Former evolutionist having doubts

[Belk]

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.

By what objective criteria are we able to tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed?

 

[dad]

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

Jesus. He designed in ways above your pay grade and ways that any idiot can see also.

2: What would falsify ID (Creationism).

Well, if there was no universe and stars and sun and moon and earth and mankind etc...that would make creation false.

If the earth crashed into another planet and killed us all and destroyed earth, that would probably falsify an intelligent Designer as well. But theu universe seems to run like clockwork. How could anyone miss it?

 

[mzungu]

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

All life is transitional but flying fish will not transition into avians just like dragonflies did not transition into avians!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus. He designed in ways above your pay grade and ways that any idiot can see also.
Well, if there was no universe and stars and sun and moon and earth and mankind etc...that would make creation false.

If the earth crashed into another planet and killed us all and destroyed earth, that would probably falsify an intelligent Designer as well. But theu universe seems to run like clockwork. How could anyone miss it?

Not good enough. We have evidence of why those won't happen without your myth.

Here is an example why the Cambrian Bunny Rabbit would falsify evolution. Creationists have no explanation of the fossil record. So an "out of place" fossil has no effect on their beliefs. It would be evidence only against evolution.

You need to find a test where the evidence would pertain to your idea only.

 

[dad]

Not good enough. We have evidence of why those won't happen without your myth.

Here is an example why the Cambrian Bunny Rabbit would falsify evolution.

False criteria. Only creatures that could fossilize in the former nature could be in the record. To expect otherwise is religion.

What would make evolution from a first lifeform false, would be to go there and look, or somehow KNOW. You cannot falsify evolution!!!! You have a fable, not a theory of respect.

Creationists have no explanation of the fossil record.

Where you been, sleeping?

You need to find a test where the evidence would pertain to your idea only.

You need to be able to test! How can you test Christ doing stuff before a man existed? How can you test whether He made the moon? You evos need to pipe down, and act according to your ability.

 

[Black Akuma]

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

Why should we assume that all intelligent designers must design something the same way? How can you say that something that is distinctly NOT human and can do things humans can't do and probably doesn't even think like a human does - how can you say that such a thing will design like a human designs?

Now, do you retract your earlier statement about not assuming how the intelligent designer designs? Because that seems to be rather unambiguously what you're assuming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False criteria. Only creatures that could fossilize in the former nature could be in the record. To expect otherwise is religion.

What would make evolution from a first lifeform false, would be to go there and look, or somehow KNOW. You cannot falsify evolution!!!! You have a fable, not a theory of respect.

No, your delusional state has nothing to do with either reality or evolution. Until you give some evidence for it that is all that you have.

Where you been, sleeping?

Did you need a more precise statement? Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been debunked.

You need to be able to test! How can you test Christ doing stuff before a man existed? How can you test whether He made the moon? You evos need to pipe down, and act according to your ability.

Still no understanding of basic science I see. Such a shame.

Would you like to know an interesting fact? Some people can continue to learn all throughout their lives. And sadly it seems that some people cannot.

dad, we have been trying to help you. We have been explaining how basic science is done and how it works. All science is testable, including the theory of evolution. You just need to know how to test it. So far you have given false tests for your claims. I explained why a Cambrian Rabbit would debunk evolution and all you could respond with was more utter nonsense.

 

[dad]

Did you need a more precise statement? Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been debunked.

False. You may not claim that this nature produced all the fossils. Period. That day is over.

All science is testable, including the theory of evolution.

You test your theories by comparing them to a fantasy state past. You cannot claim man and beast would have fossilized.

I explained why a Cambrian Rabbit would debunk evolution and all you could respond with was more utter nonsense.

It is not supportable to claim man or most beasts would fossilize in the far past.

Your point about the rabbit is no more valid than claiming that if we find the easter bunny, then evolution is falsified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

False. Your theory is debunked as religion. The masquerade is over. You may not claim that this nature produced all the fossils. Period. That day is over. Any little internally consistent expectation that you claim doesn't exist, therefore makes your theory true is pure belief.
Lie. You test yourselves by comparing yourselves with yourselves, and your theories by comparing them to a fantasy state past. You cannot claim man and beast would have fossilized.


We know how you do and don't.

The world and stars exist. That is a test.

It is utter nonsense to claim man or most beasts would fossilize. That is an error that you built into your religious models. Get over it.

dad, evolution is not a religion. It is based upon science, which is based upon evidence. Religion is the opposite of that.

You know that I don't need to lie. The truth is on my side.

The world and stars exist for evolution too. That is not a unique test. It is not evidence either way. You failed again.

Very few animals end up as fossils. We know that animals, and people are animals, can fossilize given the right conditions.

dad, it seems like you need some very basic education in science. There are many online sources. Do you need any recommend to you?

 

[Sophrosyne]

I am not a creationist. I am having doubts about evolution that is all. I have been researching spiritualism for twenty years and I discovered it contradicts evolution. There are reports of mediums such as Leslie Flint channelling spirits who have claimed evolution is a hoax. Surely spirits don't lie? I suspect this evolution might be a hoax. Ectoplasm is 100% genuine, it is not cheesecloth like the skeptics say.

Spirits do lie, the Bible even advises Christians to "test" spirits to be sure they aren't false (lying).

 

[Nithavela]

Comeon, people, back in my day, our poes had class and were at least somewhat convincing. Up your game!

 

[EternalDragon]

Why should we assume that all intelligent designers must design something the same way? How can you say that something that is distinctly NOT human and can do things humans can't do and probably doesn't even think like a human does - how can you say that such a thing will design like a human designs?

Now, do you retract your earlier statement about not assuming how the intelligent designer designs? Because that seems to be rather unambiguously what you're assuming.

I am not saying that at all. Does a human design things like machines, software, computer programs?

Is there something very much like it in biological life that is on a nano scale that humans are incapable of reproducing?

Everything we see in biological life points to this and against it happening by non-intelligent agents. ie., natural selection, mutations and mother nature. Non-intelligent/randomness does not design complexity, nano-machinery, DNA code or body blueprints. Anyone can plainly see this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying that at all. Does a human design things like machines, software, computer programs?

Is there something very much like it in biological life that is on a nano scale that humans are incapable of reproducing?

Everything we see in biological life points to this and against it happening by non-intelligent agents. ie., natural selection, mutations and mother nature. Non-intelligent/randomness does not design complexity, nano-machinery, DNA code or body blueprints. Anyone can plainly see this.

Well it is a good thing for us that evolution is not a random process then, isn't it? Only someone totally ignorant about evolution would make such an error.

 

[Black Akuma]

Is there something very much like it in biological life that is on a nano scale that humans are incapable of reproducing?

Currently incapable of reproducing, you mean. And the design we see in nature is not reflective of the design we see from humans. For example, humans don't design things in a pattern of nested hierarchy. It's exactly what would we expect from flowering lines of descent and exactly what we wouldn't expect if everything was designed at the same time by the same being.

Also, by calling them 'machines' you're begging the question. A machine is, by definition, something that is designed.

 

[Belk]

I am not saying that at all. Does a human design things like machines, software, computer programs?

Is there something very much like it in biological life that is on a nano scale that humans are incapable of reproducing?

Everything we see in biological life points to this and against it happening by non-intelligent agents. ie., natural selection, mutations and mother nature. Non-intelligent/randomness does not design complexity, nano-machinery, DNA code or body blueprints. Anyone can plainly see this.

Ok. What is the falsifiable criteria by which we are able to tell if something is designed or not?

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Ok. What is the falsifiable criteria by which we are able to tell if something is designed or not?

You asked this question before and I believe it was ignored. I'm curious too.

 

[dad]

dad, evolution is not a religion.

Sorry I don't agree.

It is based upon science, which is based upon evidence. Religion is the opposite of that.

False. There is no evidence for any first lifeform or that God didn't create.

The world and stars exist for evolution too. That is not a unique test. It is not evidence either way.

They exist, so they are evidence that they exist. The clockwork precision is evidence of a Designer.

Very few animals end up as fossils. We know that animals, and people are animals, can fossilize given the right conditions.

Irrelevant. You would need this nature. That was the point, after all. You do not know what the nature was.


The fossil record must be reevaluated.

 

[dad]

You are not thinking properly, we have not been around long enough to fossilise.

?? Man and beast have not been around long enough!!! You are kidding. IF they could have done so they would have. Man has been here since the trilobites and all life on earth. It was all created the same week.

 

[JamesKurtovich]

Man has been here since the trilobites and all life on earth. It was all created the same week.

If you could provide data supporting this statement, that'd be great.

 

[dad]

If you could provide data supporting this statement, that'd be great.

Genesis 1. Science has none, so that will have to do.