Quotes are from post #43 in this thread,
http://www.christianforums.com/t1361858-this-thread-is-for-creationists.html
The computer program would be the mechanism, how it came to be is not the question. An intelligent being building the computer program which fully works would be similar to theistic evolution, and since theistic evolution is scientifically the same as evolution, it is considered the same thing in this debate.
What differences in those computer programs? Give specifics
How does logic say intelligence is needed to formulate purposeful design?
How is it decided what design is purposeful?
What is "purposeful" design?
If things can be found in animals that doesn't match this definition would that mean a designer didn't create them? In other words, how is purposeful design falsifiable?
I would have to say that no evolutionist would disagree with me. Mutations are random but evolution is not just mutations it is natural selection. Natural selection basically organizes these mutations.
An example. Take a random scoop of dirt, now pass it through a filter. Although the scoop was random, the filter has organized the dirt into two piles based on granular size.
I think there may be some confusion. Because the raw material is random, the results will be random (as in, run the clock back and start over and things may appear differently). However, the process is not random but guided through adaption to the environment. Since it appeared you said that the process was random, I was correcting you, since that is not correct.
An argument from ignorance is basically "I don't know, thus ____"
Scientists have taken all the evidence to point to common ancestry. The similarity and differences between animals. When animals are organized based on morphology (similar features), or when they are organized based on similarities in RNA we receive the same hierarchy (These similarities in RNA are not needed for the animal to function). This is know as twin nested hierarchy and provides evidence for common ancestors. When the fossil record is organized based on morphological changes and when it is organized by age, we receive the same pattern. This evolution is not, "I don't know, thus common ancestry." It is, "The evidence points to common ancestry, thus common ancestry."
Punk eeeeeeeek (thud).
It seems like you think punk eek is some sort excuse without evidence.
This is incorrect. Punk eek makes predictions. The basic prediction of punk eek is that a species will evolve in a small area and eventually take over the whole area. It will appear to be a jump in the fossil record but if the small area can be found it is possible to find transitional fossils to smooth out the fossil record.
Although rare, examples of just that have been found,
All your opinion.
Without positive evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution being false doesn't make ID true.
You are right, life does appear complex and designed. Your opinion comes in when you jump from, "Life appears complex and designed" to "It must be an intelligent designer."
Intelligent design is based on negative evidence, that if evolution can't explain something, ID must be right. That is a fallacy.
I didn't provide information because it was an off topic comment to an off topic comment. Thus keeping it short but providing a rebuttal is the point. Unfortunately that doesn't always work.
"More an evolutionist than creationist" doesn't cut it. To be an evolutionist you need to accept the current theory of evolution. Does Behe accept that? In his own words,
Trivial? The paper is called, "Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists" Their main quote is by Behe. Thus whether Behe is an evolutionist or not is very important to the article. If he is not an evolutionist, then it hurts the entire article.
The AiG article was written in 2003, the interview was in 2001. AiG either didn't bother to do any research, or they blatantly lied. I do not think AiG is that out of the loop when it comes to one of the leading supporters of the Intelligent Design movement.
On a side note, it should be mentioned that Denton has since become and evolutionist and has written a refutation to his original book.
I would disagree. Details to which will be later, but for now, there are a couple false arguments about transitionals to go over.
1) A common argument is to ask for smaller and smaller transitional until none can be provided, then it is declared that there are no real transitional fossils. For example, we have fossil A and fossil B and fossil C is a transitional between the two. It is then asked for a transitional between fossil A and C and B and C. Lets say fossil D is a transitional for A and C and fossil E is a transitional for B and C. So it currently looks like this:
A->D->C->E->B.
It is then asked for fossils in between A and D, D and C, C and E, E and B. This continues until fossils can no longer be provided. This is a false argument because it ignores the evidence provided and how fossilization works.
2) Another is that the transitional fossil is labeled as being from one of the two kinds it is said to be a transitional of and not a real transitional. Often its claimed that the organism just had a disease that made it look slightly different. The problem with this is that they can never show any evidence for the claimed disease, and that many creationists can't agree on which kind the fossil should be put in or why.
This could be a whole new topic but to keep it simple.
A flood would sort things based on weight and buoyancy. The fossil record should display this. Modern whales and ancient dinosaurs should be seen mixed together. Rabbits and small dinosaurs, etc. This isn't what is found.
The problem with IC as an argument against evolution (not an argument for IDism, since remember, if evolution isn't true, doesn't mean an Intelligent designer did it.) is it ignores the fact that evolution doesn't build things part by part. For example, a system can evolve from a simple non IC system into one that is IC, or a system could change function from one which isn't IC to one that is.
Upon further inspections many systems turn out not to be IC, for example, Behe has dropped blood clotting as an example of IC.
A good article on IC,
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
You obviously haven't been around here awhile. Maybe you should actually take a look at some of my threads before we wander further into ad hom land.
Sure, a debate on the fossil record and the flood will be good.
One inconsistency with the flood is the existence transitional fossils. So I will start with one of my favorite transitional fossil sets, whales.
Notice the dates, the whale fossils can be grouped based on age or morphology. I like the whale transitional because the fossils aren't all we have. Studies of modern whales show flipper bones similar to modern land mammal limbs, and vestigial legs (some whales don't have a single bone but a more developed limb like structure).
The early ancestors to the whale still had the appearance of a land mammal but were beginning to develop an ear that could hear better underwater. This ear design exists only in whales and their ancestors.
An example of a transitional fossil line and something that hasn't been explained by flood theory all in one.
So you haven't downloaded the program, but he can assure me that it isn't the same as evolution? Can you support that claim?
Where is the evidence that DNA was perfect at one point?
DNA is a code not a story. Thus it is not like a book.
Most of the claims that you have made but haven't provided support for.
But this is a new thread, so it doesn't matter in this one.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1361858-this-thread-is-for-creationists.html
The computer program would be the mechanism, how it came to be is not the question. An intelligent being building the computer program which fully works would be similar to theistic evolution, and since theistic evolution is scientifically the same as evolution, it is considered the same thing in this debate.
What differences in those computer programs? Give specifics
How does logic say intelligence is needed to formulate purposeful design?
How is it decided what design is purposeful?
What is "purposeful" design?
If things can be found in animals that doesn't match this definition would that mean a designer didn't create them? In other words, how is purposeful design falsifiable?
I would have to say that no evolutionist would disagree with me. Mutations are random but evolution is not just mutations it is natural selection. Natural selection basically organizes these mutations.
An example. Take a random scoop of dirt, now pass it through a filter. Although the scoop was random, the filter has organized the dirt into two piles based on granular size.
I think there may be some confusion. Because the raw material is random, the results will be random (as in, run the clock back and start over and things may appear differently). However, the process is not random but guided through adaption to the environment. Since it appeared you said that the process was random, I was correcting you, since that is not correct.
An argument from ignorance is basically "I don't know, thus ____"
Scientists have taken all the evidence to point to common ancestry. The similarity and differences between animals. When animals are organized based on morphology (similar features), or when they are organized based on similarities in RNA we receive the same hierarchy (These similarities in RNA are not needed for the animal to function). This is know as twin nested hierarchy and provides evidence for common ancestors. When the fossil record is organized based on morphological changes and when it is organized by age, we receive the same pattern. This evolution is not, "I don't know, thus common ancestry." It is, "The evidence points to common ancestry, thus common ancestry."
Punk eeeeeeeek (thud).
It seems like you think punk eek is some sort excuse without evidence.
This is incorrect. Punk eek makes predictions. The basic prediction of punk eek is that a species will evolve in a small area and eventually take over the whole area. It will appear to be a jump in the fossil record but if the small area can be found it is possible to find transitional fossils to smooth out the fossil record.
Although rare, examples of just that have been found,
"There is a particular class of trilobites called Phacops that shows this exact pattern. The gradual change in the population is found in a single quarry in New Hampshire. The more general fossil finds show a gap in the Phacops line of great (apparent) significance.
In short, in most locations, the fossils show a sudden appearance. But the fossils in one small place reveal that the trilobite species evolved there, and then migrated to the other places."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/phacops.html
In short, in most locations, the fossils show a sudden appearance. But the fossils in one small place reveal that the trilobite species evolved there, and then migrated to the other places."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/phacops.html
All your opinion.
Without positive evidence for an intelligent designer, evolution being false doesn't make ID true.
You are right, life does appear complex and designed. Your opinion comes in when you jump from, "Life appears complex and designed" to "It must be an intelligent designer."
Intelligent design is based on negative evidence, that if evolution can't explain something, ID must be right. That is a fallacy.
I didn't provide information because it was an off topic comment to an off topic comment. Thus keeping it short but providing a rebuttal is the point. Unfortunately that doesn't always work.
"More an evolutionist than creationist" doesn't cut it. To be an evolutionist you need to accept the current theory of evolution. Does Behe accept that? In his own words,
"Q. You were originally a believer in evolution. What changed your mind?
A. ...I became skeptical of the theory in the late 1980s after reading a book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by an Australian geneticist named Michael Denton. Denton pointed out a number of scientific problems of the theory that I had never considered before.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_pittinterview0201.htm
So, no, Behe is Not an evolutionist, he is a supporter of Intelligent Design theory. So it is not my opinion that AiG was dishonest, but fact. They claimed Behe is an evolutionist when he is not.A. ...I became skeptical of the theory in the late 1980s after reading a book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by an Australian geneticist named Michael Denton. Denton pointed out a number of scientific problems of the theory that I had never considered before.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_pittinterview0201.htm
Trivial? The paper is called, "Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists" Their main quote is by Behe. Thus whether Behe is an evolutionist or not is very important to the article. If he is not an evolutionist, then it hurts the entire article.
The AiG article was written in 2003, the interview was in 2001. AiG either didn't bother to do any research, or they blatantly lied. I do not think AiG is that out of the loop when it comes to one of the leading supporters of the Intelligent Design movement.
On a side note, it should be mentioned that Denton has since become and evolutionist and has written a refutation to his original book.
I would disagree. Details to which will be later, but for now, there are a couple false arguments about transitionals to go over.
1) A common argument is to ask for smaller and smaller transitional until none can be provided, then it is declared that there are no real transitional fossils. For example, we have fossil A and fossil B and fossil C is a transitional between the two. It is then asked for a transitional between fossil A and C and B and C. Lets say fossil D is a transitional for A and C and fossil E is a transitional for B and C. So it currently looks like this:
A->D->C->E->B.
It is then asked for fossils in between A and D, D and C, C and E, E and B. This continues until fossils can no longer be provided. This is a false argument because it ignores the evidence provided and how fossilization works.
2) Another is that the transitional fossil is labeled as being from one of the two kinds it is said to be a transitional of and not a real transitional. Often its claimed that the organism just had a disease that made it look slightly different. The problem with this is that they can never show any evidence for the claimed disease, and that many creationists can't agree on which kind the fossil should be put in or why.
This could be a whole new topic but to keep it simple.
A flood would sort things based on weight and buoyancy. The fossil record should display this. Modern whales and ancient dinosaurs should be seen mixed together. Rabbits and small dinosaurs, etc. This isn't what is found.
The problem with IC as an argument against evolution (not an argument for IDism, since remember, if evolution isn't true, doesn't mean an Intelligent designer did it.) is it ignores the fact that evolution doesn't build things part by part. For example, a system can evolve from a simple non IC system into one that is IC, or a system could change function from one which isn't IC to one that is.
Upon further inspections many systems turn out not to be IC, for example, Behe has dropped blood clotting as an example of IC.
A good article on IC,
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
You obviously haven't been around here awhile. Maybe you should actually take a look at some of my threads before we wander further into ad hom land.
Sure, a debate on the fossil record and the flood will be good.
One inconsistency with the flood is the existence transitional fossils. So I will start with one of my favorite transitional fossil sets, whales.
Summarized from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1. Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) -- Similar to the early exyclaenid condylarths, had strong canine teeth, blunt cheek teeth and flattened claws.
Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the Mesonychids. Its molar teeth are reorganized to look like premolars. It was adapted more toward carnivory.
Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- Molars closer to premolars and other tooth changes.
Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- Very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shape zygomatic arch and vascularized areas between the molars. probably a close relative to the whale ancestor.
Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Terrestrial ears, not good for underwater sound location or deep diving. Molars have very mesonychid like cusps but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils are still at the front of the head.
Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- Still retains four legs, although they were stubby. Had large back feet that stuck out like tail flukes but lacked real tail flukes and had a simple long tail. Long snout with no blowhole.
Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Smaller hind legs with a powerful tail. Nostrils had moved back from the tip of the snout.
Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- Still retained hind legs but most likely couldn't walk on them anymore. B isis might have bee a cousin to the modern whale.
Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) -- Hind legs almost gone but still present. 6" hind legs on a 15 foot body.
Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene -- More advanced whales, that had lost their hind legs, but retained more primitive skull and teeth with unfused nostrils. Much larger streamline bodies with a tail fluke.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
1. Toothed whales:
Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- partly telescoped skull with cheek teeth still rooted.
Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Fully telescoped skull with nostrils on top
Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped but still symmetrical.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- Most primitive mysticete whale. Most likely the stem group for all baleen whales. mysticete style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but retained its teeth
Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) --- lost its teeth.
Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
Notice the dates, the whale fossils can be grouped based on age or morphology. I like the whale transitional because the fossils aren't all we have. Studies of modern whales show flipper bones similar to modern land mammal limbs, and vestigial legs (some whales don't have a single bone but a more developed limb like structure).
The early ancestors to the whale still had the appearance of a land mammal but were beginning to develop an ear that could hear better underwater. This ear design exists only in whales and their ancestors.
An example of a transitional fossil line and something that hasn't been explained by flood theory all in one.
So you haven't downloaded the program, but he can assure me that it isn't the same as evolution? Can you support that claim?
Where is the evidence that DNA was perfect at one point?
DNA is a code not a story. Thus it is not like a book.
Most of the claims that you have made but haven't provided support for.
But this is a new thread, so it doesn't matter in this one.
