- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know this about God exactly how? Or are you telling Him what He is supposed to do?
Design of the type you describe is not plausible without a designer.
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.
True.
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.)
Because our previous experience tells us that electric motors are manufactured--thus designed--and flagella are not.but why? in both cases you didnt seen the designer. so what is the difference?
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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
The Bible tells us how he did it and how long he took. But you know that and disagree with it.Is this a voice inside your head telling you?
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.
Do flagella have a purpose and a function?Because our previous experience tells us that electric motors are manufactured--thus designed--and flagella are not.
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
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.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. .
Do you disagree with Collins? If so, why?
but why? in both cases you didnt seen the designer. so what is the difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?