How to choose between creation and evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

Ad homs are not a good argument.

It's not an ad hominim. It's an observation.
You said this yourself, that you don't actually consider it important....

I would put that way down on my list of important things. Most things are what they appear to be.

Which was in reply to:

Acknowledging the obvious mistakes you made. That would be a start.
Acknowledging that what things appear to be, are oftenly not what they actually are.

I showed you clear example of instances where things are very different then what they appear to be.
Your response is literally that you put that way down on your list of "important things". You don't consider it important that you are engaging in obvious fallacies.

What else can I conclude, when you say things like that, other then that correcting your mistakes and learning from them, is not among your priorities?​

 

[Speedwell]

ID is more provable than evolution. All the constructs used in biology is evidence of design. Because nothing functions in our world without it. Unless of course you are an evolutionist. Then we deny observable reality and say everything we know that has function is designed EXEPT the mist complex function of them all which is life.

Then we go on and say since we have never observed the process in action and can't test the process we believe it anyway.

The presence of functionality is not used to conclude design in an object. Function is not shown to be evidence of design. You can't use what you want to prove as a premise in your argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you do understand that when we observe things that have a function we see the design in them.

That is completely false.

What I understand, is that non-biological things aren't subject to biological processes.
And I understand that evolution, is a biological process.

We never look at anything that has a function and say, it has no design or designer. Exept of course with the most complex system of life. That happened by accident.

Evolution isn't any more of an "accident" then water turning into ice is when it freezes.

Biology is the most amazing thing ever in it's complexity and it's ability to continue to exist and reproduce.

Complexity isn't an indicator of design.
Neither is function.

Yet we absolutely refuse to consider it was designed to function the way it does.

Why would we, when there is an observable process that explains it?

It's illogical.

What's illogical, is trying to point at non-biological systems, to make a point about (or rather: against) a biological process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The hierarchies themselves are an assumption.

No, they aren't.
They are the result of mapping matches (note: matches, not mere "similarities").

You have no evidence of any of it actually occurring.

Nested hierarchies don't "occur". They either exist or the don't. And they do, btw.

You believe they occurred based upon similarity and commonality. But that's it.

Nope.

They objectively exist.
It is an objective fact that humans share more ERV's with primates then any other organism.
It is an objective fact that only mammals have hair.
It is an objective fact that you won't find any mammals with feathers.
etc etc etc

And DNA in court cases is human DNA.

DNA is DNA.

The DNA of a dog works in the exact same way as the DNA of a human.
Which is why people pay a lot of money for the DNA of a specific horse, for example.

They can use it because it's human DNA.

You can do it with any organism's DNA.

They can't use chimp DNA because using DNA we can know if it was a chimp or a human.

lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if it will have a self replicating system it will not be a watch by your definition?

It will not be a watch by the definition of the word "watch".

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is ancestry and then there is evolutionary ancestry.

It's the exact same thing.
Creatures reproduce and pass on their (mutated) DNA to off spring.
No matter what kind of creature it is.

Two different things completely.

No, actually. Biological ancestry is ancestry. Be it one generation ago, 100, or 20 gazillion.

We can see ancestry of families because DNA can show it

Exactly.

, because of the uniqueness of the DNA belonging to that family and being human.

Humans don't have "special" DNA. DNA is DNA and it works the same in all individuals, no matter the species.

DNA also shows we are not chimps.

It also shows we share ancestors with chimps.

There are similarities

More specifically, it shows matches which are organized in nested hierarchies. Which is exactly what we expect to see in a family tree.

, but the amount of differences are great and enough to out them side by side and we can see which is a chimp and which is a human.

Obviously.
Just like we can identify individuals also.
What we can also do, is infer the relationships between them.

It is only assumed that there is common ancestry with chimps and humans because if the similarities.

Not because of mere similarities.
But because of matches organised in nested hierarchies, which also matches the same hierarchies we find in comparative anatomy.

Just like we expect from a family tree.

Instead of looking at the differences and saying we don't have common ancestry.

Because it doesn't work that way.
There are differences in the DNA of you and your siblings as well - but that doesn't mean that you don't share the same parents.

We can tell the difference. But somehow that equates to us and chimps having common ancestor. Its not provable and not observable.

False. It is very provable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What's the mathmatical construct?

"counting"

Isn't it based upon an if/then argument?

No.

If such and such happened then this is the outcome. That's an assumption.

Not how it works.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What on earth are you talking about?

Science is quite simply the way we describe physical reality.

I have no problem with that as I depend on science to reveal the creation more fully. You believe science is revealing the wonders of evolution. I believe science reveals the wonders of creation. Same science, same subject, different conclusions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not an ad hominim. It's an observation.
You said this yourself, that you don't actually consider it important....



Which was in reply to:

I showed you clear example of instances where things are very different then what they appear to be.
Your response is literally that you put that way down on your list of "important things". You don't consider it important that you are engaging in obvious fallacies.

What else can I conclude, when you say things like that, other then that correcting your mistakes and learning from them, is not among your priorities?​

I was responding this comment, not the ones you refer to above.

DogmaHunter said:

"Correcting your mistakes and actually learning something, doesn't seem to be one of your priorities..."

This strongly suggests (infers) more broad intellectual 'weakness' than in the discussion about the current topic, thus an ad hominem.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have no problem with that as I depend on science to reveal the creation more fully. You believe science is revealing the wonders of evolution. I believe science reveals the wonders of creation. Same science, same subject, different conclusions.

No, thats wrong. I accept that science describes physical reality, I dont "belive" anything.

Your "belief" in this regard is unscientific and has no basis in facts.

Your conclusion is not rational and has no basis in physical reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

but i never seen someone who made an electric motor in front of my eyes. so according to that criteria i cant conclude design?

Design is anathema to evolution. If something shows design it likely has design, and thus a designer. Therefore design, by default, must be denied by evolutionists. What is curious is that evolutionists use terms like "evolved to function" in a certain way, the very phrase directly implies design.

 

[bhsmte]

I have no problem with that as I depend on science to reveal the creation more fully. You believe science is revealing the wonders of evolution. I believe science reveals the wonders of creation. Same science, same subject, different conclusions.

You depend on science, yet reject one of it's best evidenced theories out of hand?

Yea sure.

 

[bhsmte]

Design is anathema to evolution. If something shows design it likely has design, and thus a designer. Therefore design, by default, must be denied by evolutionists. What is curious is that evolutionists use terms like "evolved to function" in a certain way, the very phrase directly implies design.

LOL

This has been gone over with you so many times I lost count. Keep up with the strawman though.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, thats wrong. I accept that science describes physical reality, I dont "belive" anything.

Your "belief" in this regard is unscientific and has no basis in facts.

Your conclusion is not rational and has no basis in physical reality.

Belief is a higher form of agreement than is acceptance. One can be forced to accept something. Not so with belief. Belief involves assent, whereas acceptance suggests acquiescence.

Regarding reality. I live according to reality and faith and it has worked very well for me (faith is the guide for works/deeds). I will happily compare the real metrics of my life with any group of evolutionists.

Science actually washes their hands of reality when they make their position known, which is, "We've pointed this out to you (the rest of us); our job is done." You guys should take a lesson from the late Frank Lloyd Wright, who camped out on his building projects to make sure they were completed according to his designs. Scientists are like someone pointing out that someone is drowning then declares that it's not his job to jump in a save the person. Science discovers the reasons for our failures, but has no solutions. Solutions are found in (the)faith; the 'body of beliefs and doctrines' of the church.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL

This has been gone over with you so many times I lost count. Keep up with the strawman though.

And yet here you are, posting in my thread.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet here you are.

Yes, and why I made the comment I did.

 

[VirOptimus]

Belief is a higher form of agreement than is acceptance. One can be forced to accept something. Not so with belief. Belief involves assent, whereas acceptance suggests acquiescence.

Regarding reality. I live according to reality and faith and it has worked very well for me (faith is the guide for works/deeds). I will happily compare the real metrics of my life with any group of evolutionists.

Science actually washes their hands of reality when they make their position known, which is, "We've pointed this out to you (the rest of us); our job is done." You guys should take a lesson from the late Frank Lloyd Wright, who camped out on his building projects to make sure they were completed according to his designs. Scientists are like someone pointing out that someone is drowning then declares that it's not his job to jump in a save the person. Science discovers the reasons for our failures, but has no solutions. Solutions are found in (the)faith; the 'body of beliefs and doctrines' of the church.

This post is pure nonsense.

Mixing religion with science is bad science and bad theology.

If your faith is working for you fine, thats great and all but your faith does not triumph physical reality.

Belief has no place in science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This post is pure nonsense.

Mixing religion with science is bad science and bad theology.

If your faith is working for you fine, thats great and all but your faith does not triumph physical reality.

Belief has no place in science.

Where did I conflate the two?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This post is pure nonsense.

Mixing religion with science is bad science and bad theology.

If your faith is working for you fine, thats great and all but your faith does not triumph physical reality.

Belief has no place in science.

You do understand that science must be combined with a 'moral imperative' (the spiritual element) to do the good it promises. Because it fails to do this we have all or most of the historical problems that have plagued mankind from the beginning.

What science fails to grasp is that while scientists themselves don't view science as a religion millions of others do, and look teary-eyed and worshipful to science to save them from their problems, be they moral or material. In response science retreats to it's ivory tower laboratories to continue peering at life myopically through their microscopes.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Belief has nothing to do with science.

Absolutely wrong. One must believe among other things that one exists in a real world where certain laws are inviolate and that one's senses do not give one false information. Belief of some sort is required to care enough to act at all in any way.