How to choose between creation and evolution.

[AnotherAtheist]

Never met him. Are you referring to Phil Collins?

Taking a wild, wild, guess, I would say he means Francis Collins.

Francis Collins :: DNA from the Beginning

 

[rjs330]

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.

Huh? You went way off the reservation on that one. You acknowledge existence of God. My argument stands. Complexity and function are evidence of design. Give me one other thing in this world that has complexity and function that was not designed. You even acknowledge that in the evolutionary argument. You believe in God you believe that God created by the evolutionary process. You believe in design.

 

[Speedwell]

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

Not just DNA, but the entire biosphere, an immense information processing system fully capable of producing complex functionality. Even our poor imitation of it, using computer-based random variation and selection algorithms, can produce complex designs.

 

[bhsmte]

Never met him. Are you referring to Phil Collins?

LOL.

Obviously, you selectively read what you quoted from me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

LOL.

Obviously, you selectively read what you quoted from me.

Sorry I just meant to reply didn’t intend to quote you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

The creation is evidence of the creator.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The creation is evidence of the creator.

Your post is certainly evidence of highly circular reasoning. If A depends on B and B depends on A, then you have no argument at all.

If we look closely at this 'creation' then it looks exactly like something that wasn't created at all. Why does DNA look the way it does if there was a competent intelligent designer?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Rather than 'unwatch ' my own thread I'm asking the Mods to close it. I think the topic has been tortured enough for while.

Moderators, please close this thread. Thanks.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

The creation is evidence of the creator.

Oh this is fun!
The world Is evidence of evolution.
Who wants to go next?

 

[Speedwell]

Huh? You went way off the reservation on that one. You acknowledge existence of God. My argument stands. Complexity and function are evidence of design. Give me one other thing in this world that has complexity and function that was not designed. You even acknowledge that in the evolutionary argument. You believe in God you believe that God created by the evolutionary process. You believe in design.

You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy for sophistical purposes, just like the radical Dominionists at the Discovery Institute who originated it.

"Design" as a term, is used with two different and distinct meanings.

First of all, it means "purpose." As a theist, I believe that the universe is infused with divine telos. But purpose is not directly detectable in an object or phenomena, it must be inferred from other evidence. Typically, it is inferred from evidence of human manufacture, Paley's "indications of contrivance." Such evidence as tool and molding marks, the use of refined alloys and non-natural materials, etc. Consequently, the presence of design as purpose is a scientifically unfalsifiable proposition. Its presence can be concluded by inference from other evidence, but cannot be demonstrated directly and it can never be scientifically ruled out. That is sufficient for me as a believer, but I understand it is not enough for those whose political agenda requres that it's presence be demonstrated directly.

On the other hand "design" is also used to describe functional arrangements of components, but this usage does not imply purpose.

The equivocation fallacy is obvious: "Design (as functionality) is present in nature, therefore design (as telos) is proven."

 

[Brightmoon]

I'll give you this, when you are wrong you are wrong with an awesome consistency. If you had actually studied the development of evolutionary theory you would have recognised how fouled up your beliefs on the matter are.

. Ophiolite was talking to old wise guy . A very good book for laymen about HOW Darwin came to his conclusions about evolution is “ Darwin for Beginners “ by Jonathan Miller and Borin van Loon . This is actually done like a graphic novel so it’s rather enjoyable to read for scientifically illiterate people.

 

[DogmaHunter]

More assumption.

Where specifically in my post am I refering to assumptions?
Pick one and explain how it is an assumption.

You assume that everything is related. Yet DNA tells us differently.

No, DNA tells us we are related. That's how we can find out that your sister is your actual sister.

It tells us specifically what or who is related in a family and who is not.

And to what extent. And as it turns out, we are all related. All life, that is.

You want your cake and eat it too.

It also tells us what we belong to. We can tell be DNA what is human and what is not.

And what is a primate and what is not.​

And what is a mammal and what is not.

And what is a tetrapod and what is not.
And what is a vertebrate and what is not.
And what is a eukaryote 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.

Indeed, those too.
And also which DNA sample is yours and which 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.

No, not because of mere similarities, nore is it an assumption.
It's because of the pattern of not just mere "similarities", but rather of exact DNA matches, organized in a nested hierarchy.

And such an hierarchy is, ...tada..., a family tree.
None of this, is an assumption.

We know how DNA works (it is passed on to off spring)
We know how DNA changes during reproduction (mutation)
We know natural selection acts like a filter on that off spring (fit, equals more chance of succes)

All those things factually happen.
That's what life does.
If you start with a single population of primitive life, then the inevitable end result of this process, is a collective genome of all species which is organized in a nested hierarchy.

Which is the exact hierarchy we find in the collective genome of all species.

Again, this is not an assumption.
Nore is it surprising that we indeed find such a pattern, given the 3 facts that make up the process.

In fact, it would have been surprising, if such a pattern did NOT exist.
But it does.

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.

That's actually correct. And not only do you "assume", you dogmatically believe.
It is how you interpret your religion.

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.

The only reason why an engineer would "design" living things with such a deeply rooted nested hierarchy, which can be concluded from various different and independent lines of evidence, ... would to be make everyone believe that they evolved from a universal common ancestor.

You are basically drawing in an undemonstrable entity, with no demonstrable effect or manifestation in the processes of life whatsoever, to solve a problem that drawing in the entity created in the first place.

It doesn't make any sense.

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.

Every species is unique. That's what makes them a species.
Every individual is unique. That's what makes them an individual.

I don't understand what your point is when you keep stressing that things are what they are and not what they are not.

 

[Brightmoon]

No one knows the 'steps' of abiogenesis, which is theory in and of itself.

. The last I looked into it they actually have all of the steps . What they’re having trouble with is linking the steps together.

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

. This is exactly why I think creationists practice blasphemy . They tell God how the universe is created.

And who ever keeps using biogenesis mistakenly for Abiogenesis. The 2 are not the same thing . Biogenesis is Pasteur’s theory ( you know the reason we pasteurize milk nowadays)

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

For crying out loud.....

Do you not understand how hierarchies work?
A moth, is something at the end of a branch. An extant creature.
Moths didn't always exist, no. They evolved from an ancestor that was not a moth. But it was lepidoptera. A moth is a lepidoptera.
Lepdidoptera have not always existed either. They evolved from an insect. Lediptorea, and moths, are insects.

Insects produce more insects.
They'll speciate into sub-species. Like lediptorea. And then those will speciate further. Like in moths.

You assume chimps and humans had primate ancestors.

Not an assumption.

I assume himans were always humans and chimps were always chimps different from humans from the beginning.

A religious belief, completely at odds with the actual evidence.

The only reason you say we were primates is because scientists decided to categorize us as such.

Nope. Because of the data showing so.

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

We observer the process all the time.
We actually actively use the process every day. In agriculture, breeding programs, desease control, ...

We also actively use the logic of the process in computational optimization systems.
Like to optimize fuel distribution systems on boeings and stuff.

Yes we creationists believe. And our belief STARTS with our faith.

Exactly!
You guys start with the answer before even asking the questions....
Indeed. Couldn't have said it better myself.

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.

You should pay more attention. All this has already been explained to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes uniqueness and complexity and function ARE evidence of design.

They are not.
A mountain is unique, complex and has a function in climate conditions.

Are mountains "designed"?

You do not accept that it not with anything else in out observable world except for the evolutionary theory.

I just gave you an example of geology.

You don't look at a computer, or MRI machine or anything else for that matter and say it was not designed.

Computers are made from unnaturally occuring elements.
Computers bare labels like "made in china".
I can go and visit a computer factory.

But you sure will with life. It's illogical.

It's not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Nobody, except perhaps a few types of creationists, believe that life comes from nothing.

Abiogenesis, which I'll go ahead and assume is your "prime target" here, looks towards a chemical process producing the first self-replicating molecules / organisms / whatever-you-wish-to-call-it. That's not "from nothing". That's pre-existing chemicals undergoing a chemical reaction under certain conditions and producing self-replicating molecules as a result.

 

[DogmaHunter]

DNA must be super smart to make such complex designs.

It's, at bottom, just chemistry.

I wonder if DNA also planned our eco system and balanced it so perfectly?

No, that's what natural selection does. And it's hardly perfect. If anything, it's extremely fragile. And as we speak, irresponsible behaviour is leading in massive extinction waves once again.

 

[rjs330]

Your post is certainly evidence of highly circular reasoning. If A depends on B and B depends on A, then you have no argument at all.

If we look closely at this 'creation' then it looks exactly like something that wasn't created at all. Why does DNA look the way it does if there was a competent intelligent designer?

We've already told you why. Because he uses a common design. You just choose to interpret it the way you do.

 

[rjs330]

.

. This is exactly why I think creationists practice blasphemy . They tell God how the universe is created/QUOTE]

That just silly. We just believe what God says.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We've already told you why. Because he uses a common design. You just choose to interpret it the way you do.

But what we see in life is not "common design".
What we see are nested hierarchies.

It's not the same thing.