How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Speedwell]

what if we are talking about a robot that made from organic components like a living thing? in this case you will conclude design or a natural process if you will find such one?

If evidence of human manufacture is present,, then it will be possible to conclude design. If no evidence of human manufacture is present then it will not be possible to conclude design.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Really? It doesnt look like you know anything about it.

One can understand that evolution has lots of support without understanding evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Yes I’ve never understood why creationists have a problem with this . You share a similar genetic legacy with every other human on the planet . They’re slightly different . Chimps are a little more different. Other primates have slightly more differences . Other mammals ,then other reptilomorphs, then other vertebrates, then other bilaterians, then other animals, then other eucarya, then the two bacterial lineages. The further away you get from humans the more different genetically you are .
Creationists seem to think that adding imaginary magic juju makes these organisms not be relatives

but genetic similarity can be evidence for a common designer too. so we cant realy use it as evidence for a common descent.

 

[VirOptimus]

Belief has everything to do with science. How often do we hear statements like this:

"We (scientists) believe that we can eventually find a cure for cancer."

Lots of science begins with belief. And when people hear this, they believe it too.

Your semantics doesnt impress.

 

[Speedwell]

but genetic similarity can be evidence for a common designer too. so we cant realy use it as evidence for a common descent.

Why not? All that is required of scientific evidence is that it be consistent with the theory. If it is also consistent with creationism, that's OK. What the creationists have to do is show some evidence which is consistent with their theory but not with the theory of evolution--big fail so far.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you study evolution, with an open mind, you will likely believe in evolution.

Because that is what the evidence supports.

If you study human, animal, and plant anatomy, with an open mind, you will likely believe in creation.

The evidence doesn't support that.
And you left out a rather crucially important criteria.... You also need to be a religious fundamentalist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Life comes from life. Nobody disputes that. With evolution there is no viable explanation of "first life" regardless of it's form. Something does not come from nothing.

1. evolution doesn't address the origins of life, just like the theory of gravity doesn't address the origins of matter/mass

2. abiogenesis (the actual field that DOES address the origins of life) doesn't claim that life came from "nothing". In fact, the only ones who claim life came from nothing, are creationists who claim their god created things from nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I would like explained from Evolutionists is that if an animal did not have what it took to survive in a hostile environment, how did that animal thrive to produce offspring?

It doesn't. And if the entire species finds itself in a situation where it can't survive, it will go extinct.

Have you seen any dino's lately? No? Think about it.

 

[xianghua]

What the creationists have to do is show some evidence which is consistent with their theory but not with the theory of evolution--big fail so far.

actually a big success for creation:

(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

 

[DogmaHunter]

DNA RNA and the Flagellin motor are not something that time energy and matter are possible of generating.

And you have concluded that, how exactly?

Who wrote the codes and then achieved a balance and harmony with amazing variety in the various climate zones? Man or random mutations? Seems when I watch a nature video they agree with the Bible and show creation unspoiled in some remote area and it is good. Then they bring in man and show man with dominion over the creation and certainly in a fallen state as we are the only ones destroying all environments. The recognize man is different than the animals and set over creation and not doing well over it. This Bible which recorded this history of God creating in 7 days also predicted that man would one day have the ability to kill all life on the planet if God did not intervene. If you do some research as to was there was a global flood it provides plenty of evidence that this is history with a genealogy going back to Adam not that long before the flood. God calls those willfully ignorant who do not recognize He exists as the creation itself is considered proof of His eternal power and intelligence. Genesis is a foundation for the whole of scripture and it is a literal history.

Genesis is just the religion you happen to buy into.
If you would have been born in pakistan, you would be making (bare) origin claims from the Quran.
If you would have been born the son of Tom Cruise, you would be making bare origin claims from scientology.
If you would have been born in hindu India, you would be making bare origin claims from hinduism.

Your religion is just your religion.

 

[Speedwell]

actually a big success for creation:

(image from Biological Rotary Motor : Intelligently Designed Apparel and Merchandise)

(image fromhttp://vcell.ndsu.nodak.edu/animations/atpgradient/first.htm)

If it "looks designed" maybe it is, but you would have to find evidence of human manufacture to be sure. "Looks designed" is not evidence of design--in fact it relies on a misunderstanding of what design really is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it "looks designed" maybe it is, but you would have to find evidence of human manufacture to be sure. "Looks designed" is not evidence of design--in fact it relies on a misunderstanding of what design really is.

If something has a good design chances are it was designed.
-Design 101.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

actually the first eyespot or light detector cant evolve stepwise. this is because even a minimal light detector need about several parts to its minimal function.

I've been asking how the specialized tissue evolves that makes it possible; down to the molecular level. So far....crickets.

 

[Speedwell]

If something has a good design chances are it was designed.
-Design 101.

LOL! The trouble is, that is all ID people have to offer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL! The trouble is, that is all ID people have to offer.

That's all I need. I can't explain the details (and neither can you).

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

And you have concluded that, how exactly?



Genesis is just the religion you happen to buy into.
If you would have been born in pakistan, you would be making (bare) origin claims from the Quran.
If you would have been born the son of Tom Cruise, you would be making bare origin claims from scientology.
If you would have been born in hindu India, you would be making bare origin claims from hinduism.

Your religion is just your religion.

if there is a code on information and a code reader those are complex languages the motor has to be also directed by a program to assemble every cell in just the right place. Randomness could not assemble a working motor but say it did the information to use the motor is directed not by the motor. The single celled organism is much more complicated than anyone in the early days of evolution thought. Even granted that you did get your 1st miracle cell the upward complexity and diversity and balance is designed not engineered. I used to go to areas looking for arrowheads and there are millions of rocks that are millions of years old and an arrowhead stands out because it has specific design elements. If nature cannot create an arrowhead by itself you are giving it credit for organizing information to generate billions of life forms that are quantum steps beyond and arrowhead. The evidence is the same for both sides as we can look at how many amino acids and all are needed and even break down the code and analyze it. The prosecution is looking for evidence that incriminates the defendant whole the defense is looking for information that acquits the same person. My world view includes the super natural as part of reality and others deny the super natural exists. The scriptures teach of fallen and loyal angels. If you do a study into spirit guides, automatic writing, Satanism and rock and roll there is evidence my world view that includes other dimensions interacting on our own is valid. If there is a spiritual world then we are spiritual beings and the conscience we possess and the self awareness are not a mutation upward but an endowment to us.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

One can understand that evolution has lots of support without understanding evolution.

You live in a world where that world view is shoved down your throat to create a world of post modernism and people are now behaving like animals as well without restraint. If given equal time people would change their minds on a lot of things such as man made carbon causing global warming, 9/11 a bunch of guys with box cutters, a real global flood did occur...

 

[Speedwell]

That's all I need. I can't explain the details (and neither can you).

The "detail" is that you've confused design with functional complexity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm not responsible for your education.

You tryning to use semantics doesnt impress.

Science is not for belief, its a description of physical reality. Its accepted. Arguing against science is arguing against physical realiy, a very stupid place to be.

The ToE is a "pint of poison in a lake of truth" regarding science. Of course creationists believe in science generally, but not something as wildly extreme as the ToE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The "detail" is that you've confused design with functional complexity.

I believe everything is a product of purposeful design, even when the design goes wrong and produces a monstrosity. If the wrong chemicals are mixed and blow up the mixture was 'designed' to do so.