Evidence for Design (3)

Loudmouth · Dec 10, 2013

gradyll said:
all I was saying was evolution is used to define different mechanisms.

You have the cart in front of the horse. The mechanisms define the evolution of a system.

what evidence do you have that we evolved from a rock, or a puddle or an amoba, or a RNA strand, or whatever.....

No one is saying that we evolved from a rock or a puddle. We are saying that we evolved from living ancestors that came before us. Our evidence for shared ancestry for all life is shared genetic and metabolic systems that are completely arbitrary in nature. For example, both us and bacteria use the same codons for many amino acids, and only slight variations here and there at the third base. We use the same system of mRNA's, tRNA's, and ribosomes. We use similar glycolytic pathways for our metabolism. None of these shared features are needed for separately created species. This only makes sense in the light of shared ancestry.

When we get to species that are more closely related to us the shared similarities are even more glaringly obvious. The nested hierarchy that complex life falls into is the hallmark of evolution from shared ancestors. There is absolutely no reason why any designer would be forced to create species that fall into a nested hierarchy. In fact, when humans design species we regularly violate a nested hierarchy, and do so with ease.

OllieFranz · Dec 10, 2013

EternalDragon said:
It is a fair comparison because the watch requires many fully designed parts to operate. Also you can compare genetic machinery to human designed machinery to see if it looks designed.

God designed us in His image, and we design things. So designed non-living things should resemble designed living things and that is exactly what we find.

If it is a fair comparison (as I thought it should be), then why, when I asked how you would compare the desgned-ness of two rocks shaped like the head of a sphinx, did you say that it was an unfair request because they were not living things?

HitchSlap · Dec 10, 2013

EternalDragon said:
What does reproduction have to do with it? Nothing.

Do I need to explain the birds and the bees to you and where little baby watches come from?

OllieFranz · Dec 10, 2013

HitchSlap said:
Do I need to explain the birds and the bees to you and where little baby watches come from?

Have you noticed that E D keeps telling you and Loudmouth that Design is not confined to the attributes of life (eg reproduction) and yet refuses to accept my question about design on non-living things?

HitchSlap · Dec 10, 2013

OllieFranz said:
Have you noticed that E D keeps telling you and Loudmouth that Design is not confined to the attributes of life (eg reproduction) and yet refuses to accept my question about design on non-living things?

I suspect he's desperately searching creo sites for a solution.

OllieFranz · Dec 10, 2013

gradyll said:
all I was saying was evolution is used to define different mechanisms.

so now that we have that covered.

what evidence do you have that we evolved from a rock, or a puddle or an amoba, or a RNA strand, or whatever.....

take your time.

*Bump*
(Since you apparently missed it the first time)

OllieFranz said:
Stellar evolution is entirely unrelated to biological evolution. The only connection is the name, and that is only because someone saw the process that stars undergo is analogous to (not the same, but with features that can be loosely compared to) the process living populations undergo.

Your confusing or conflating the two processes is similar to confusing the pure colors black, white, red, and yellow for the average skin tone of the human racial groups. If you use the crayons with those names to color people in a coloring book, it will not look at all like what we see in nature.

createdtoworship · Dec 10, 2013

HitchSlap said:
I suspect he's desperately searching creo sites for a solution.

if you don't have something positive to say, don't say anything at all.

createdtoworship · Dec 10, 2013

Loudmouth said:
No one is saying that we evolved from a rock or a puddle. We are saying that we evolved from living ancestors that came before us.

I am pretty sure you confessed chemical evolution was evolution, and also abiogenesis. Don't you see you confessed them all interlelated. So again, what evidence do you have we evolved from a rock, or a puddle?

EternalDragon · Dec 10, 2013

OllieFranz said:
If it is a fair comparison (as I thought it should be), then why, when I asked how you would compare the desgned-ness of two rocks shaped like the head of a sphinx, did you say that it was an unfair request because they were not living things?

Machines, not carvings. You are using a false comparison.

Dave Ellis · Dec 10, 2013

gradyll said:
abiogenesis has change over time

No it doesn't

OllieFranz · Dec 11, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Machines, not carvings. You are using a false comparison.

So you are saying design only happens in machines (including organic "machines"), and not in art and artifacts? That the Mona Lisa, the Great Pyramid, the Victory of Samothrace, the White House, etc. are not examples of intelligent design? I can understand multiple types of evidence of design, but you have only presented the one, and ignore requests to explain levels of design in other types of objects.

createdtoworship · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
this is a c&p of the conclusion since you refuse to get off your duff, download and read a free peer review:

"we have considered two examples of design in birds which defy explanation by gradual
changes since to function at all, all the parts necessary for function must be there to begin with. As
examples of irreducible complexity, they show that natural systems have intricate machinery which
does not arise in a bottom up approach, whereby some natural selective method of gaining smallscale
changes could give the intermediary creature some advantage. This will not work since, ﬁrst,
there is no advantage unless all the parts of the new machine are available together and, second, in
the case of the avian lung the intermediary creature would not be able to breathe, and there is little
selective advantage if the creature is no longer alive.
As stated in the introduction, the possibility of an intelligent cause is both a valid scientiﬁc assumption,
and borne out by the evidence itself. This approach suggests that there is a basic design of bird
with furcula, keeled sternum, acrocoracoid process, air sac system, counterﬂow mass exchanger lung
and feathers which have hooked and ridged barbules, which is ancestral and quite different to reptile
design where these salient features are absent."

now you cannot say that ID doesn't have a peer review of avian resperatory and avian wings.

below you can download entire article free:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

Peer reviewed ID paper on bird design, check it out.

Loudmouth · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
I am pretty sure you confessed chemical evolution was evolution, and also abiogenesis.

I said that chemical evolution is not biological evolution. You did catch that part, did you not?

Don't you see you confessed them all interlelated.

I stressed that they are not related. Please don't bear false witness to what I have said.

Loudmouth · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
Peer reviewed ID paper on bird design, check it out.

You first. Tell us how it supports ID theory.

Ursus scientia · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
what is abiogenesis without evolution?

It comes, if at all, before evolution, as we need life to be extant before evolution can occur. Abiogenesis is a proposed means by which life can arise. From that question I can only assume you have no idea what you're attempting to talk about. :/ Please give me evidence of design so we can have a proper dialogue.

Ursus scientia · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
Peer reviewed ID paper on bird design, check it out.

Some paper nobody has read said:
There is no known recorded example of this developing experimentally where the precursor information or machinery is not already present in embryonic form.

This is an argument from ignorance.

createdtoworship · Dec 11, 2013

Ursus scientia said:
It comes, if at all, before evolution, as we need life to be extant before evolution can occur. Abiogenesis is a proposed means by which life can arise. From that question I can only assume you have no idea what you're attempting to talk about. :/ Please give me evidence of design so we can have a proper dialogue.

strawman, fallacy. Abusive adhominem and others.

also abiogenesis is equivelant to chemical evolution:

K.A. Maher said:
"abiogenesis (the

development of life through chemical

evolution from inorganic materials)"

from a non ID non creationistic scientific peer review found here:

Impact
frustration of the origin of life

found by using:

abiogenesis
vs evolution - Google Scholar

createdtoworship · Dec 11, 2013

Loudmouth said:
You first. Tell us how it supports ID theory.

duplicate

createdtoworship · Dec 11, 2013

Loudmouth said:
You first. Tell us how it supports ID theory.

I posted nearly the entire conclusion, you didn't read that either. I am starting to think

Hear no evil,

say no evil,

see no evil.

Are you scared of it?

(if you want to read it, it's below)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791772-4/#post64650598

Loudmouth · Dec 11, 2013

gradyll said:
I posted nearly the entire conclusion,

I am asking you. How does it support ID?

Why do you refuse to discuss it?

Evidence for Design (3)

Contributor

Senior Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Member

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Counselor

Contributor

Senior Member

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Contributor

Ursus scientia

Guest

Ursus scientia

Guest

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency