hell-says-there-is-no-evidence-for-evolution/

I stopped watching when he suggested that Darwin's subtitle phrase "The Preservation Of Favoured Races..." was circular - even a political journalist can see that it's just another way of saying, 'The Survival of the Fittest'. It's not circular for 'the survival of the fittest' to mean 'the fittest are the ones that survive', or that the 'favoured races' are the ones that are 'preserved'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Transitional.

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

 

[xianghua]

you are wrong but lets play in your game. can you as intelligent design make a minimal vision system that base upon one part? if not, then it will not be possible to evolve a minimal light detector during evolution too.

 

[VirOptimus]

you are wrong but lets play in your game. can you as intelligent design make a minimal vision system that base upon one part? if not, then it will not be possible to evolve a minimal light detector during evolution too.

The evolution of the eye is well understood, and it did not come about by magic as you suggest.

 

[paul becke]

Evolution, as its name implies, explains the evolution of species; not the origin of life.

Except it doesn't do that either. 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.

 

[paul becke]

I stopped watching when he suggested that Darwin's subtitle phrase "The Preservation Of Favoured Races..." was circular - even a political journalist can see that it's just another way of saying, 'The Survival of the Fittest'. It's not circular for 'the survival of the fittest' to mean 'the fittest are the ones that survive', or that the 'favoured races' are the ones that are 'preserved'.

But that's what defines them as the fittest ... they survived ! Duh....

 

[paul becke]

Except that that is exactly what evolution explains. The irony is delicious.



Err no...
If one of my software engineer employees would design things like life, he'ld be fired on the spot for being wastefull, ineficient and just plain amateuristic.

Err.... that's enough to disqualify your posts from serious consideration. And no, there is no appeal.

 

[paul becke]

Err.... that's enough to disqualify your posts from serious consideration. And no, there is no appeal.

DogmaHunter, eh ? Do you really need to be told that the purpose of an open mind is to close on the truth, our hyperskeptical friend ? A rhetorical question, as indicated. You folly scares me too much. I can see I could spend hours refuting your forays into reasoning to absolutely no purpose. The most obvious things seem to be hidden from you in broad dayight.

It might just have been a wise move, using a username, because if I were you, I would be seriously worried that my employees could be laughing about me behind my back. As a truculent, supercilious atheist, and presumably fairly-mature adult, trying to 'punch above your weight', you clearly don't have the sense you were born with.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Err.... that's enough to disqualify your posts from serious consideration. And no, there is no appeal.

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

Yes, I said it.

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.

 

[paul becke]

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

Yes, I said it.

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.

You got that right !

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But that's what defines them as the fittest ... they survived ! Duh....

No; fitness is an explanation - similar to "if you throw these balls into the water, the buoyant ones will float"; buoyancy explains the floating. Fitness (adaptation to the environment) explains survival.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Stop comparing the construction of cars to biological evolution. THEY AREN'T COMPARABLE.

Yes they are! BOTH are made by God himself! (Anyone who tries to tell you that mere humans make cars is trying to displace God from His Throne!)

If God didn't make cars we wouldn't have these:

QED