How to choose between creation and evolution.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but i said that for the sake of the argument its able to replicate. so will you call it a watch under this scenario or not?

If a pig could fly, would you call it an aeroplane?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

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.

Are you aware that your argument is completely circular, and therefore totally invalid?

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.

Even that is actually wrong. Evolution does not say, in itself, that there is a common ancestor. Evolution would still work fine if life had started independently several times so that there was no universal common ancestor.

We do have evidence that all things living today have a single common ancestor, but that is separate from the Theory of Evolution, not predicted by it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

If you're all about the logic, then can't you see the logical flaw in what you just wrote?

My guess is that he won't.

 

[rjs330]

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

For us to discover a common ancestor that evolved and branched into two separate branches. One that was one thing and divided into two separate things and to see the progression of it occurring. Or at least be able to actually show that happens. I hope I explained this well.

 

[rjs330]

Are you aware that your argument is completely circular, and therefore totally invalid?



Even that is actually wrong. Evolution does not say, in itself, that there is a common ancestor. Evolution would still work fine if life had started independently several times so that there was no universal common ancestor.

We do have evidence that all things living today have a single common ancestor, but that is separate from the Theory of Evolution, not predicted by it.

I your opinion it's invalid. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Are you saying there were a lot of common ancestors?

 

[rjs330]

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?

Because if they did they would have to ask the question on who the creator is. And as it's been so neatly pointed out the creator cannot be discovered using scientific experiments.

If you admitted that all things were created, you would have to ask "by what or by whom".

 

[rjs330]

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.

So what was a cat before it was a cat? Are you saying that cats and spiders do not have a common ancestor?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle. You can't be an atheist and allow creation and design to exist. Science invented evolution out of thin air, then fortifies it with important sounding terms and processes that they hope will give it credibility, and when something doesn't fit the pattern it's given yet another term to explain it.

The uninitiated are lectured to study it so as not to be 'ignorant'. But even a cursory look reveals that it is a hoax, and not a very clever one at that.

 

[rjs330]

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



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



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.



It is not.



A hurricane.

How do you know a hurricane wasn't designed to do what it does? It has a purpose. It has a function. Logic for everything else tells us that things that have a purpose and function are designed. We accept that for everything else. In fact we would find it silly to consider things that have a purpose or function are not designed.

But we will most assuredly move away from the observed logic when it comes to nature. Why is that I wonder? Actually I know why.

Hurricanes | A Hurricane's Purpose

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know a hurricane wasn't designed to do what it does? It has a purpose. It has a function. Logic for everything else tells us that things that have a purpose and function are designed. We accept that for everything else. In fact we would find it silly to consider things that have a purpose or function are not designed.

But we will most assuredly move away from the observed logic when it comes to nature. Why is that I wonder? Actually I know why.

Hurricanes | A Hurricane's Purpose

Once again...

Design is unfalsifiable. It can sometimes be detected in an object or phenomenon, but it can never be ruled out.

We are not saying that there is no design in living creatures. We are saying that it's presence cannot be demonstrated.

 

[VirOptimus]

If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle. You can't be an atheist and allow creation and design to exist. Science invented evolution out of thin air, then fortifies it with important sounding terms and processes that they hope will give it credibility, and when something doesn't fit the pattern it's given yet another term to explain it.

The uninitiated are lectured to study it so as not to be 'ignorant'. But even a cursory look reveals that it is a hoax, and not a very clever one at that.

... no.

Firstly, lots of religious people accept the ToE and study it.

Secondly, atheism has nothing to do with the ToE. Science dont deal with meta-physics.

Thirdly, the ToE is incredibly robust and well-supported.

 

[Gene2memE]

If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle.

Why?

You can't be an atheist and allow creation and design to exist.

Sure you can. You don't need to have an alternative explanation to reject another explanation as not supported by evidence.

Here: I'll show you:

Person A: "I believe an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, disembodied mind created the earth, the universe and everything in it in six days. It says so here in this book. Also, he cursed every generation of humans with something called original sin. He then used a blood sacrifice of his own son (who was really himself) to save us from it. And if you don't believe in him, he'll force you to suffer eternal torture. But he loves you"
Person B: "I don't believe your claims. In order to support them, I'll need you to provide evidence of such."

Science invented evolution out of thin air,

"Science" did nothing.
Scientists, on the other hand, developed evolution after observing the natural world and developing explanations for what they saw. The process, at least in the modern sense, was started by the joint publication of observations by Darwin and Wallace. And has been expanded on by literally hundreds of thousands of published authors since then.

then fortifies it with important sounding terms and processes

You mean, a working lexicon? Science requires precision. One of the elements of that precision is that particular words have particular meanings. Sometimes the scientific meanings are distinct and different from common usage - see, for example, the terms 'Theory' or 'Survival of the Fittest'.

that they hope will give it credibility, and when something doesn't fit the pattern it's given yet another term to explain it.

When something doesn't fit the pattern it is studied and examined. If it can be incorporated into the existing paradigm, then it is - see something like genetics - or the paradigm is expanded to include it - for example with DNA and Punctuated Equilibrium, or more recently epigenetics.

The uninitiated are lectured to study it so as not to be 'ignorant'.

If I wanted to discuss the details of 16th century Latvian history, I wouldn't walk into the conversation without at least a working understanding of the topic. The same with evolution. If i enter the conversation and make basic errors showing near or total ignorance of the topic, I shouldn't be surprised if I was called out on this.

But even a cursory look reveals that it is a hoax, and not a very clever one at that.

Yeah.... right.

If it is a hoax, its the most successful hoax of all time. And also the most useful, as it provides benefits to humans on a daily basis, not to mention the best explanation for biological diversity and the history of life.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I your opinion it's invalid. But you are entitled to your opinion.

It is a fact that your argument is circular. You're trying to arm-wave away the logical problem with your argument by calling it an opinion. Remember that in logic we can prove things.

Are you saying there were a lot of common ancestors?

No. Please read people's posts properly so that you know what they are saying and what they are not saying.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For us to discover a common ancestor that evolved and branched into two separate branches. One that was one thing and divided into two separate things and to see the progression of it occurring. Or at least be able to actually show that happens. I hope I explained this well.

Last Universal Common Ancestor or LUCA

 

[DogmaHunter]

No evolution says all things, mammals, cold blooded creatures, fish, birds, insects, arachnids, etc all came from one thing.

Yes, which is not at all in contradiction with the fact that speciation is a vertical process of species evolving into 1 or more sub-species.

Birds, reptiles, mammals,... = all vertebrates, for example.

At some point all things branched from one thing.

Yes, and all of them still belong to the same ancestral groups that they branched off from.

When did and how did insects branch from mammals

Insects didn't branch of from mammals. Dear, your knowledge on evolution is extremely lacking.

http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/log/wp-content/Evo_large.gif

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.

Mammals and insects share ancestry as shown by the DNA, which can be visualized in phylogenetic trees. Family trees.

Here is a highly resolved and automatically generated tree of life, based on completely sequenced genomes:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Creation actually says precisely what I am saying

It doesn't. Creation doesn't predict any nested hierarchies. Evolution does.
Evolution explains why you don't find mammals with feathers, creation doesn't.
Evolution explains why we share thousands of ERV's with chimps, but not as much with cats, but still more with cats then with frogs. Creation doesn't.
Evolution explains our fused chromosome and why, when split, it matches chromosome 13 of chimps. Creation doesn't.

Creation doesn't explain anything. It merely asserts based on nothing other then religious beliefs. It's entire raison d'être comes from religion.

All things were created according to kinds, birds, fish, land creatures and all creeping things.

Demonstrably false.

Creation says precisely what happened and how it happened and how long it took.

"Precisely"?

lol

 

[DogmaHunter]

For us to discover a common ancestor that evolved and branched into two separate branches. One that was one thing and divided into two separate things and to see the progression of it occurring. Or at least be able to actually show that happens. I hope I explained this well.

We can show and have shown that that happens.

Just like we can show that you and your sibling share the same parents, without having access to your parents. The only thing we need are DNA samples from both you and your sibling.

In fact, you could put those samples anonymised in a jar, along with other random DNA samples and still we would be able to pick out the siblings. It wouldn't even be dificult.

Establishing familial relationships, is exactly what DNA allows us to do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because if they did they would have to ask the question on who the creator is. And as it's been so neatly pointed out the creator cannot be discovered using scientific experiments.

If you admitted that all things were created, you would have to ask "by what or by whom".

You seem to be doing your best to avoid actually answering the question.

Why would having to ask the question "who/what is the designer", cause scientists to turn to evolution instead? Are you saying that scientific consensus on evolution theory, only exists because all scientists are afraid of a question or something?

Are you being serious?
It's becoming harder to accept that you actually believe the things you write.
I'm starting to seriously doubt your sincerity.

Honestly, it looks as if I would actually be insulting your intelligence, by taking you seriously.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what was a cat before it was a cat?

Are you saying that cats and spiders do not have a common ancestor?

No.

They are another phyla. Both spiders and cats are animalia.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If atheistic scientists didn't come up with an alternate 'explanation' they would be in a real pickle.

"atheistic" scientists, like Francis Collins? ow, wait....

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you know a hurricane wasn't designed to do what it does?

Ha! There we go. Asking for negative evidence. Shifting the burden of proof. Pretending as if his positive claims are true by default until shown otherwise.

Say, how do you know that
- you are NOT a brian in vat?
- there is NO undetectable interdimensional dragon about to eat you?
- gravity is NOT the work of pink graviton fairies?

See? That's how that works.

It has a purpose. It has a function. Logic for everything else tells us that things that have a purpose and function are designed. We accept that for everything else. In fact we would find it silly to consider things that have a purpose or function are not designed.

You might. We don't.

This belief of yours apparantly leads you to believe that hurricanes are "designed".
That in itself already is a fine example of the "merrit" of your position.

I rest my case.
You have dug yourself in a hole and only you can crawl out of it. When you can say things like this and keep a straight face, there's really nothing I can say, no argument I can give, no amount of evidence I can share, to pull you out of this hole.

But I think pride and religious beliefs are going to make sure that you stay in your comfortable hole.