Design process

[Logic_Fault]

AV please... don't embarrass yourself.

Too late. He's already brought out his "apple challenge" in his first post.

 

[Adivi]

Too late. He's already brought out his "apple challenge" in his first post.

What exactly is this 'apple challenge'?

 

[Naraoia]

Every intelligent person believed in God's special creation until Darwin came on the scene, which wasn't too very long ago.

That's simply not true. If nothing else, read the Historical Sketch that came with the later editions of The Origin of Species.

Or even simpler, perhaps you have heard about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck?

Of course you might be counting Lamarck, Buffon et al. among the non-intelligent people, which I would find a rather strange judgement.

Also, I wouldn't say Darwin't theory wasn't long ago. It was certainly long enough ago to undergo countless rounds of merciless scrutiny. And the main principles still stand. I'd say that's quite an achievement.

My comment-Hey if those finches became tigers...now that would be interesting. Finches producing other finches is just proving creationism.

Big fat straw man. Finches will never produce anything other than finches (and fish never breed anything but fish - that's why you are a member of Sarcopterygii, just as you are a member of Mammalia. But that's cladistics). If they did, the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. Major transitions are bound to be gradual if they are to produce working organisms.

A coordinated change in all the key genetic features that distinguish, going by your example, a finch and a tiger, in a single generation or a few generations, is very, very unlikely by random mutation. For one thing, mutations only happen so often. And secondly, as I've said, mutations are effectively random, so chances are that if you bring in a large number of them in a complex system you'll totally mess it up.

 

[Naraoia]

Go to Wikipedia and look up what Genus actually is. We can't actually have a proper debate if you're not using proper definitions.

I wasn't aware that genus had any objective definition

 

[Naraoia]

What exactly is this 'apple challenge'?

A classic of comedy, I believe

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What is the process of ex nihlo? there must always be a mechanism. Nothing can come from nothing (the big bang wasnt nothing, we just dunno what it was).

 

[Logic_Fault]

What exactly is this 'apple challenge'?

Check it out here. Brace yourself first. I haven't really looked through it but it's probably completely debunked within the first page or two when multiple flaws are pointed out. AV continued on for another 60 pages or so by continually asking people to answer his challenge, apparently seeking a specific answer and rejecting everything else until he gets it.

There were quite a few clever answers from what I saw but none seemed to suffice for AV. Not having read all 61 pages I can't say for sure if he ever gave up on it or not but he likes to trot the thread out and parade it around now and again, seemingly under the impression that he made some point or other with it.

By the results of a poll, here, most people feel his "apple challenge" has been sufficiently met. AV has, not surprisingly, ignored the results of this poll and still feels he's somehow not had his "challenge" met.

 

[FishFace]

What exactly is this 'apple challenge'?

Summary:

AV produces an apple out of thin air into your hand, and asks you to convince your friend (who didn't see this) of the event.

AV, of course, never tells you what he wants to conclude from this (that just wouldn't be his style) he just leaves it there and, after everyone's ripped it to pieces (and he's complained at them for changing his example) and forgotten about it, he'll slip it into some other thread.
He likes to use it to somehow justify his belief in things without evidence, because, apparently ex nihilo creation is indistinguishable from a natural process.

This, of course, is silly. I set AV the analogous challenge, to which I never received a response (or did I? Well, it was useless if I did) that I pick an apple of a tree and AV has to convince his friend, who believes I created it ex nihilo, that it grew naturally.

Of course, there is no way of distinguishing between the two situations, so the only consistent thing to do is either to believe every apple was created ex nihilo or none of them were.

WHAT DO YOU DO??

 

[anonymous1515]

Oof. What a convincing challenge.

I am starting to become convinced that many of the creationists in this area do not understand the theory they are rejecting. It's one thing to reject a theory when you understand it...but its a totally different thing to reject something you know nothing (or very little) about.

Every intelligent person believed in God's special creation until Darwin came on the scene, which wasn't too very long ago.

As others have pointed out, the concept of evolution was bouncing around long before Darwin's time. Darwin, however, introduced a mechanism (natural selection) to explain it. He did not invent the theory of evolution, but he provided a means of explaining how it happens.

Hey if those finches became tigers...now that would be interesting. Finches producing other finches is just proving creationism.

Once again, as others have pointed out, a finch producing a tiger would disprove evolution, not confirm it. Finches producing more specialized finches is precisely what evolution predicts.

 

[AV1611VET]

...we just dunno what it was).

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation, then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain; so, like any "good scientist," you make something up, call it a theory, then sit back and expect people to pwn it. If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it, you simply let it remain a valid theory.

* What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

 

[FightForFamily]

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation, then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain; so, like any "good scientist," you make something up, call it a theory, then sit back and expect people to pwn it. If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it, you simply let it remain a valid theory.

* What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

That made me laugh out loud! Nice job showing the hypocrisy of the scientists!

(Still, why are you using puerile teenager internet slang?)

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation, then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain; so, like any "good scientist," you make something up, call it a theory, then sit back and expect people to pwn it. If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it, you simply let it remain a valid theory.

* What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

Unlike religion, science is plagued with the intellectual honesty of having to say "i dont know" when an answer isnt available. no other idea has yet been able to account for universal expansion, red shift, and background microwave radiation (outside of the cop out that God spoke them into existence). We know it happened, we just dont know what it was. Thats all we can honestly say about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That made me laugh out loud! Nice job showing the hypocrisy of the scientists!

(Still, why are you using puerile teenager internet slang?)

Sometimes you gotta treat these guys like kids --- they're pretty sensitive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike religion, science is plagued with the intellectual honesty of having to say "i dont know" when an answer isnt available.

It's called "painting yourself into a corner." Eventually, you're forced to say, "I don't know."

But we Christians do know --- thus my signature.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It's called "painting yourself into a corner." Eventually, you're forced to say, "I don't know."

But we Christians do know --- thus my signature.

No you dont. You believe, you have faith, but you do NOT know.

 

[anonymous1515]

No you dont. You believe, you have faith, but you do NOT know.

Yeah. I enjoy watching the certainty with which some religious folk claim to "know" God exists. Not one single person on the planet KNOWS God exists. Not one single person on the planet KNOWS the Bible is true. To claim you do is an outright lie, whether you have the sense to know it or not.

The best you can do is have faith. You can't know for certain. I should probably write a disclaimer: I'm not trying to bash religion. I am just putting it in perspective. To claim you know for a fact is wrong.

 

[EnCrypto]

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation,

Thank you for admitting this. This is a big step forward.

And we have Einstein to thank for that. Him and his Theory of Relativity gave us the knowhow to "rewind" the appearance of the universe

then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain;

Yes, but we have reached these barriers in the past an overcome them, against all odds. That's one of the great things about science. It doesn't accept defeat, it continues to challenge and question itself. Science thrives under scrutiny, that's the only way we've come as far as we have. If we never questioned the why's and how's of the world, we'd never advance; asking questions and seeking real answers is what brought about the Renaissance, because claiming to have the answers and shunning inquiring minds is one thing that lead to the Dark Ages.

so, like any "good scientist," you make something up,

Wrong. Scientists don't "make things up", they make hypotheses based on evidence and test it and test it and test it and then have others test it and question it and doubt it. There is evidence for the event referred to as the Big Bang, whether it actually happened or was planted by God.

call it a theory,

Wrong again. You don't know what a theory is, and by saying things like this... you just sound ignorant and foolish. Gravity is a theory. Heliocentrism (that we revolve around the Sun) is a theory. Evolution is a theory. They're all in the same league, all as valid as each other, attacking one is akin to attacking them all.

You have observations, like an apple falling to the ground. That happens, we see it happening, it's undeniable, and the theory explains how and why it happens.

If you think evolution and the Big Bang are silly and sound made up.. you should read into gravity. Gravity involves invisible particles, particles that have never been seen by anyone, called "gravitons". We claim to know they exist because we can see their effect.

then sit back and expect people to pwn it.

Actually, once a scientist posits a theory and tests several dozen or hundred times, they submit it to a scientific journal where other scientists read about it and test it. Scientists are incredibly competitive. Scientists not only want to be famous for discovering something new, but they also want to be famous by shooting down a theory, proving it wrong, or maybe improving it. That's how Einstein and Hawking got famous. They fixed flaws and filled in holes in previous theories.

Scientists aren't part of a cabal, they're a bunch of nerds who want to first and foremost find the truth and find the answer, but also want to be renown, and they do that by surviving the gauntlet of scrutiny that awaits ALL theories.

If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it,

Good science doesn't sway to popular opinion. Just ask Galileo. Good science only sways to evidence and tests.

you simply let it remain a valid theory.

If you only knew what goes on in scientific journals. It's cutthroat.

What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

Falsifiable. It means a test that can disprove a flawed hypothesis. It means a test that isn't just going to give you the answer you want. It's an objective standard that everyone, whether they're in a field of science or not, should strive for.

 

[AV1611VET]

No you dont. You believe, you have faith, but you do NOT know.

Yeah. I enjoy watching the certainty with which some religious folk claim to "know" God exists. Not one single person on the planet KNOWS God exists. Not one single person on the planet KNOWS the Bible is true. To claim you do is an outright lie, whether you have the sense to know it or not.

The best you can do is have faith. You can't know for certain. I should probably write a disclaimer: I'm not trying to bash religion. I am just putting it in perspective. To claim you know for a fact is wrong.

[bible]2 Timothy 1:12[/bible]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That's because it was made up. You can reverse-engineer this universe back to the moment of the Creation, then you reach a barrier that no physical science can explain; so, like any "good scientist," you make something up, call it a theory, then sit back and expect people to pwn it.

Please show me this supposed theory that scientists use to explain what happened before the Big Bang.

If they can't*, instead of being "good scientists" and discarding it, you simply let it remain a valid theory.

Discarding what and letting remain what a valid theory?

* What's that goofy made-up term you guys use? Unfalsifyability?

Actually, it's "unfalsifiability", and every term is made up. "Goofy" - well, we all know how you react to being confronted with things you have no hope of understanding: singing loudly, closing your eyes and flinging puerile insults.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

That made me laugh out loud! Nice job showing the hypocrisy of the scientists!

(Still, why are you using puerile teenager internet slang?)

Hello and welcome to the forums!

Now, would you perhaps explain to me which theory AV1611VET meant? I didn't understand what he was referring to, but apparently, you did.