How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Speedwell]

actually the opposite is true. creation is a fact base on scientific evidence (which i already showed)and common descent (for banana and cat for instance) base on a belief.

So you are saying that a person who accepts evolution does not believe in God?

 

[inquiring mind]

My two cents is I’ve always leaned toward a combination of both – God created and then used evolution in ‘ways and time-frames’ that we’ll never completely understand. There’s no way to know all this stuff with certainty, unless you mistakenly think you can know what God does. Scientific knowledge is a gift that provides blessings in many ways, but I believe the Bible cautions us in 2 Peter 3:3-6 about thinking that everything goes on as it has from the beginning. Things have and will change rapidly and radically at His set times.

 

[Speedwell]

My two cents is I’ve always leaned toward a combination of both – God created and then used evolution in ‘ways and time-frames’ that we’ll never completely understand. There’s no way to know all this stuff with certainty, unless you mistakenly think you can know what God does. Scientific knowledge is a gift that provides blessings in many ways, but I believe the Bible cautions us in 2 Peter 3:3-6 about thinking that everything goes on as it has from the beginning. Things have and will change rapidly and radically at His set times.

In the end, Xianghua's argumentation will doubtless turn out to be about the Bible, not about God, just like all the other creationists.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Analysis of bacterial genomes from an evolution experiment with horizontal gene transfer shows that recombination can sometimes overwhelm selection

Well I guess I asked for it.
I read it only to the heading, "Results". It seems that the researchers are completely bewildered by the results of their experiments up to that point. If you read it closely you'll find that they also call the wacky and unpredicted behaviors of the subject bacteria "evolution". What conclusion did you reach?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tas### already posted some parts of scientific papers with references. Why don’t you go read them instead of glossing over them . 19th century scientists did emphatically state that they had the complete truth about what they proposed. Since some of them were ridiculously wrong, modern scientists understand that we don’t know everything and that all current info is subject to correction at a later date. However, no one has refuted the basic premise of evolution- that currently living and extinct organisms are kin. Nor has any other of the main parts of the theory been refuted( Like natural selection) . The only people who do complain about evolution are the 3M crowd. Mistaken, misunderstanding,and misinformed

The stumbling stone of the theory is the origin of living matter. The ToE is a thesis that has been built backward, like if a skyscraper were constructed beginning with the top floor suspended high above the ground. The floors are then hung in succession until the structure meets the ground. Only then is the foundation laid. However in the case of the theory there is no foundation, which is the origin of living matter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL! It's not IQ you're lacking, it's willingness to take the risk that you might find it convincing.

Henry Kissinger, arguably one of the brightest minds of our time in some regards, was asked what he thought about some economic issue, to which he, in his famous guttural, monotone voice responded somberly (and apparently sincerely) that, "Economics has always been a mystery to me."

I have no doubt that he had considerable knowledge of economics, but the economy was in such a mess that he didn't wish to engage the subject. Also I believe his real interest, that of global foreign relations, didn't allow time for many other such pursuits. However if cornered I'm certain he would have rendered a brief, but strong, opinion on the subject.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

where?



correct. but that was the main "flaw" your paper was talking about. so this is why i gave this paper as evidence against your paper.

The paper talked about the glial cells, not the blind spot caused by the nerve routing.

It's easy to design a better vertebrate eye. Route the nerve better to remove the blind spot but leave the rest alone, including the glial cells.

What's not improved about that?

not realy. since a cephalopod live underwater and build in a different way than many other creatures. so the fact that it has a different kind of eye structure doesnt prove its a flaw structure. also remember the point above that your paper already fail to identify a good design. so basically no one is able to identify a bad design.

Fish are also vertebrates, also have vertebrate eyes, and also live in water. Same for mammals such as dolphins and whales. Hence, your objection is invalid.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The stumbling stone of the theory is the origin of living matter. The ToE is a thesis that has been built backward, like if a skyscraper were constructed beginning with the top floor suspended high above the ground. The floors are then hung in succession until the structure meets the ground. Only then is the foundation laid. However in the case of the theory there is no foundation, which is the origin of living matter.

'The origin of living matter' is not part of the theory of evolution.

Evolution applies equally well whether or not the origin of life on earth was:

1] Natural abiogenesis
2] Creation of first cell by a God
3] Creation of first cells by advanced (but natural) aliens
4] Arrival of first cells by panspermia
5] Other origins that I haven't thought of.

There has been a lot of research on abiogenesis, and there are no insurmountable steps that require a supernatural explanation. Abiogenesis is plausible given what we know about life. However, there is nothing that we know that makes a supernatural God plausible. E.g. where is the domain where such a being would exist?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

i just go by your criteria. you said that all electric motor we know of were the product of design. but i said to you that i never seen someone who made them. so by your criteria i cnat conclude design till i will see someone who made an electric motor.

Those were not my criteria at all. I pointed out that there is copious evidence that electric motors are designed, including easy access to huge numbers of actual designs for real electric motors. Google patent search, for a start.

There is no evidence that flagella are designed.

the same with the flagellum. this is an actual design and evolutionists said there is no evidence of design.

This conclusion is based on a completely misrepresentation of my criteria. I am concerned that this is a deliberate, rather than accidental, misrepresentation of my criteria.

By my (real) criteria, the situations are utterly different. There is plenty of evidence that electric motors are designed. There is no evidence that flagella are designed. If you disagree, please produce your direct verifiable evidence, as I have done for electric motors.

actually some scientists makes artificial genomes in the lab.

Has anyone made an artificial flagellum in the lab? If so, can you link to their design?

 

[xianghua]

Those were not my criteria at all. I pointed out that there is copious evidence that electric motors are designed, including easy access to huge numbers of actual designs for real electric motors. Google patent search, for a start.

so if we will see an electric motor on a far planet we cant conclude design till we will see womone who can make them?

Has anyone made an artificial flagellum in the lab? If so, can you link to their design?

someone made an artificial cilia that is very similar:

Swimming like algae: biomimetic soft artificial cilia

also: so you agree that for a genome there is evidence that its was designed?

 

[xianghua]

The paper talked about the glial cells, not the blind spot caused by the nerve routing.

who is talking about the blind spot? im talking about you paper claim that: "The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards. Light has to travel through multiple layers in order to get to the rods and cones that act as the photoreceptors. There is no functional reason for this arrangement—it is purely quirky and contingent."

its simply not true as we seen.

It's easy to design a better vertebrate eye. Route the nerve better to remove the blind spot but leave the rest alone, including the glial cells.

so where is your improved eyes then?

Fish are also vertebrates, also have vertebrate eyes, and also live in water. Same for mammals such as dolphins and whales. Hence, your objection is invalid.

no. it can be because many different reasons we still dont know yet. its just a guess but it can be because they are invertebrate or because they are color blind or the combination of both or many other possibilities.

 

[Ophiolite]

The stumbling stone of the theory is the origin of living matter. The ToE is a thesis that has been built backward, like if a skyscraper were constructed beginning with the top floor suspended high above the ground. The floors are then hung in succession until the structure meets the ground. Only then is the foundation laid. However in the case of the theory there is no foundation, which is the origin of living matter.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

'The origin of living matter' is not part of the theory of evolution.

Evolution applies equally well whether or not the origin of life on earth was:

1] Natural abiogenesis
2] Creation of first cell by a God
3] Creation of first cells by advanced (but natural) aliens
4] Arrival of first cells by panspermia
5] Other origins that I haven't thought of.

There has been a lot of research on abiogenesis, and there are no insurmountable steps that require a supernatural explanation. Abiogenesis is plausible given what we know about life. However, there is nothing that we know that makes a supernatural God plausible. E.g. where is the domain where such a being would exist?

That's what many believe, but if you dig deeper it is still the most frustrating aspect of evolutionary science. The first life form, if such ever existed as thought, had to be so complex that it couldn't have arrived spontaneously. And because the 'hand of God' cannot be demonstrated supernatural creation is rejected out of hand, leaving only abiogenesis, which by science's own reckoning is virtually impossible. Evolution must discover the origin of life as it's foundation or the whole theory collapses, so what science has done is toss the red herring of "natural selection" on the table as the 'foundation of evolution', while working feverishly behind close doors to discover the necessary origin of life.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

The ToE is still being developed, one assumption upon another. The theory depends entirely on the miraculous appearance of a highly developed, self sustaining, self-replicating life form, whose genesis is limited to purely natural means. The notion that such a life form just 'appeared' and then evolution 'took over' is patent nonsense.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

so if we will see an electric motor on a far planet we cant conclude design till we will see womone who can make them?

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.)

someone made an artificial cilia that is very similar:

Swimming like algae: biomimetic soft artificial cilia

This is not a biological item. It's made from different materials and works in a different way. Hence, I don't feel that it is 'very similar' even to a cilia. Even the authors describe it as 'robotic'.

also: so you agree that for a genome there is evidence that its was designed?

Yet again appear to be putting words in my mouth, despite me asking you not to do this. That is an intellectually dishonest method of argument.

It is possible now to produce artificial genomes. So, if you just quote a 'genome' without saying whether it is natural or artificial, then there is no evidence that it was designed.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

who is talking about the blind spot? im talking about you paper claim that: "The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards. Light has to travel through multiple layers in order to get to the rods and cones that act as the photoreceptors. There is no functional reason for this arrangement—it is purely quirky and contingent."

its simply not true as we seen.

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.

so where is your improved eyes then?

I said it was possible to design such an eye. I never said that anyone had built one. 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? Your non-sequitur answer suggests to me that you cannot answer this question and are trying to tap dance around it.

no. it can be because many different reasons we still dont know yet. its just a guess but it can be because they are invertebrate or because they are color blind or the combination of both or many other possibilities.

You need something more than 'maybe' or 'we don't know' in this context. You said that the cephalopod eye might be better because they live in water, but I pointed out that vertebrates live in water. So, which is the better eye for water?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That's what many believe, but if you dig deeper it is still the most frustrating aspect of evolutionary science. The first life form, if such ever existed as thought, had to be so complex that it couldn't have arrived spontaneously. And because the 'hand of God' cannot be demonstrated supernatural creation is rejected out of hand, leaving only abiogenesis, which by science's own reckoning is virtually impossible. Evolution must discover the origin of life as it's foundation or the whole theory collapses, so what science has done is toss the red herring of "natural selection" on the table as the 'foundation of evolution', while working feverishly behind close doors to discover the necessary origin of life.

It is an open research question, but it's not part of 'evolutionary science'. I described that, I believe, quite clearly in my previous post. It doesn't matter how life started; once we had living things which can reproduce and all that, evolution proceeds. Evolution will not 'collapse' if we don't 'discover the origin of life'. It's backed up by evidence entirely unrelated to, and independent of, the origin of life.

Also, open research questions are not 'frustrating'. They are an opportunity. And many people are following that opportunity. As I pointed out.

Supernatural creation is rejected because it's not the best theory that fits the evidence. As you say, the 'hand of God' cannot be demonstrated. Doesn't that mean that it's religion that should 'collapse' as there is no evidence? But, as you can see, it doesn't.

You say that 'which by science's own reckoning is virtually impossible.' How do you back up this claim for abiogenesis? There is plenty of research continuing on abiogenesis, and there is no step in the process which is implausible or 'virtually impossible'. Which step do you claim science say is virtually impossible?

 

[pitabread]

actually the opposite is true. creation is a fact base on scientific evidence (which i already showed)and common descent (for banana and cat for instance) base on a belief.

Posts like this only reinforce just how irrelevant creationism is when it comes to actual science.

All that seems to matter is that creationists have convinced themselves within their little bubble that they are right no matter how much reality continues to disagree with them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The ToE is still being developed, one assumption upon another. The theory depends entirely on the miraculous appearance of a highly developed, self sustaining, self-replicating life form, whose genesis is limited to purely natural means. The notion that such a life form just 'appeared' and then evolution 'took over' is patent nonsense.

Wow. When you're wrong, you are STUNNINGLY wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

The ToE is still being developed, one assumption upon another. The theory depends entirely on the miraculous appearance of a highly developed, self sustaining, self-replicating life form, whose genesis is limited to purely natural means. The notion that such a life form just 'appeared' and then evolution 'took over' is patent nonsense.

There is a stench of intellectual dishonesty in that reply. You have been told multiple times that the Theory of Evolution is independent of the origin of life. Multiple explanations are possible for the origin. If and when we eventually identify which one is correct it will not alter the evidence for the ToE one iota. So, why do you keep recirculating the lie?

Seriously, OWG, if you intend to continue to post statements that are patently false, that you know to be patently false, then I shall be Reporting them. I have confidence in the honesty and integrity of the moderator team to respond appropriately. You have a grace period, since you are now going on Ignore. Shape up, or ship out.