Darwins Doubt - Cambrian Explosion

[Almost there]

That is a claim that I don't think that you can support. Yes, people have lied about the AGW work, but they cannot substantiate those claims.

What claims?

 

[Almost there]

Please, now you are just trolling at best. And you are demonstrating a fear of discussing the nature of evidence.

No, I was simply saying that it supports my position as well.

The simple fact that it functions so well and is so mind bogglingly complex, and there are BILLIONS of examples of this sort of thing in nature that, IMO, a person would have to be really married to their religious view about creation to refuse to see that as evidence to support the idea that it was created.

I'm 64 and I still marvel at creation an many levels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You simply miss the point of the analogies. That's fine. I can't get through to everyone. I strive for excellence, not perfection.

There was no point, that is the problem. It appears that you are overestimating your abilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I was simply saying that it supports my position as well.

But it

The simple fact that it functions so well and is so mind bogglingly complex, and there are BILLIONS of examples of this sort of thing in nature that, IMO, a person would have to be really married to their religious view about creation to refuse to see that as evidence to support the idea that it was created.

I'm 64 and I still marvel at creation an many levels.[/QUOTE]

No, I was simply saying that it supports my position as well.

The simple fact that it functions so well and is so mind bogglingly complex, and there are BILLIONS of examples of this sort of thing in nature that, IMO, a person would have to be really married to their religious view about creation to refuse to see that as evidence to support the idea that it was created.

I'm 64 and I still marvel at creation an many levels.

But it does no such thing. As I said, you need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, typing on a recalcitrant tablet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What claims?

The ones you just made about AGW.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, I was simply saying that it supports my position as well.

The simple fact that it functions so well and is so mind bogglingly complex, and there are BILLIONS of examples of this sort of thing in nature that, IMO, a person would have to be really married to their religious view about creation to refuse to see that as evidence to support the idea that it was created.

I'm 64 and I still marvel at creation an many levels.

So, basically the argument from personal incredulity.

To paraphrase "biological life and what goes into making to function are so complex that I don't see how anything other than a creator did it".

Or, to put it more succinctly, "don't understand, therefore goddidit".

The funny thing is, there is an explanation out there that develops models (which have explanatory power and are testable) that explains how this complexity developed. But, there are people out there that are so married to their religious views about creation, that they refuse to examine it or countenance that it provides the best explanation for the complexity and diversity of life.

 

[Ophiolite]

Pssst. You are not my audience.

I did not suggest I was. But you have conceded that some audiences have not been swayed by your arguments. Yet you continue to insist on using only a single approach - analogies. Do you feel that is using your intellect to maximum effect?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Pssst. You are not my audience.

-_- if you aren't making posts for non-Christians to see, then why post in the subforums open to both believers and non-believers on a website that has Christian exclusive subforums?

 

[Job 33:6]

Criticism of the precambrian fossil succession reminds me of the God of the Gaps concept.

We have 500 million years of solid fossils, which were not historically known about. Historically, in the days of Darwin, young earthers might have said, look you have no transitional fossils for whales or horses or mammals or reptiles or birds or amphibians etc.

Then as years pass and more and more fossils are uncovered confirming the fossil succession, the extent of criticism shrank and shrank and shrank until today.

Today, the argument is "look, you don't have soft bodied, highly metamorphosed, pre cambrian complex bodied organism beyond A B C D and E fossil groups". And to read this is just hilarious.

Young earthers are backed so far into the corner, that their argument is like saying "look, you dont have canon digital photos of the baby in the womb". Its just hilarious. They are forced to critique the furthest extent of the succession, reaching back to the absolute very beginning of life. Meanwhile the fossil succession reigns king over the other 99.99%

 

[Almost there]

-_- if you aren't making posts for non-Christians to see, then why post in the subforums open to both believers and non-believers on a website that has Christian exclusive subforums?

I didn't mean the "collective you".

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps you should quit using analogies, speak directly and simply, and maybe try to avoid the hint of paternalism you spice your posts with.

'Hint'?

It is interesting to see these one-sided conversations since I put him on ignore - it is easy to tell exactly who is being replied to...

 

[tas8831]

-_- if you aren't making posts for non-Christians to see, then why post in the subforums open to both believers and non-believers on a website that has Christian exclusive subforums?

It is apparently very easy to impress fellow creationist Christians with rhetoric and wannabe-parables and analogies. And so trolls try it here, but it doesn't work, so they become indignant and whine about how their old techniques aren't working on people that need more than silly analogies.

 

[Ophiolite]

@Almost there. I think you are actually a long way off. This sub-forum is for serious discussion of creation and evolution. All I can see from you thus far is:

• Opinions, several of them mistaken.
• Unsupported assertions.
• Trite excuses for why you can't be bothered having a serious discussion about the topic
• One mention of something you once read in Scientific American
• An actual link to a "questionable" web site

Overall, the semantic content is close to zero. Do you have anything pertinent and supported to say about the topic? (either from scripture, peer reviewed research articles, or comparable) I strongly suspect you could say something of value. I hope you will choose to do so. If you choose not I rather hope you desist entirely.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Kinda interesting. For me, DNA supports ID more than evolution.

You say this, but you can not justify it.
In fact, you're most likely just repeating what cdesign proponentsists have told you.

ps: they lied.

Both sides can make a case for how it proves their position, because both are technically possible.

I can "make a case" for how apples falling down proves "intelligent falling" and posit fairies that regulate it.

And that is also "technically possible".
"technically possible" is not the measure by which ideas are evaluated.


The fact of the matter is that DNA demonstrates common ancestry. It really is that simple.

When a paternity test demonstrates that you are the biological father of child X, you can scream all you want about "opinions" and how it is "technically possible" that someone else is the father still... No court will care though.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Regarding the first sentence, why must the various evolution theories keep changing after tests then?

1. when you do experiments, you learn more and you incorporate that data into your model
2. the things that "keep changing" are details concerning the mechanisms and processes. Obviously we don't know everything there is to know about biology, genetics, etc. If we did, we would have no need to train more biologists. But again, this is about details. Nothing has changed in the big picture. Common ancestry and evolution as a result of descent with modification and natural selection. Not a single test or experiment or discovery has ever shed any doubt on that.

There is not other explanation that I've seen that explains the existence and complexity of life.

ID/creation, explains nothing. It merely asserts, based on a 2500 year old religious story.

Evolution theory actually explains. Based on evidence. And testable predictions.

And the explanation needs to cover both to have any validity whatsoever.

"both"? Are you complaining now that evolution doesn't address the origins of life, but only the origins of diversity?

Well, tough luck. It is what it is. The origins of species and the origins of life itself, are two different questions.

It's just the way it is.
Life is here. It exists and we can study it.
We don't need to know how life itself came about, in order to study and unravel the processes that existing life is subject to.

Creation explains both

Nope. Again, creation explains nothing.
Creation merely asserts. And it does so based on a 2500 year old religious text.

Of course, you may disagree. I give you permission.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.
It's a matter of you just being plain wrong. It is not a matter of opinion.

It is a matter of fact and evidence.

"creation" is a religious assertion. Not a scientific explanation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Science requires the ability to demonstrate what it says.

Evolution is demonstrable in a vast, vast multitude of ways.
It's actually what makes it so solid as a scientific model.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Meanwhile, creation proves ID within the very fabric of our universe.

Again: not "proves". It just asserts. Religiously.

All the evolution hypothesis has, regarding the creation of species, is a lot of monkeys at a lot of typewriters for a lot of years

That silly analogy completely ignores the role of natural selection.

That's not enough "evidence" to convince me.

Maybe, just maybe, that is because it ignores most of the actual model and actually boils down to nothing but a misrepresentation of the model.

 

[DogmaHunter]

BTW, big bang = let there be light

Or, let there be deadly radiation

 

[DogmaHunter]

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

It's a natural consequence of the designer model.
In a design-hypothesis, there is exactly ZERO reason to expect nested hierarchies. There is NO reason why only vertebrates would have a blind spot, why only birds would have feathers, why only mammals would have hair, why all primates would have the exact same broken gene broken in the exact same way, why ERV's would be shared, why the pattern of distribution of ERV's would match just about every pattern of other shared traits etc etc etc

Designed product lines don't look like trees in their shared traits.

If done on purpose, it's incredibly wasteful and ineficient.

With ID there are all sorts of possibilities

Off course... considering ID is the equivalen of magic...with magic, nothing is impossible.
In fact, the opposite. Magic is exactly that: making the impossible happen anyway.

When someone comes up with a better explanation, I'll buy it.

You don't have an explanation. You have a religious assertions that doesn't correspond with reality.