Former evolutionist having doubts

[Subduction Zone]

It is now 6000+/- years and many generations since created perfection has fallen into sin. So how do you figure that into your "spotting bad design"?

You may think you are fooling others or even yourself with these excuses but you are not fooling me.

Now don't be silly we know that no such event happened 6,000 years ago. It is time to grow up. Your claim is debunked by geology and biology. If you want to learn science I will gladly help you. If you keep spouting nonsense all I will be able to do is to laugh at you.

Do you know what a population bottleneck is and how it debunks the idea of two original people? It also debunks the flood.

Do you understand how geology in no way supports a young Earth?

I am not trying to fool anyone. And you are only fooling yourself.

 

[Black Akuma]

Just how are you qualified to theorize how an intelligent designer, wiser than yourself, would design living organisms?

Isn't that pretty much what the whole Intelligent Design is about? If you're not trying to tell people how an intelligent designer would do something, than what are you doing?

 

[JamesKurtovich]

I have believed in evolution for many years but now in my 60s and starting to have doubts. I mean if we look at fish they have always been fish, I have never seen a fish turn into a bird. Also when I went to the zoo a few weeks ago I asked myself if we evolved from monkeys then why are these monkeys still here, surely if evolution was true then monkeys wouldn't be about? But they are, so it now makes sense to me that man did not evolve from the monkeys.

I am also skeptical about ants, was there really a common ancestor, if so what was it? A mini ant? But ants are already small. Also it's hard to vision sea plankton evolving from a rock because that's what evolution says, it says organisms came from matter and rocks originally. Sounds like a fairy-tale to me. I used to be an orthodox Christian but now I'm a spiritualist. There are cases of ectoplasm spirits telling humans in the séance room that evolution is a hoax. Am I on the right path? Are the spirits right and evolution is a hoax?

Please comment and let me know.

Tyler Snotgern MU

It sounds like you've never attempted to learn any of this stuff. Your use of the term "evolutionist" in addition to the arguments you've put forward leads me to believe that you're just promoting creationism.

I suggest doing some research to indulge your curiosity.

lol @ your claims

 

[EternalDragon]

Isn't that pretty much what the whole Intelligent Design is about? If you're not trying to tell people how an intelligent designer would do something, than what are you doing?

Apparently you need to hit the books and research ID theory.

I've never assumed how an ID decided to design things nor would I attempt it. Neither does ID theory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have debated many famous evolutionists online such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, Jerry Coyne, Deepak Chopra, forests, Eveshi, Paul Anagnostopoulos, David Bailey and Arouet but I have debunked much of their evidence. The Mk/Ultra Secret by Frank Camper contains a wealth of information of conspiracy theories related to psychic research, I believe the same thing has happened with evolution.

Lol ! I'm sure someone already pointed this out, but Dawkins doesn't debate creationists/spiritualists.

This thread is good for laughs but woe to anyone who takes "Tyler's" posts seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you need to hit the books and research ID theory.

I've never assumed how an ID decided to design things nor would I attempt it. Neither does ID theory.

Clearly you do not know the meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context.

There is no ID theory.

Here is a simple question that you seem to constantly avoid. What observation would debunk ID theory?

 

[Black Akuma]

Apparently you need to hit the books and research ID theory.

I'm not in the mood for fiction, thanks.

I've never assumed how an ID decided to design things nor would I attempt it. Neither does ID theory.

So ID makes no predictions?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Coincidentally, this thread reminded me of a good book I read about a year ago. Anyone interested on the "trade" of a "psychic" or "medium" should check this out. It's very honest...

I Was One of America's Top Psychics -- And Like All of Them, a Complete Fraud | Alternet

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm not in the mood for fiction, thanks.

So ID makes no predictions?

Prediction:
If life was designed we would see indications of
design in life. Like we do with our own designs.
Code or language, machinery, irreducible complexity,
common design features in different species, embryo
body plans, etc.

It is exactly what we find.

 

[Black Akuma]

If life was designed we would see indications of
design in life. Like we do with our own designs

So you DO assume to know how an intelligent designer designs. You assume he designs like we do.

 

[mzungu]

Prediction:
If life was designed we would see indications of
design in life. Like we do with our own designs.
Code or language, machinery, irreducible complexity,
common design features in different species, embryo
body plans, etc.

It is exactly what we find.

ID = Design without a designer. Nice theory you have there. I am an industrial designer myself and know that for every design there is a designer. Now will you according to your theory please define the designer and how did he design?

Even the most complicated of human designs can be studied, understood and replicated.

You simply cannot expect us to take just your word for it or even worse the word of a book written in the bronze age when the authors believed the world was flat.

Now answer the following questions if you want to seriously discuss the issue:

1: Who is this designer and how did he design?

2: What would falsify ID (Creationism).

If you cannot answer these two very simple questions then there is basically nothing more to discuss.

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Natural selection is the designer.

IC has been debunked for years now. Really?

 

[Doveaman]

Are you calling the flying fish a transitional species?

Aren't we all transitional species?

 

[Doveaman]

So now you can predict the future?

It’s an educated guess based on the evidence: The fish is flying like a bird using wings like a bird.

You claimed that the flying fish was transitional between fish and birds. In order for it to be transitional it needs a mixture of characteristics between fish and birds. Since you can not point to a single derived feature in flying fish that is homologous to birds, then there is no way that the flying fish would ever be mistaken for a half-fish, half-bird. It would be understood to be a fish evolving flight independent of birds or any other lineage.

Since the fish is becoming a bird through successive descendants it’s only a matter of time before a mixture of characteristics occur between fish and birds. So far they share wings for flight.

 

[Doveaman]

Do you know what a population bottleneck is

Yes.

and how it debunks the idea of two original people?

Only for those who worship science rather than God.

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." - (Matt 19-26).

It also debunks the flood.

The fact that you are still here trying to debunk the flood isn’t very convincing.

 

[EternalDragon]

So you DO assume to know how an intelligent designer designs. You assume he designs like we do.

We can detect design that way because we are also intelligent designers.
Unless you disagree?

 

[EternalDragon]

ID = Design without a designer. Nice theory you have there. I am an industrial designer myself and know that for every design there is a designer. Now will you according to your theory please define the designer and how did he design?

Even the most complicated of human designs can be studied, understood and replicated.

You simply cannot expect us to take just your word for it or even worse the word of a book written in the bronze age when the authors believed the world was flat.

Now answer the following questions if you want to seriously discuss the issue:

1: Who is this designer and how did he design?

2: What would falsify ID (Creationism).

If you cannot answer these two very simple questions then there is basically nothing more to discuss.

Answer this about evolution theory first:

1. How did life begin? (Abiogenesis)

2. What would falsify evolution theory?

 

[variant]

If the OP was genuine, then my apologies.

Have you ever heard someone refer to themselves as an "evolutionist"?

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Answer this about evolution theory first:

1. How did life begin? (Abiogenesis)

2. What would falsify evolution theory?

1. Unrelated to evolution...

2. Fossil record out of order. Features that could not have developed through gradual change. Lack of genetic variation in organisms. A biological function that stopped the adaption process before the species changed so much genetically that it could be considered a separate species. General discordance between DNA/morphology/fossils record. Just to name a few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Unrelated to evolution...

2. Fossil record out of order. Features that could not have developed through gradual change. Lack of genetic variation in organisms. A biological function that stopped the adaption process before the species changed so much genetically that it could be considered a separate species. General discordance between DNA/morphology/fossils record. Just to name a few.

In the latter question E.D. is trying to copy us when we demand to know what would debunk their nonsense. They do not know how crucial testing is to a scientific hypothesis or theory.