How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

You know this about God exactly how? Or are you telling Him what He is supposed to do?

That's how He says He didit.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Design of the type you describe is not plausible without a designer.

True.

 

[Speedwell]

That's how He says He didit.

Is this a voice inside your head telling you?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I sort of agree. It's implausible that a microscopic life form became a brontosaurus in just a few million years. Of course the problem is more difficult than that. A mate, and a supporting environment had to evolve simultaneously. Same with other species. Creation is more plausible.

If 'creation [was] more plausible' then you wouldn't have to create that ridiculous strawman version of evolution.

It took billions of years for microscopic life to become a brontosaurus. Not 'just a few million years'.

As populations evolve, not individuals, there is never a problem of a new species (etc.) not having a mate or having to wait around for one to appear. For sexually reproducing organisms, there is always a mate unless the species is going extinct. (E.g. white rhinos, Galapagos George).

As life evolves to better suit its environment, the environment does not have to 'evolve' to suit.

Having said that, even your ridiculously distorted version of evolution still compares well to creation when you don't have a creator.

True.

I note that you don't actually provide any evidence for a creator.

 

[xianghua]

If we found another planet with both electric motors and bacteria with flagella, I think the first hypothesis we would come up with is that the planet may be similar to ours, as processes on that planet have produced familiar items. In that case, it would be sensible to assume (unless/until there is further evidence) that the electric motor is designed (as they are on earth) and the bacterial flagella is not designed (as they are on earth.)

but why? in both cases you didnt seen the designer. so what is the difference?

 

[Speedwell]

but why? in both cases you didnt seen the designer. so what is the difference?

Because our previous experience tells us that electric motors are manufactured--thus designed--and flagella are not.

 

[xianghua]

Doesn't matter if you cherry pick bits where someone argues the opposite. The human eye, unnecessary blindspot and all, has to be optimal in design or your argument fails. Yes, I could talk about the cellular layers and there is still argument about that. But, given my argument that the human eye is suboptimal, all I need to do is show that it's suboptimal in one aspect. Which is what I'm doing, choosing the easiest method to show such.

but you didnt showed that its suboptimal. you just believe so because the blindspot. but since the blind spot doesnt make any problem to vision this argument is bogus to begin with.

Can you say why an eye with the nerves attached to cells from the rear so that nerves do not form a blind spot is not a better design than the vertebrate eye?

see above. its not even a problem so we dont even need to explain it.

 

[rjs330]

You can't go ahead and say "precisely" and then disagree.......



Yes. And not only that, it can also tell us the level of relatedness.
And as it turns out, EVERYTHING is related. The point exactly.

Humans are more related to eachother then to chimps.
Humans are more related to chimps then to gorilla's.
Humans are more related to gorilla's then to cats.
Humans are more related to cats then to frogs.
Humans are more related to frogs then to salmon.
Humans are more related to salmon then to pine trees.

Etc.
It's right, in our collective DNA.

What is "frustrating" about having this discussion is that creationists don't seem to be realising that you can't accept this kind of DNA testing to establish family ties among humans only. The technique either works or it doesn't.

And if it does, it works cross species just like it works within species.
It works within species, just like it works within single families (like determining parenthood, siblings etc).

It either works or it doesn't.
You can't accept one and not the other. Well... no, you can do that, but the problem is that it doesn't make any sense.

It's like saying that adding two numbers can give you a big number, but adding a bunch of big numbers can't give you a very big number.



Just like it shows that a human is only himself and not another human.
Your "objection" makes no sense.

It also shows that we are related to both chimps and cows. And every other living thing.




And you are you and not me.
This is irrelevant to the fact that we are related.

ps: "being related" doesn't mean that we have identical DNA. You don't seem to understand that.



Yes it does.



No it doesn't.



And related.

More assumption. You assume that everything is related. Yet DNA tells us differently. It tells us specifically what or who is related in a family and who is not. It also tells us what we belong to. We can tell be DNA what is human and what is not. We can tell what is monkey and what is not. We can tell what is an insect and what is not.

As an evolutionist you assume that since all things have DNA and all things have some similarities therefore all things came from one thing. As a creationist I assume that since all things have DNA and all things have some similarities that God used the same building blocks to create all life. But he made all life with enough differences in the DNA to be different than each other. And of course the closer the similarities the closer that things look alike and the closer their DNA would be. Yet they have enough differences in their DNA to be unique and different creatures with vastly different abilities. That's why chimps don't build skyscrapers.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution doesn't say otherwise. As has been explained to you so many times.

The ancestors of humans and chimps were primates. Both humans and chimps "are still" primates. Our descendents, will forever be primates. And mammals. And tetrapods. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.



Indeed. Which doesn't violate the nested hierarchy of life at all.



Yep. All those are members of the kingdom of "animalia". They are all eukaryotes.
They are all "still" animals and "still" eukaryotes. And that is exactly what all their descendents until the end of time, will remain.



Perhaps that is due to the fact that we can't run a simulation of a process that takes hundreds of millions of years to unfold, in a lab within a single human lifetime?

The good news, is that we don't have to.
Our collective inheritable DNA is more then enough to demonstrate that we all share ancestry.



False. It is a (demonstrable, testable) conclusion, based on actual evidence.



Which is a religious belief.



We can show exactly that, through comparative genetics.
And it matches all the evidence from other, independent, lines of evidence. Like the fossil record, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution,...

Meanwhile, the only thing your creationist religious beliefs have going for them...is that you believe it.

That is such hogwash. Evolutionists cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that a moth has been and always will be a moth and then go on to say a moth was something else in the beginning which came out of the primordial ooze or out of the sea or whatever. It wasn't a moth then.

You assume chimps and humans had primate ancestors. I assume himans were always humans and chimps were always chimps different from humans from the beginning. The only reason you say we were primates is because scientists decided to categorize us as such. It doesn't actually mean we and the chimps were the same at one time.

We can't even begin the process much less observe it in a human lifetime.

Yes we creationists believe. And our belief STARTS with our faith. But science has done nothing to be able to show the common ancestry and evolution from a common ancestor is even possible. DNA avtually shows that we are different and we can see the difference. We have never been able to show that DNA mutates enough to create something different than what it is presently. It may mutate to change colors or create an different digestive process or create.s stronger wing. But it NEVER mutates into something else. The lizard remains a lizard with an adapted digestive system, the bird remains a bird with a stronger wing and an ant remains an ant with a stronger jaw.

 

[xianghua]

Let me get this straight. Only scientific theories are plausible. Others are not. Correct?

evolution isnt a scientific theory since we cant falsify it or test it.

 

[rjs330]

ONLY because you presuppose a designer.
Without that presupposition, you'ld just say "i don't know" (assuming you have no understanding and/or knowledge about evolution theory, that is).



Neither complexity, nore uniqueness, are indicators of design.
Once again: the only reason you "conclude" design, is because you already believe design even before asking the question.



Except off course, that complexity and function in biology is exactly what evolution theory explains.

Yes uniqueness and complexity and function ARE evidence of design. You do not accept that it not with anything else in out observable world except for the evolutionary theory. You don't look at a computer, or MRI machine or anything else for that matter and say it was not designed. But you sure will with life. It's illogical.

 

[rjs330]

Is this a voice inside your head telling you?

The Bible tells us how he did it and how long he took. But you know that and disagree with it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

If something cannot come from nothing then the creation of everything is infinite. There would be no beginning. If Christians believe this then they don’t believe in God’s Word.

 

[rjs330]

Because our previous experience tells us that electric motors are manufactured--thus designed--and flagella are not.

Do flagella have a purpose and a function?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Speaking of informed decisions regarding DNA and evolution:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2

DNA must be super smart to make such complex designs. I wonder if DNA also planned our eco system and balanced it so perfectly?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes uniqueness and complexity and function ARE evidence of design. You do not accept that it not with anything else in out observable world except for the evolutionary theory. .

That is either abysmal ignorance on your part or a bald-faced lie. There is only one standard for concluding the presence of design in an object or phenomenon, that is, evidence of intelligent manufacture--what William Paley called "indications of contrivance." The notion that functionality or complexity are evidence of intelligent design is the invention of a gang of radical Calvinists who wanted to use it as propaganda for their scheme of overthrowing the government. The accusation that the rest of us use that standard except where it might force us to acknowledege the existence of their god is just more of their degenerate and disgusting propaganda.

 

[Speedwell]

Do flagella have a purpose and a function?

Which question do you want answered first?

 

[bhsmte]

DNA must be super smart to make such complex designs. I wonder if DNA also planned our eco system and balanced it so perfectly?

Do you disagree with Collins? If so, why?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Do you disagree with Collins? If so, why?

Never met him. Are you referring to Phil Collins?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

but why? in both cases you didnt seen the designer. so what is the difference?

The difference is, as I said, that the items in question look very similar to items on Earth. Therefore, I would assume that they had been produced by similar processes as had occurred on Earth. Hence, until more evidence came in, I'd assume that the electric motor was intelligently designed and that the flagella weren't.

All of that is assumption, which could be revised upon receiving additional information. However, I think that until such information arrives, that they are entirely reasonable assumptions.