i am a creationist... but not strictly

[shernren]

While we're at it, Greg, when did Jesus of Nazareth actually say the words you're putting in His mouth in your sig?

 

[Assyrian]

I saw your examples met with similar examples in biological systems. Nothing was "demolished".

Your claim vehicles form a nested hierarchy was.

Trying to counter with claims that biological system breaks nested hierarchy is a different argument. One you failed at too. But even if you had succeeded, you would still have failed to support you vehicles form a nested hierarchy claim.

Comparative anatomy, homology, and its most recent form, nested hierarchy keep being presented by Darwinists, and will be met with the same principle that even though a Mark 6 and a Honda civic look similar, they are both independently designed.

Independent design can produces stuff that can look similar or very different. So will descent with modification.

What you haven't been able to answer, and suspect you haven't been able to grasp*, is that descent with modification results in all the similar and different forms fitting in nested hierarchies, while independent design with its mixing and matching parts does not fit in a nested hierarchy.

You went off to pointing out discrepancies between the two, in an attempt to smother this basic principle.

You think we are cruel for pointing out the holes in your argument? How is it a 'basic principle' if it cannot tell design from evolution? Of I know creationist like it because they can say '"well I think it looks designed". What they don't want to look at is how to distinguish descent with modification from independent design.

You dont take a human and a chimp and say compare their anatomy, they are homologous or they fit perfectly within a nest (based on comparing homologous structures), so bacteria can turn into men.

You are right. We don't. This is the first accurate statement about an evo argument I have seen you give. Pity you did not mean it that way.

The rest of your argument was basically attempting to know the intent of the designer. Meaning that if man was designed, he would have wings. Doesnt work that way chief.

You mean like "If God had intended man to fly he would have given us wings"? Sound more of a creationist argument to me. No we are just looking at what independent designs looks like and what descent with modification looks like. And life on earth does not look designed, it looks evolved.

*Have you ever heard of Morton's Demon?

 

[Assyrian]

While we're at it, Greg, when did Jesus of Nazareth actually say the words you're putting in His mouth in your sig?

Hush brother, that is not for the uninitiated!

 

[hamashiachagape]

For a refutation of a lot of this...see Dr. Jonathan's Sarfati's book "Refuting Compromise."

 

[Papias]

Oh yeah, Sarfarti, the guy who deceives through the use of quotemines? Remember his deceptive quotemining about the supernova remnants?

Next up, learning honesty from the example of Richard Nixon......

Papias

 

[hamashiachagape]

Oh yeah, Sarfarti, the guy who deceives through the use of quotemines? Remember his deceptive quotemining about the supernova remnants?

Next up, learning honesty from the example of Richard Nixon......

Papias

Blah. I have looked at many of those quotes, and they are spot on. I don't see many problems there. Your shock and awe method, not impressing me at least. Even if he was wrong on supernova remnants...it is a nonsequitor to claim he is wrong in ALL of his information (and supernova remnants are not even at the crux of his arguments to begin with, its a minor issue if anything).

 

[Papias]

Hami, do we agree that we'll look at an example or two, and if they truly do represent what the person was saying, I'll agree I was wrong? And that on the other hand, if Safarti is misrepresenting what the author was saying, that you'll agree Safarti intentionally lies?

Papias

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hami, do we agree that we'll look at an example or two, and if they truly do represent what the person was saying, I'll agree I was wrong? And that on the other hand, if Safarti is misrepresenting what the author was saying, that you'll agree Safarti intentionally lies?

Papias

You expect Sarfati to be God. Thats whats wrong with your reasoning. I myself find several problems with his Theology, not too much in the way of Science, which is where his expertise is in.

Besides it sounds like a double standard to me. Who is to say you are not intentionally lying?

If we can see that the examples are relevant to the understanding in question, certainly I'll agree that he is MISTAKEN!

 

[Papias]

If someone takes part of a quote to make it sound like it says the opposite of what the author is saying, then it is both clear that the person has read the original quote, and that they are distorting the meaning. Is that not deceptive?

The classic example is a creationist taking the first part of Darwin's eye quote (while cutting out the second part), which makes it sound like Darwin actually doubted the evolution of the eye. Reading the whole quote in context shows that the original author (Darwin) meant the opposite of what the creationist is claiming he meant.

Do we agree in that example (which is not the example used by Sarfarti) that this is quotemining, and lying?

Papias, who is going to bed and will answer sometime tomorrow.

 

[hamashiachagape]

If someone takes part of a quote to make it sound like it says the opposite of what the author is saying, then it is both clear that the person has read the original quote, and that they are distorting the meaning. Is that not deceptive?

The classic example is a creationist taking the first part of Darwin's eye quote (while cutting out the second part), which makes it sound like Darwin actually doubted the evolution of the eye. Reading the whole quote in context shows that the original author (Darwin) meant the opposite of what the creationist is claiming he meant.

Do we agree in that example (which is not the example used by Sarfarti) that this is quotemining, and lying?

Papias, who is going to bed and will answer sometime tomorrow.

Thats not the purpose for the usage of the quote though. I think thats where you're getting mixed up. The only thing Darwin states that is of value to the conversation in this case is that IF, and only IF these conditions are met, Evolution will have problems. The fact is, we have found problems now that we have investigated the eye, that are a hindrance to Darwin's conjecture of Evolution.

 

[Greg1234]

Your claim vehicles form a nested hierarchy was.

I'm sure it was. Except for the fact that every discrepancy was pointed out in biological systems.

Trying to counter with claims that biological system breaks nested hierarchy is a different argument.

No its not.

One you failed at too. But even if you had succeeded, you would still have failed to support you vehicles form a nested hierarchy claim.

As you would have for biological systems.

Independent design can produces stuff that can look similar or very different. So will descent with modification.

As we see with vehicles. Ignoring tests and comparing two cars and saying that one came from and by the other is just as null as with biological systems.

What you haven't been able to answer, and suspect you haven't been able to grasp*, is that descent with modification results in all the similar and different forms fitting in nested hierarchies, while independent design with its mixing and matching parts does not fit in a nested hierarchy.

Nope, your argument fails in a number of ways. You are forgetting that in the design of a car, that you know the designer, you are aware of the intent of the designer, and that you can then limit the design to those two premises. While with biological systems, you do not know the designer(s), nor the intent of the designer(s), and you are free to place a design where ever it should fit and if it does not, you can then infer the intent.

As an example, you claim that a diesel engine is placed in a petrol engined car. But a diesel engined car is defined by the engine in the car and the accompanying systems. Your ability to say that it was a petrol engine car is of no value seeing that all you observe is a diesel system in a car. Which would make it just a diesel engined car. Likewise when I look at biological systems, I can ask why was an extinct duck's bill taken from a duck and placed on a platypus, a mammal. You attempt to refute this position, but it is a hole you have been allowed to dig yourself into,and will be continued to be allowed to. Because in a scenario where you did not know that the initial design was a petrol, which in turn is similar to the lack of knowledge in regards to design in biological systems, then you have no case. It is simply a matter of allowing you to stack a pile of bricks on the knowledge factor then pull the rug. You reply to the fact that a platypus is an indication that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the egg laying feature is a result of that, will be met with the fact that diesel engined car is a result of said car evolving from a petrol engined aircraft or whatever. And that the egg laying feature in the platypus is the result of the designer taking this feature from an extinct species of snake directly or a bird and placing it within the platypus. That the blue eyed feature on the wolf is the result of the designer taking said feature from a human and placing it within the wolf. Which would make a diesel engine in a petrol engined car the same assertion as a human eye in a wolf eyed animal. humans, bacteria, with human like features.

Another factor at play is that not only are you at liberty to assign features, but you are also at liberty to give organisms features they never had to fit in a presupposed hierarchy. The whale is a fish with mammalian features, (the use of features will be addressed later), an aquatic animal. It never had legs, it never walked on land, but you gave it legs, you molded it to fit within a set of parameters you have placed. Remember, you call an organism a mammal because of its features, not because of the intent of the designer to produce this variety of animal. A bird is a bird because it has bird like features. A bird will never be exactly the same as a land animal because there is the compensation for the environment. You don't just give humans wings. You have to alter lung function, to compensate for high altitudes. Bone mass and density has to change. There has to be a form of insulation for high altitudes. You have to make it aerodynamically fit, the digestive tract has to change. Feeding mechanisms into energy saving traits. The visual systems have to be altered. In the end, what do you do. Man no longer descended from ape like creatures but from bird like creatures. With bacteria remaining bacteria, the darwinist is free to exercise his will. Thats why he can give whales legs, thats why he can give birds dinosaur ancestors, now there are even Darwinists who are attempting to turn T-rex into a warm blooded creature given the fact that reptiles are cold blooded. A major discrepancy simply overlooked. Thats why I choose that birds evolved directly from snakes instead.

You talk about borrowing wings from aircraft, again because you know the intent of the designer. You don't answer my question as to why the cornea of a human was borrowed from the owl. If you had made an attempt, it would have been used. Thats what I was waiting for. Because through logical deduction you would have realized (on your own) that this premise is false. From the perspective of the designer, a man and an ape is in a completely different "nest". There you have the "borrowing of features". A whale (which is an aquatic animal) is in a completely different "nest" from the perspective of the designer,again, we see the sharing of different traits. But you do not recognize that, because 1) you are the designer and 2) you merely see the material portion. For those who don't, this is a done deal. Because you have failed to realize that it is not classification according to mammalian features, not classification according to reptilian features but something entirely different. A human is not a beast, so you make it a beast. A whale never had legs, so you give it legs. A bat did not descend from a rat. It is in the avian "nest" with the sharing of features with terrestrial mammals, so you made it a rodent, And there are many more, some which cannot easily be discerned without knowing the exact intent of the designer and the plane of consciousness said organism dwells. But some are quite clear. I know for a fact that you cannot provide nested hierarchy of biological systems. Not from you as the designer, not merely pointing mammalian features and posting pictures, but from the perspective of universal law.

If you keep posting pictures, it will be met with pictures. If you post pictures of a man and a chimp, I will post a person and a mannequin that looks like a person. Maybe through deduction you will tell yourself that they look alike but they are not similar, which is the point. If you don't you will again brush it off as another unanswered question. The discrepancies pointed out in cars which breaks the hierarchy will be pointed out in biological systems, as we both approach from the perspective of the designer. If you ask me what is a spitfire's merlin engine doing in a race car, I will ask you what is an owl's cornea doing in a human. Maybe through deduction you will realize that the cornea does not belong to the owl or the human, the Merlin engine does not belong to the spitfire. I could ask you what is a human doing with the features of a chimp. But I doubt you'll get it soon enough, and begin to assume that I never addressed your questions. The argument was unfolding though. It was you guys who decided to fold on the river. Wasn't it Papias who said something like "but wings are designed " Somebody was getting it. I don't have to find a chimera to break the hierarchy. A human does that just fine. A wolf, a whale. It will take you some time, but you will see what I'm talking about. Its a shame that everything has to be spelled out for you guys. The self professed elites.

You think we are cruel for pointing out the holes in your argument? How is it a 'basic principle' if it cannot tell design from evolution? Of I know creationist like it because they can say '"well I think it looks designed". What they don't want to look at is how to distinguish descent with modification from independent design.

How does random mutation not being able to take bacteria to men poke a hole in Creationism. You wanted to play the comparative anatomy game. And thats what we played. We took a field trip and we compared a chimp and a human, a Mark 6 and a civic. You attempted to show that if two different structures were designed, then they would not look similar. So we brought out cars. You attempted to point out discrepancies, so we brought out biological systems. We don't merely say "it looks designed." Testing indicates random mutations cannot take bacteria to men. You'll get it.

You are right. We don't. This is the first accurate statement about an evo argument I have seen you give. Pity you did not mean it that way.

Except that it is being done and was recently done on this forum.

You mean like "If God had intended man to fly he would have given us wings"? Sound more of a creationist argument to me. No we are just looking at what independent designs looks like and what descent with modification looks like. And life on earth does not look designed, it looks evolved.

You were just attempting to bash creationists for saying "it looks designed" and your retort is "it looks evolved".

But no it looks designed. Take away the Darwinist's ability to create and apply the result of testing and we see the same thing we see with cars.

*Have you ever heard of Morton's Demon?

Morton's demon has nothing to do with data showing that random mutation is cannot take bacteria to men. First you blame it on the bible, then the age of the earth, now on Morton's demon. Its actually science.

 

[Greg1234]

While we're at it, Greg, when did Jesus of Nazareth actually say the words you're putting in His mouth in your sig?

Do you know when Jesus lived?

 

[shernren]

Do you know when Jesus lived?

Sure. Do you know what He taught?

(And FYI, He still lives. )

 

[Papias]

Hami wrote:

Thats not the purpose for the usage of the quote though. I think thats where you're getting mixed up. The only thing Darwin states that is of value to the conversation in this case is that IF, and only IF these conditions are met, Evolution will have problems.

OK, I think we miscommunicated. I was using the Darwin eye quote as an example of quotemining, to make sure you were familiar with the deceptive practice of quotemining, and to make sure we agree that quotemining is deceptive. I was actually thinking of the quotemining of the eye quote by JW's, not Safarti, who may or may not have used it also. From your reply it sounds like you thought I was saying Safarti quotemined it, and that you were defending his quotemining of it. Does that clarify things?

For instance, here is an example of a creationist using it:

OBJECTIVE: Creation Education | The Eye

(see the quote in the quote box), while cutting out the next paragraph, which changes the whole meaning of the quote:

.... absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

My point is to confirm that we agree such a practice is lying, not to say that Safarti quotemined the eye quote. We agree such a practice is lying, right?

The fact is, we have found problems now that we have investigated the eye, that are a hindrance to Darwin's conjecture of Evolution.

OK, what are you talking about? The evolution of the eye is well understood, and further findings have only confirmed Darwin. If you know of real scientific papers sugguesting that there are insurmountable problems with eye evolution, please cite them. Otherwise it will look like you are just making stuff up and making false statements about there being research to support your point.

******************************************

Greg wrote:

I know for a fact that you cannot provide nested hierarchy of biological systems.

Greg, come on. I gave a nested hierarchy of biological life that you have ignored, and you still refuse to follow up on giving a nested hierarchy of cars, which you said you could do more than once, which you have refused to do for literally dozens (hundreds?) of posts.

Gluadys expanded on that nested hierarchy in much more detail. I even gave you a really, really low number of critieria - just 15 or so, which fit a nested hierarchy in biology, so it should be child's play to come up with 15 nested criteria in cars - yet you havn't done so.

I still have to wonder if you even know what a nested hierarchy is, even after so many posts of yours talking about it. For example, most of your posts seem to be about finding features that don't fit a nested hierarchy, but if you understood a nested hierarchy, you'd know that finding such features is not by itself a problem if the features are superficial. For instance, many animals (and plants) have the feature of being green, across nests. While we know it's not easy being green, we (well, maybe not Greg) also know it's pointless to look at that and think that it disproves a nested hierarchy.

Your last post again confirms what I posted from the court in texas, which had observed that creationists cannot seem to put together a coherent statement of their arguements, and instead resort to word salad to try to simply confuse everyone.

Papias

 

[shernren]

Your last post again confirms what I posted from the court in texas, which had observed that creationists cannot seem to put together a coherent statement of their arguements, and instead resort to word salad to try to simply confuse everyone.

Look, Papias, I normally respect your posts, but I think this is way out of line. You really need to tone down your insults and stop being so mean. How could you say such horrible things about

salads? They are not only coherent but filling and healthy.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, come on. I gave a nested hierarchy of biological life that you have ignored,

Yet it was bolded, underlined and italicized, and you still missed it...

 

[Assyrian]

I'm sure it was. Except for the fact that every discrepancy was pointed out in biological systems.

"It was...except"? How does that work? How do the discrepancies you think you see in biological systems change the fact you could not arrange vehicles in a nested hierarchy?

There is something very odd with Creationist reasoning, you seem to think if you cannot support one argument all you have to do is bring up a completely different argument, and that make the first one ok.

Trying to counter with claims that biological system breaks nested hierarchy is a different argument.

No its not.

See?

But of course they they do form part of a larger argument.
(1) Independent designs don't produce nested hierarchies.
(2) Descent with modification does.
(3) Life on earth fits a nested hierarchy.
Therefore:
(4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.
What you have been trying to do is support an illustration of (1) by arguing against (3). Of course when we talk about (3) you keep jumping back to (1).

So when we talk about (1) in the illustration that vehicles cannot be put in a nested hierarchy, you cannot answer it. You just try to address a different area instead. And when we look at (3) your claims that living creature break the nested hierarchy, you cannot support that either. So unless you have a serious argument against (2) that descent with modification produces in nested hierarchies, we are just left with the conclusion (4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.

One you failed at too. But even if you had succeeded, you would still have failed to support you vehicles form a nested hierarchy claim.

As you would have for biological systems.

Jumping from (2) to (3) again.

Independent design can produces stuff that can look similar or very different. So will descent with modification.

As we see with vehicles. Ignoring tests and comparing two cars and saying that one came from and by the other is just as null as with biological systems.

Completely ignoring my point. Notice how you actually repeat what I said?

What you haven't been able to answer, and suspect you haven't been able to grasp*, is that descent with modification results in all the similar and different forms fitting in nested hierarchies, while independent design with its mixing and matching parts does not fit in a nested hierarchy.

Nope,

So let's see if you manage to grasp the argument this time

your argument fails in a number of ways. You are forgetting that in the design of a car, that you know the designer, you are aware of the intent of the designer, and that you can then limit the design to those two premises. While with biological systems, you do not know the designer(s), nor the intent of the designer(s), and you are free to place a design where ever it should fit and if it does not, you can then infer the intent.

You don't need to know the intent of the designer to see if his designs fit a nested hierarchy. However what you have done here is undermine the creationist claim that they can recognise design. They may be able to recognise design in man made system where they can infer the purpose, but if they cannot infer the purpose of the designer in biological systems how can they tell it is designed?

Again this is a different argument from life fitting into the sort of nested hierarchy you get with descent with modification, while independent design does not fit nested hierarchies.

As an example, you claim that a diesel engine is placed in a petrol engined car. But a diesel engined car is defined by the engine in the car and the accompanying systems. Your ability to say that it was a petrol engine car is of no value seeing that all you observe is a diesel system in a car. Which would make it just a diesel engined car.

Exactly, you can define the car as a diesel engined car and fit it in with other diesel engined cars. You will find the Duratorq HDi/TDCi diesel engine being used in the Ford Fiesta, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Mini Cooper D, Citroen C2, Citroen C3, Citroen Xsara, Citroen C4, Citroen C4 Picasso, Citroen C5, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207, Peugeot 307, Peugeot 308, Peugeot 3008, Peugeot 407, Volvo C30, Volvo S40, Volvo V50. Of course it is a Ford Focus and already fits in a category defined by its model, which include petrol and diesel engines. The two categories cross and there can be no nested heirarchies. The diesel engines are straight diesel engines with no suggestion Focus, Fiesta or Mazda petrol engines transmogrified into a diesel engine every time they wanted a diesel version. No they bolted in the diesel engine that is used in other models too.

Likewise when I look at biological systems, I can ask why was an extinct duck's bill taken from a duck and placed on a platypus, a mammal. You attempt to refute this position, but it is a hole you have been allowed to dig yourself into,and will be continued to be allowed to.

What hole? Ducks have bills made of bone covered with keratin, the bones in a ducks skull fits perfectly in a nested hierarchy with the skull bones of other birds, which are also covered with Keratin. The Platypus has a bill covered in very sensitive soft tissue said to feel like soft leather. This covers a bone structure nothing like a birds, but instead fits perfectly into the nested hierarchy of early mammals, with the oldest platypus fossil starting to show a resemblance to the echidna. You are going for the superficial adaptation to similar environment rather than looking at the underlying physiology again.

Because in a scenario where you did not know that the initial design was a petrol, which in turn is similar to the lack of knowledge in regards to design in biological systems, then you have no case.

You what?

It doesn't matter if the first Ford Focus was petrol or diesel or if they produced petrol and diesel models form the start. You still wont fit vehicles into a neted hierarchy, choice of engine cuts right across manufacturers and models. And you can't find evidence diesels developing into petrol engines in every model, or that petrol engines developed into diesel because they didn't. Hiding behind ignorance doesn't help you because what

It is simply a matter of allowing you to stack a pile of bricks on the knowledge factor then pull the rug. You reply to the fact that a platypus is an indication that mammals evolved from reptiles and that the egg laying feature is a result of that, will be met with the fact that diesel engined car is a result of said car evolving from a petrol engined aircraft or whatever. And that the egg laying feature in the platypus is the result of the designer taking this feature from an extinct species of snake directly or a bird and placing it within the platypus. That the blue eyed feature on the wolf is the result of the designer taking said feature from a human and placing it within the wolf. Which would make a diesel engine in a petrol engined car the same assertion as a human eye in a wolf eyed animal. humans, bacteria, with human like features.

You are claiming a diesel engined car evolved from a petrol engined aeroplane? your arguments get more bizarre. Doesn't matter for this whether you think the platypus evolved from the organism it got the feature form or not, what matters is that it fits the nested hierarchy. Unlike vehicles which you have never been able to fit in a nested hierarchy, so I don't know why

As for blue eyed wolves. You a would have to show the gene for blue eyes in wolves is human gene, otherwise the resemblance is another superficial one

Another factor at play is that not only are you at liberty to assign features, but you are also at liberty to give organisms features they never had to fit in a presupposed hierarchy. The whale is a fish with mammalian features, (the use of features will be addressed later), an aquatic animal. It never had legs, it never walked on land, but you gave it legs, you molded it to fit within a set of parameters you have placed. Remember, you call an organism a mammal because of its features, [too long reply over 15000 characters....] Thats why I choose that birds evolved directly from snakes instead.

Don't know about biologists assigning features, what they did was predicted there were creatures in the fossil record that looked like whales but had legs. The predicted because of the mammalian features of whales. Then they found them. Fits the nested hierarchy perfectly.

No idea what yo are trying to say in the rest.

You talk about borrowing wings from aircraft, again because you know the intent of the designer. You don't answer my question as to why the cornea of a human was borrowed from the owl.

How do you know that it was? The early terapods had eyes, you have evidence they didn't have corneas?

If you had made an attempt, it would have been used. Thats what I was waiting for.

Have you forgotten how our discussion in the thread ended?

Mallon: Greg, you've managed to say a lot -- and post a lot of pictures -- without actually addressing any of my points. Your analogies to man-made vehicles have just become so obscure as to not even mean anything anymore. That said, my point still stands that you haven't actually explained why life is arranged as a nested hierarchy. I'll leave it at that.

Assyrian: Sounds good to me too.
​

We ended the discussion because you were never able to address either Mallon's points or mine. Instead you just produced reams of incoherent verbiage. Just like you are doing now.

Because through logical deduction you would have realized (on your own) that this premise is false. From the perspective of the designer, a man and an ape is in a completely different "nest". There you have the "borrowing of features". A whale (which is an aquatic animal) is in a completely different "nest" from the perspective of the designer,again, we see the sharing of different traits. But you do not recognize that, because 1) you are the designer and 2) you merely see the material portion. For those who don't, this is a done deal. Because you have failed to realize that it is not classification according to mammalian features, [too long reply over 15000 characters....] but from the perspective of universal law.

This is the designer(s) whose intentions you say we cannot know?

If you keep posting pictures, it will be met with pictures. If you post pictures of a man and a chimp, I will post a person and a mannequin that looks like a person.

You keep having these argument in you head with what you think I would say. Why don't you deal with my actual arguments?

Maybe through deduction you will tell yourself that they look alike but they are not similar, which is the point. If you don't you will again brush it off as another unanswered question. The discrepancies pointed out in cars which breaks the hierarchy will be pointed out in biological systems,

You haven't so far.

as we both approach from the perspective of the designer. If you ask me what is a spitfire's merlin engine doing in a race car, I will ask you what is an owl's cornea doing in a human.

So real examples of cars with aero engines are met with imaginary examples of humans with owl corneas.

Maybe through deduction you will realize that the cornea does not belong to the owl or the human, the Merlin engine does not belong to the spitfire. I could ask you what is a human doing with the features of a chimp. But I doubt you'll get it soon enough, and begin to assume that I never addressed your questions. The argument was unfolding though. It was you guys who decided to fold on the river. Wasn't it Papias who said something like "but wings are designed

" Somebody was getting it. I don't have to find a chimera to break the hierarchy. A human does that just fine. A wolf, a whale. It will take you some time, but you will see what I'm talking about. Its a shame that everything has to be spelled out for you guys. The self professed elites.

Show where human break the nested hierarchy. Don't just claim it.

How does random mutation not being able to take bacteria to men poke a hole in Creationism. You wanted to play the comparative anatomy game. And thats what we played. We took a field trip and we compared a chimp and a human, a Mark 6 and a civic. You attempted to show that if two different structures were designed, then they would not look similar.

No never said that at all. Try dealing with my actual arguments.

So we brought out cars. You attempted to point out discrepancies, so we brought out biological systems. We don't merely say "it looks designed." Testing indicates random mutations cannot take bacteria to men. You'll get it.
Except that it is being done and was recently done on this forum.

What has been recently done?

You were just attempting to bash creationists for saying "it looks designed" and your retort is "it looks evolved".

I say it looks evolved by comparing the similarities and differences between independent design and descent with modification. You know that whole thing about descent with modification producing nested hierarchies while independent designs don't. The argument you still haven't tackled in spite of producing reams of incoherent text.

But no it looks designed. Take away the Darwinist's ability to create and apply the result of testing and we see the same thing we see with cars.

Darwin didn't create anything, but he did notice life fits in nested hierarchies.

Morton's demon has nothing to do with data showing that random mutation is cannot take bacteria to men. First you blame it on the bible, then the age of the earth, now on Morton's demon. Its actually science.

Did your Morton's demon tell you that? Try asking about nested hierarchies and the argument you are still unable to address.

Anyway, I will leave it there again. If you can reply to my actual argument, you know points (1) - (4) up above, I will get back to you. If you just produce reams more waffle like your last post, I will simply point out you haven't addressed the question.

 

[Greg1234]

"It was...except"? How does that work? How do the discrepancies you think you see in biological systems change the fact you could not arrange vehicles in a nested hierarchy?

There is something very odd with Creationist reasoning, you seem to think if you cannot support one argument all you have to do is bring up a completely different argument, and that make the first one ok.

The reasoning, abilites and the power you have within Darwinism will be matched and the debate equalized. Don't expect me to be limited by the car manufacturer or the origin of components, when in your case, in biological systems, both variables are up to you, determined by you, and are molded according to a predetermined timeline and principles. The only way this is settled is through testing, which you conveniently request overlooked, and cry red herring. And yes vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

See?

But of course they they do form part of a larger argument.
(1) Independent designs don't produce nested hierarchies.
(2) Descent with modification does.
(3) Life on earth fits a nested hierarchy.
Therefore:
(4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.

Only when rife with the manipulation by Darwinists, the substitution of the manufacturer with his motives, and acquirement of the ability to create, remove and place as one sees fit, does the nested hierarchy of biological systems become any different than the nested hierarchies we see in cars. This will be explained later on.
What you have been trying to do is support an illustration of (1) by arguing against (3). Of course when we talk about (3) you keep jumping back to (1).

So when we talk about (1) in the illustration that vehicles cannot be put in a nested hierarchy, you cannot answer it. You just try to address a different area instead.

Actually vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

And when we look at (3) your claims that living creature break the nested hierarchy, you cannot support that either. So unless you have a serious argument against (2) that descent with modification produces in nested hierarchies, we are just left with the conclusion (4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.

Comparative anatomy, being showcased as nested hierarchy in biological systems is met with the same kind of similarities and discrepancies we see in vehicles. Seeing that vehicles are intelligently designed, Darwinism is not required to interpret biological systems. Unless you want to contend that bicycles can turn into cars when all tests indicate otherwise.

Completely ignoring my point. Notice how you actually repeat what I said?

You think that putting a line in red negates the black section?

So let's see if you manage to grasp the argument this time

Apply same to self.

You don't need to know the intent of the designer to see if his designs fit a nested hierarchy.

Actually, you need to at least recognize the design and parameters or "nests" within.

However what you have done here is undermine the creationist claim that they can recognise design. They may be able to recognise design in man made system where they can infer the purpose, but if they cannot infer the purpose of the designer in biological systems how can they tell it is designed?

Begin with testing, which shows that bacteria cannot turn into men, that random mutation is sterile and the integrated complexity of biological systems. Why do you need to infer the purpose of the designer? Looking at man and seeing that he is looks like a monkey therefore his purpose is that of a monkey is Darwinism, not Creationism. For the rest, the theological aspect is given as well. And that is not how we detect design in general. Start with the first lines.

Again this is a different argument from life fitting into the sort of nested hierarchy you get with descent with modification, while independent design does not fit nested hierarchies.

Life fits into a nested hierarchy as vehicles do. Pointing out discrepancies will be met with same. As with similarities.

Exactly, you can define the car as a diesel engined car and fit it in with other diesel engined cars. You will find the Duratorq HDi/TDCi diesel engine being used in the Ford Fiesta, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Mini Cooper D, Citroen C2, Citroen C3, Citroen Xsara, Citroen C4, Citroen C4 Picasso, Citroen C5, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207, Peugeot 307, Peugeot 308, Peugeot 3008, Peugeot 407, Volvo C30, Volvo S40, Volvo V50. Of course it is a Ford Focus and already fits in a category defined by its model, which include petrol and diesel engines. The two categories cross and there can be no nested heirarchies.

And in biological systems we again see the Darwinist exercise the power he has, to mold systems according to his liking. A man contains the components of a Chimpanzee, but a man does not belong to the nest in which the chimpanzee belongs. Only when you replace the design, and the designer with yourself, and mold the data according to your liking and presuppositions, can you force it to fit. You talk about a man placing a diesel engine within a ford focus and a Peugeot. Notice how you are able to obtain and retain the type of model the maker and the differences between the two, then outline the traits shared. But when it comes to biological systems, you approach from the angle of traits ,which then determines where it fits, and where it fits is classed by traits. A vicious circle, which with the negation of the designer and the parameters of the design, does Darwinism persist.

By comparison, and analogically a man is not a beast. A chimapnzee is a Peugeot, a man is a Humvee. The components from the Peugeot line was copied, modifications made n some aspects, the minimal application of components from other kingdoms, and there you have a Humvee, with the components of Peugeot. This breaks the hierarchy. But you do not do that, because you are the designer. And your engagement with circlar logic is to rigid to realize that you continue to call a ford focus a ford focus in the nested hierarchy of vehicles despite the traits copied from other systems. And then you yell break in hierarchy. Is this principle shard across the boards? No. Because in biological systems determination is actually based on the traits and only the traits, with no retaining of, or regard for, the original

In other creatures it is the same thing, and another example worthy of emphasis is the whale case. You were talking about putting a spitfire engine on a boat. Notice how the boat was never a spitfire, that the engine is not just a Merlin engine, but a spitfire's Merlin engine, belonging to the spitfire and should only be found in spitfires. In the case of whales, we find a spit fire engine on a boat, analogically speaking. A whale is an aquatic animal, it never walked on land, and we see that there is only the sharing of traits. The same thing we find in vehicles. You are actually attempting to maneuver this multi tonne behemoth into your expectations by giving and removing, and most importantly, not recognizing that it was designed that way, that what we have are traits spread out across the board and that the nested hierarchy of biological systems is no different than that of vehicles.

When there is a double standard, when you do not recognize the nests of biological systems, that all flesh is not the same, as given multiple times in texts, and attempt to post pictures flaunting model names, class and date,and expect it to be adhered to, it will be rejected. You do not recognize creation, and employ Darwinism, and with the assumption that it was not designed you negate this fundamental premise, that there is a sharing of traits between different "models". But then again, you do not recognize models and original nests in the first place and then attempt to play the role of the designer. But never once has a car manufacturer or the paremters within which vehicles are designed was ever relinquished. The logic you employ and are ultimately forced to employ is flawed from the start. The Darwinist's nested hierarchy cannot be used to determine Darwinism.

What hole? Ducks have bills made of bone covered with keratin, the bones in a ducks skull fits perfectly in a nested hierarchy with the skull bones of other birds, which are also covered with Keratin. The Platypus has a bill covered in very sensitive soft tissue said to feel like soft leather.

No i'm going for similarities. This is a shared trait, discrepancies aside. Next time you think of breaking the hierarchy with the aerocar, think of the platypus's bill.

You what?

It doesn't matter if the first Ford Focus was petrol or diesel or if they produced petrol and diesel models form the start. You still wont fit vehicles into a neted hierarchy, choice of engine cuts right across manufacturers and models. And you can't find evidence diesels developing into petrol engines in every model, or that petrol engines developed into diesel because they didn't. Hiding behind ignorance doesn't help you because what

If they don't fit I will make them fit. The manufacturer is ignored, the design is ignored, etc, and as with biological systems, we find the digestive systems and air breathing capabilities among others, cutting right across the hierarchy. Given that you recognize the hierarchy in its entirety.

You are claiming a diesel engined car evolved from a petrol engined aeroplane?

Now you want to tell me the origins of diesel engines. The fact is they were designed. And through the recognition of the same parameters in biological systems, this yields similar comparisons.

your arguments get more bizarre. Doesn't matter for this whether you think the platypus evolved from the organism it got the feature form or not, what matters is that it fits the nested hierarchy. Unlike vehicles which you have never been able to fit in a nested hierarchy, so I don't know why

The platypus is not about whether it fits the hierarchy or not. If Darwinists wanted mammals to evolve from reptiles it would fit, if Darwinists wanted birds to evolve from mammals it would fit with its "early oviparity" and "proto bill". Its even warm blooded. Thats not the point. The point is that just like the aerocar we see in the platypus the sharing of multiple traits, and the bill of an "extinct duck" being placed on said animal, (seeing that you proclaim that the bird came from the reptile, it would be "clearly developing from the soft tissue of a reptiles mouth") is a valid assertion. As given the fact that the situation was equalized and you did not know how the aerocar was formed, all you would have is the aerocar, not an "early plane".

As for blue eyed wolves. You a would have to show the gene for blue eyes in wolves is human gene, otherwise the resemblance is another superficial one

No I don't

Don't know about biologists assigning features, what they did was predicted there were creatures in the fossil record that looked like whales but had legs. The predicted because of the mammalian features of whales. Then they found them. Fits the nested hierarchy perfectly.

Then post the pictures. I'll post the cars. Whales were never land dwelling creatures. You and yours turned them into one. But you expect a jeep to remain a jeep and break the hierarchy, because it was created as a jeep though with all the features of another car.

How do you know that it was? The early terapods had eyes, you have evidence they didn't have corneas?

Never said they didnt, and thats not the point.

We ended the discussion because you were never able to address either Mallon's points or mine. Instead you just produced reams of incoherent verbiage. Just like you are doing now.

So you claim

This is the designer(s) whose intentions you say we cannot know?

Start with the bible. We know enough. We know enough to know that man is not beast.

So real examples of cars with aero engines are met with imaginary examples of humans with owl corneas.

No, corneas belong to owls. You'll get it.

Show where human break the nested hierarchy. Don't just claim it.

As given

What has been recently done?

I take it you were there when a picture of a chip and a man side by side was posted.

I say it looks evolved by comparing the similarities and differences between independent design and descent with modification.[/quote]
As one can do with vehicles.

Did your Morton's demon tell you that?

I grew up with siblings chief. This is really not the time and place. If you want us to negate our age and act our shoe size we could do that. You've been attempting this for some time now.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

Greg, come on. I gave a nested hierarchy of biological life that you have ignored,
​

Yet it was bolded, underlined and italicized, and you still missed it... .

OK, Greg, help me out here then. I posted it in post #302, here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491517-31/

You replied above that your response to my nested hierarchy of biological life was bolded, underlined and italicized (and that I missed it), but I went back to that thread, and after my post #302, not only do I still fail to find a response from you that is bolded, underlined and italicized, but I don't even see a post from you after post #302 at all. What did I miss?



Greg wrote:

And yes vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

Still waiting, after dozens of posts........

And Greg, do you understand why greenness isn't evidence against a nested hierarchy? All your posts seem to be just repetitions of "but look at what is green!". Pointless.

And can you please answer my lettered questions?

**************************
Papias, who apologizes to salads everywhere.

 

[Assyrian]

The reasoning, abilites and the power you have within Darwinism will be matched and the debate equalized. Don't expect me to be limited by the car manufacturer or the origin of components, when in your case, in biological systems, both variables are up to you, determined by you, and are molded according to a predetermined timeline and principles. The only way this is settled is through testing, which you conveniently request overlooked, and cry red herring.

You have the opportunity to start a thread on how you test evolution for laconicstudent, you said you were going to, but didn't. Instead you keep bringing it up in other topic when you haven't an answer to the question we are actually looking at. Red herring sounds about right.

And yes vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

Yet you completely failed at it. How can you keep repeating something you have seen is obviously false? Is it because you realise all your arguments against the nested hierarchy of living organism are empty so you have to pretend there is a nested hierarchy for vehicles?

Only when rife with the manipulation by Darwinists, the substitution of the manufacturer with his motives, and acquirement of the ability to create, remove and place as one sees fit, does the nested hierarchy of biological systems become any different than the nested hierarchies we see in cars. This will be explained later on.

Yet there is no nested hierarchy for cars, while there is one for living organisms. And so far you have not dealt with the difference between independent designs and descent with modification, that descent with modification produces nested hierarchies while independent designs don't.

But of course they they do form part of a larger argument.
(1) Independent designs don't produce nested hierarchies.
(2) Descent with modification does.
(3) Life on earth fits a nested hierarchy.
Therefore:
(4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.

What you have been trying to do is support an illustration of (1) by arguing against (3). Of course when we talk about (3) you keep jumping back to (1).

So when we talk about (1) in the illustration that vehicles cannot be put in a nested hierarchy, you cannot answer it. You just try to address a different area instead.

And when we look at (3) your claims that living creature break the nested hierarchy, you cannot support that either. So unless you have a serious argument against (2) that descent with modification produces in nested hierarchies, we are just left with the conclusion (4) Life on earth fits what we know of descent by modification rather than independent design.

Comparative anatomy, being showcased as nested hierarchy in biological systems is met with the same kind of similarities and discrepancies we see in vehicles. Seeing that vehicles are intelligently designed, Darwinism is not required to interpret biological systems. Unless you want to contend that bicycles can turn into cars when all tests indicate otherwise.

See you try to answer comparative anatomy by talking about cars. Analogy doesn't work, it is too vague to compare diesel engines with corneas, way too much room for hand waving. If you are going to try to fit vehicles in a nested hierarchy, it needs to be done on the basis of vehicle parts not wishing they had a nested hierarchy like biology does.

So as I said in my last post.

Anyway, I will leave it there again. If you can reply to my actual argument, you know points (1) - (4) up above, I will get back to you. If you just produce reams more waffle like your last post, I will simply point out you haven't addressed the question.
​

You haven't.