How to choose between creation and evolution.

[OldWiseGuy]

why? its just get interesting.

I'll probably start another one, coming at the topic from a different direction.

 

[tas8831]

why? its just get interesting.

Why? So the humiliation will scroll into oblivion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh the GOADING!!!

I see that the Christian employs the tired tactics of creationists of all stripes - misrepresentation.

Tissues are made of CELLS - I even provided the definition for you.

The link you copy-pasted was about the EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX.



LOL!

Wow - you admit you understand nothing in the article YOU linked and copy-pasted, but nonetheless think you 'GOTCHA'd' me.

Sorry - you are wrong.

I even EXPLAINED how you were wrong, but the creationist simply cannot admit error - even when admitting ignorance of the subject!

Incredible...

And yet you feel qualified to dismiss it. How... creationist of you.


How do you know? You just admitted that are not going to study and understand evolution - which means that you do NOT understand evolution now.

Inconsistency of 'logic' much?

I helped PsychoSarah with this awhile back. Maybe it will help you too.

As you can see tissues are made of atoms.
They are also made of molecules.

So it is entirely proper to say that tissues are made of molecules.

My point was that for tissues to change (specialized) they (some) must be changed at the molecular level.

The link on post #1001 is a lengthy article discussing the role of molecules in tissues. I take it you didn't read it. I found a simple diagram for you. You're welcome.

Figure 1: Levels of the body from smallest to largest: Atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems.

Building the Body: From Atoms to Organs - dummies

 

[tas8831]

previous experience also tell as that a genome is a product of human design.

No it doesn't.

so according to this we need to conclude design when we see a genome.

The only people that 'see design' in genomes are non-biologists with a previous dedication to creationism.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't.



The only people that 'see design' in genomes are non-biologists with a previous dedication to creationism.

If the genome has no design why is science trying 'design' an artificial one? And why do all illustrations of the genome appear carefully 'designed'? Why not illustrate the genome as it actually appears so there is no confusion concerning 'design'?

In fact why are all illustrations of organs, cells, organisms, etc. presented as well designed systems?

 

[Speedwell]

If the genome has no design why is science trying 'design' an artificial one? And why do all illustrations of the genome appear carefully 'designed'? Why not illustrate the genome as it actually appears so there is no confusion concerning 'design'?

In fact why are all illustrations of organs, cells, organisms, etc. presented as well designed systems?

They are presented as functional systems, not "designed" systems.

 

[tas8831]

I helped PsychoSarah with this awhile back. Maybe it will help you too.

So precious...

As you can see tissues are made of atoms.
They are also made of molecules.

So it is entirely proper to say that tissues are made of molecules.

Not if you are trying to convince people you understand biology.

My point was that for tissues [CELLS] to change (specialized) they (some) must be changed at the molecular level.

If that was your point, why didn't you write that?

You wrote:

"All anatomy reveals very complex design, down to the molecular (specialized tissue) level."

Via rules of grammar, your sentence means "molecules are specialized tissues".

Then, to 'prove your point', you linked to and copy-pasted an article that you admit that you did not understand - another common creationist tactic (except most creationists do not admit that they don't understand what they present)- that not only does NOT support your face-saving reductio ad absurdum but instead was about material secreted by cells in tissues.

Further, you merely made an assertion, for when I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate your assertion, you punted (as so often happens).


But no, go ahead and start yet another thread on a subject you proudly admit ignorance in.

 

[tas8831]

If the genome has no design why is science trying 'design' an artificial one?

If there is no human form in a slab of marble, why do humans try to 'sculpt' one into it?

Argument from analogy? Really?

And why do all illustrations of the genome appear carefully 'designed'?

And why do non-biologists read way too much into things that they admit they do not understand?

You mean the illustrations are designed? Not sure what you mean.


At the level of the molecule, regularities are the norm. Molecules only interact with other molecules or other parts of molecules so many ways (due to their shape, charge structure, etc.). I guess the uninformed might see this as 'design' when that is all they know.

Why not illustrate the genome as it actually appears so there is no confusion concerning 'design'?

No idea what you are getting at.

Example?

In fact why are all illustrations of organs, cells, organisms, etc. presented as well designed systems?

So.... Your current 'argument' is the argument from drawings?

Why is Jesus depicted as a white guy?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They are presented as functional systems, not "designed" systems.

Evolutionist don't get to define 'design'. If it looks designed and functions as if designed it was probably designed.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolutionist don't get to define 'design'. If it looks designed and functions as if designed it was probably designed.

Well, if the ID folks can't even define it, that tells you all you need to know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So precious...

Not if you are trying to convince people you understand biology.


If that was your point, why didn't you write that?

You wrote:

"All anatomy reveals very complex design, down to the molecular (specialized tissue) level."

Via rules of grammar, your sentence means "molecules are specialized tissues".

Then, to 'prove your point', you linked to and copy-pasted an article that you admit that you did not understand - another common creationist tactic (except most creationists do not admit that they don't understand what they present)- that not only does NOT support your face-saving reductio ad absurdum but instead was about material secreted by cells in tissues.

Further, you merely made an assertion, for when I gave you the opportunity to demonstrate your assertion, you punted (as so often happens).


But no, go ahead and start yet another thread on a subject you proudly admit ignorance in.

The presenter of this video strongly suggests that DNA was designed, based on how it functions. What I get from you guys is that evolution deliberately disguised it's designs so that it could proceed without revealing a designer. Pretty crafty.

Everything you learned about the shape of DNA is wrong

How long did it take for the genome to evolve, or was it already in the first cell ready to go to work?

Every presentation like this one reinforces creation, not evolution. How can a rational person ascribe the complexity of the genome to "descent with modification"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not if you are trying to convince people you understand biology.

So you don't understand that illustration? Let me help.

We are made of atoms.
We are made of molecules.
We are made of cells.

What is so difficult about that?

 

[Astrophile]

why are both cars and trucks made of steel and plastic?

All right, I admit that I phrased the question badly; I was really asking for the cause of the observed similarities in the DNA of animals of supposedly different 'kinds', such as humans and the great apes and hippopotamuses and whales.

I can't answer your question about cars and trucks since I am not an engineer. I would guess that since, as rjs330 said somewhere, man is limited, it is more practical to make cars and trucks out of materials that we can already produce in large amounts than to devise new technologies to manufacture exotic materials that might be more suitable materials for these vehicles, particularly if we needed two different technologies, and two different sets of factories, to make the appropriate materials for cars and the appropriate materials for trucks.

However, God is not limited in this way, and He could presumably have made different living things with proteins made out of a different set of amino acids, and genetic material made out of different pyrimidines and different purines. The fact that all living things are made out of the same set of organic molecules is therefore slightly more consistent with the hypothesis that all living things are related by common descent from a small number of common ancestors than with the hypothesis that they were specially created by an omnipotent God.

 

[rjs330]

"the bible says it, that settles it"



where do you observe "purpose"?

A heartbeat.

 

[rjs330]

Except you, when you said that they were designed by a designer, instead.

"formed by natural forces" and "designed by a designer", aren't the same thing. In fact, they are the exact opposite.



Uhu, uhu.

God designed the mountains to do what they do. He designed and created the process for them to be formed to do what they do. It's not that difficult to understand.

 

[pitabread]

If it looks designed and functions as if designed it was probably designed.

The problem is that nobody has come up with a rigorous criteria for "looks designed". For the most part, people just fall back on learned pattern recognition.

 

[rjs330]

It. Is. Not.

The pattern factually exists.
This is not an interpretation, it is not an assumption, it is not a belief.
It is a fact. An observable, verifiable, objective fact.



No. Again, it is a factual nested hierarchy and it factually consists of DNA matches. Not similarities or vague resemblances. Factual matches in DNA. And when mapped out, it forms a nested hierarchical tree. Factually.



Which is just a claim that comes from your a priori religious beliefs.
You don't "interpret" the evidence. It doesn't matter AT ALL how the evidence looks. No matter the build up of life, you'ld say it was designed by this god of yours, period.

Today you're saying nested hierarchies are evidence of design.
If tomorrow, somehow nested hierarchies are debunked, then your beliefs wouldn't change at all.

Evolution theory however, would be considered falsified.

Don't pretend as if you care about how the evidence looks.

You interpret what you see. The nested heirarchies are assumptions based upon and interpretation. There is no observable testable verifiable evidence that it ever occurred the way evolutionists say. They see community, similarity and assume it means we all evolved from the same thing.

Like I said and I have ALWAYS said that things do adapt. Bears might have existed and then adapted to fit the climate or area where they live. But bears were always bears from the start. They we're never ever an original ancestor that crawled out of the sea or whatever.

 

[rjs330]

Boom! There you have it folks.

If science contradicts his religious beliefs, then science is necessarily wrong.

Congratz rjs330. You just made yourself completely irrelevant in this discussion.
That right there is black on white evidence, proof even, of what I said in my previous posts: you don't care about the evidence or the science one bit. You only care about clinging to your religious beliefs.

When you are talking to a person who says in advance that he'll reject anything out of hand at face value which contradicts his religious beliefs..... Then you know that discussion is an exercise in futility. This is willful ignorance squared.

But hey, at least you are honest about it....
So I guess you got that going for you.



Indeed, "so what".
To a person who doesn't care about what is true, but who only cares about upholding his religious beliefs, such things are unimportant.

And there you have it. Science is God. Science is right regardless of what God says. The fallibilty of man is dismissed and whatever science says is true. The foolishness of man on display. No matter how many times science has been wrong, science is right.

 

[rjs330]

The amusing thing is that the "quote' he is talking about, Exodus 20:11, does not even pretend to be a quote of God's words.

You know that's not true. Why do you say such things?

Then God spoke all these words:I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You must have no other gods before me.Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the Lord your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy.Six days you may work and do all your tasks, - Exodus 20:1-9 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-9 - Common English Bible

Then God said all these words:א “I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery.ב “You are to have no other gods before me.You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline.You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,but displaying grace to the thousandth generation of those who love me and obey my mitzvot.ג “You are not to use lightly the name of Adonai your God, because Adonai will not leave unpunished someone who uses his name lightly.ד “Remember the day, Shabbat, to set it apart for God.You have six days to labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is a Shabbat for Adonai your God. On it, you are not to do any kind of work — not you, your son or your daughter, not your male or female slave, not your livestock, and not the foreigner staying with you inside the gates to your property.For in six days, Adonai made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. This is why Adonai blessed the day, Shabbat, and separated it for himself. - Exodus 20:1-11 Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 20:1-11 - Complete Jewish Bible

 

[rjs330]

I'll probably start another one, coming at the topic from a different direction.

I have a feeling g that no matter what direction you come from it will always go the way it going right now. I have been on a number of these kinds of threads and they all go the same way.

The Bible is right in how it describes how things were created or evolution from a common ancestor is right on how things came to be. It's always a battle of faith in science or faith in God supported by science.