How to choose between creation and evolution.

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟123,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
but they cnat design eyes. right?

They can easily design eyes, and critique the eye. Modern optical systems are more complicated than human eyes in terms of their lenses (often multiple lenses) and

as far as i aware those are scientific sources base on scientific papers:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

or:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity

"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"

where do you see that they are claiming otherwise?

As I pointed out, which you have ignored, the paper only examined one aspect of the eye, and does not counteract the fact that the eye in total is not optimally designed and could be made better. You've repeated your quotes, even though I pointed out they are not supported by the paper the article is describing.

The gial cells improve eyesight compared to those cells (or the functions they perform) not being there. But, that does not mean that the eye overall is optimal.

What has happened to the human eye is that there are basic faults in the eye, but a number of evolutionary 'fixes' that fix the problem. (But don't make an eye that is as good as an eye properly designed in the first place.) In other words, there is bad design in the vertebrate eye, but that does not mean that everything in the vertebrate eye.

And, you also lose every way. Because even if you did manage to prove that the vertebrate eye is an optimal design, that would mean that the cephalopod eye is therefore a suboptimal design. So, you'd then need to explain why

And, it wouldn't stop there. There are plenty of living organisms with extremely simple eyes, massively less capable than either the cephalopod or vertebrate eyes. So, why is a competent designer designing so many poor eyes?

BTW: I think you are arguing this much better than any other argument of yours that I have seen. Why are you wasting your time proposing imaginary self-replicating watches when you can clearly do much, much, better?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What is the observable process that has shown evolution from a common ancestor?

....euh.... evolution, is the observable process...

Show me the process where something evolved into a separate family or group apart from what it started out as.

APART from what it started out?
That doesn't happen. Speciation is a vertical process. Species speciate into sub-species.
Your ancestors are forever your ancestors.

Mammals produce more mammals and speciate into cats, canines, primates, ...
Primates produce more mammals and speciate into Humans, chimps, gorilla's,...

A human is a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate,...

As for the proces of speciation: LMGTFY

You may hand wave away the functionality of things as being designed, but it's not shown to be accurate.

Literally everything can be said to have function in some process one way or the other.
The "function" of the mountain is to create a mild climate in the valley providing great circumstances for farming.

Function is not an indicator of design.
And creating / developing function is exactly what evolution does.

The facts you claim prove design, are the facts that are actually explained by evolution.

Complexity IS an indicator of design.

It is not.

Show me the most complex thing you know of and tell me it wasn't designed.

A hurricane.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
All testing and observation has shown is all things remain in the same group or family and do not leave it to move to another.

Which is exactly what evolution predicts.

Seriously, literally every sentence in your post was either wrong, or was loaded with strawman assumptions.

I must admit that I find it a bit shocking how little knowledge you have concerning high school biology.

I can only suggest that you go read up a little.

Seriously, it's shocking.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
This is kind of a side note, but you should be aware that evolution theory holds that such a thing can never happen. Once you have an ancestry, it can never change; a species can never evolve a new ancestry, so it can never become part of a different family from the one it started out as. The only way that might be possible is if so many new species arose in that family as to make it inconveniently crowded and biologists decided to split it into two families, with the original family name promoted to an order--but the ancestry would be the same.
How convienent! So once again an assumption is made. We don't and can't show it ever occurring, yet we are supposed to believe it did.

Please take the cat back to it's original ancestor and show where it branched and what the ancestor branched into.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
@rjs330, I asked you in post #703; "What in your view is 'observed and tested science'?" And you haven't responded to that question.

Sorry, observed and tested science is something we observe happening. It's something that is observable. We may need a microscope to see cells divide, but we can see cells divide. Something is testable and verifiable when we can test the hypothesis or theory and see if it holds true. Such as the boiling of water or the theory of gravity. We can see and test it to see what happens and we can verify it by the testing.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
"Change of kind" is a creationist strawman. Species do not evolve into a "separate family or group". F

Let me try to explain this to you. You share a common ancestor with other apes, that ancestor was also an ape, you are still an ape. No change of kind.

You share a common ancestor with other primates such as lemurs and monkeys. That ancestor was a primate. You are still a primate. No change of kind.

You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and tigers. That common ancestor was a mammal. You are still a mammal. No change of kind.

I could keep going further and further back here, and what is amazing is that the further back I go the less of problem you will have with accepting the fact that you are in the given group. But at no point was there an act of evolution into a separate family or group.
That is all an assumption based upon an evolutionary construct. I'm an ape not because I am an ape, I'm an ape because science has decided to classify me as such.

Show me where the human branched from the common ancestor of all mammals. Show me where all mammals branched from the common ancestor that started it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
A electric motor is not evidence of design. A manufactured electric motor is evidence of design.

So you are right. If you find an electric motor and can't tell that it is a manufactured electric motor then you can't conclude design.

That defies logic and all observable data not to mention reality. Show me ONE electric motor that we have ever discovered wasn't designed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Sorry, observed and tested science is something we observe happening. It's something that is observable. We may need a microscope to see cells divide, but we can see cells divide. Something is testable and verifiable when we can test the hypothesis or theory and see if it holds true. Such as the boiling of water or the theory of gravity. We can see and test it to see what happens and we can verify it by the testing.

Okay. So, to you, what would work as evidence of evolution occurring?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
What's illogical is your circular logic. There are plenty of things in the natural world that have functions, but which weren't designed. E.g. teeth which have functions of biting and more. E.g. leaves which photosynthesise to capture energy from the sun. That's a function. Muscles in your intestine which have the function of moving matter through your intestines. There are uncountable numbers of things that have functions that are not designed.

You can only claim that these are designed if you assume the consequence of your argument: that there is a designer of living things.

It could be said that rivers have the function of transporting excess water to the oceans (or landlocked lakes in some cases). But, no-one would claim that rivers were designed because they have a function. Or, would you?
Yes I would. Rivers were designed to do precisely that. Plants were designed to do precisely what they Do which is to create oxygen. Teeth were designed specifically to chew food so it can be digested. Taste buds were specifically designed for us to enjoy our food. Intestinal muscles we're designed to do what they do.

You are fearfully and wonderfully made! As is this planet we live on. Placed specifically in this spot to support the life that lives on it. The oceans and atmosphere are created to support the Eco system which allowed life to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldWiseGuy
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Yes I would. Rivers were designed to do precisely that. Plants were designed to do precisely what they Do which is to create oxygen. Teeth were designed specifically to chew food so it can be digested. Taste buds were specifically designed for us to enjoy our food. Intestinal muscles we're designed to do what they do.

You are fearfully and wonderfully made! As is this planet we live on. Placed specifically in this spot to support the life that lives on it. The oceans and atmosphere are created to support the Eco system which allowed life to exist.

The main problem with your claim is that you don't have any evidence that humans and earth and everything in the use is designed.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Which is exactly what evolution predicts.

Seriously, literally every sentence in your post was either wrong, or was loaded with strawman assumptions.

I must admit that I find it a bit shocking how little knowledge you have concerning high school biology.

I can only suggest that you go read up a little.

Seriously, it's shocking.
No evolution says all things, mammals, cold blooded creatures, fish, birds, insects, arachnids, etc all came from one thing. At some point all things branched from one thing. When did and how did insects branch from mammals or vice versa or describe the events and where and when mammals became separate from insects. And show how you know that occurred by using verifiable data.

Creation actually says precisely what I am saying. All things were created according to kinds, birds, fish, land creatures and all creeping things. Creation says precisely what happened and how it happened and how long it took.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Creation actually says precisely what I am saying. All things were created according to kinds, birds, fish, land creatures and all creeping things. Creation says precisely what happened and how it happened and how long it took.

If "creation" actually says all that, then why is evolutionary biology the scientific explanation for the diversity of species on Earth? Why didn't the world's collective biologists come up with a scientific theory of creation instead?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,263
5,986
64
✟333,368.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The main problem with your claim is that you don't have any evidence that humans and earth and everything in the use is designed.

We have logic and observation of reality. Everything that has function in our observable world is designed. It's a violation of logic to see anything with function not be designed.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
We have logic and observation of reality. Everything that has function in our observable world is designed. It's a violation of logic to see anything with function not be designed.

What you are describing is not something that science shows, only your own religious conviction, nothing more.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
We have logic and observation of reality. Everything that has function in our observable world is designed. It's a violation of logic to see anything with function not be designed.
If everything is designed, what's the point? All you have done is to gratuitously added "Designer" to the Names of God.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
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.
No, not really.

There are some assumptions scientists need to make to do science, such as an external world whose elements show patterns of activity that can be observed; but none of those are taken to be without question.

It's a pragmatic decision to assume an external reality - the alternative is solipsism; the observed patterns of activity are what lead us to infer laws of nature - but they're always provisional - there are no guarantees (Hume's 'problem of induction'); we know from experience that our senses often give us false information, and that our reasoning can be unconsciously biased, so we have developed the scientific method to try and minimise such influences on our observation and analysis.

Belief is not required, unless it is the belief that it is worthwhile to try to understand the natural world, and that experience tells us that science is the most effective means we currently have of doing so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0