If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[pitabread]

such as? check also my signature link for evidence against it.

Are you ever going to address the fact that your arguments are based on a fundamental fallacy? I notice every time it's brought up you just ignore it.

 

[Aman777]

The pronoun you highlighted - "its" . . . refers to the birds, not to God or Jesus. You are not making sense at all.

There is no "its" in the KJV but only in the later "altered" versions. Lord God/Jesus made the birds on the 6th Day and Adam named them. Gen 2:19 Birds are His kind and subject to death. Otherwise, one is left in the darkness understanding this verse:

Gen 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after His kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after His kind: and it was so.

Here are some of the distortions of what was actually written:

Gen 1:25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

Using the less altered version is indicated. Otherwise, you are at the mercy of which MAN "added" his thoughts to what the verse actually says.

 

[USincognito]

Has this thread stopped being about the evidence or lack thereof for evolution?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no "its" in the KJV but only in the later "altered" versions.

Sorry, it makes no sense to elevate the King James higher than other translations.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

NEVER trust a professional, until what is said is proven true by testing.
NEVER trust the flesh, mankind, society, for that matter, in any case.
YHVH curses everyone , believers and unbelievers, who trust in the flesh.

Well, since you assert you can't be believed, we'll quit heeding your posts . . .

 

[Jjmcubbin]

such as? check also my signature link for evidence against it.

That was not really evidence. That was an attempt to disprove by relating it to a watch.
A watch does not have DNA.
A watch does not show Crossing over.
Also, a self replicating watch seems more like an axexually reproducing organism like Hydra, Plasmodium, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: if we will change about million bases at once we will get a dog genome out from a cat genome. right?

I don't know.

But it doesn't matter in context of evolution theory. Because evolution doesn't work that way.

You seem to be making a habbit out of using imaginary data and processes to argue against established science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its like saying that design cant explain a broken mirror in a car.

It's more like saying that an intelligent Sony camera engineer would not put all the wiring in front of the photon sensitive lense, creating a blind spot which would then have to be rectified by adding additional energy consuming software to the camera to "fill in the blanks".

It's more like saying that an intelligent electrician who needs to connect 2 points that are only 1m apart, would not run the cable from point 1 all the way to the basement, all the way up again to the attic, then 3 times around the house only to end up in point 2, right next to where he started out.

It's more like saying that an all-intelligent creator of species would not give a bipedal species like humans a spin that isn't actually fit for bipedalism, which causes lower back pains in about 70% of humans at one point in their life. Or wouldn't give a species a mouth that isn't big enough to accomodate all the teeth, which is why a lot of people need to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled, to avoid immense pain and infection.

Etc etc etc.

therefore the car just evolved. see the problem?

Ow, I see the problem all right.
It's called "willfull ignorance".

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is called the "theory" of evolution.

Yes. It's also called the germ "theory" of desease.
And atomic "theory".
Plate tectonics "theory".
"theory" of relativity.

In science, an explanation is not just a "theory".
It is rather triumphally a THEORY.

Is it possible the "evidence" is being misinterpreted?

Yes, I guess it is theoretically possible that that the millions upon millions of independent data points are all "misinterpreted" in the exact same way.

How you wish to demonstrate that such is the case though, is rather unclear.

What "evidence" is one looking at?

The fossil record.
Comparative genetics.
Comparative anatomy.
Phylogenies.
Geographic distribution of species.

These are all independent lines of evidence (each consisting themselves of many independent lines of evidence), which all converge on the same answer.

Science: There is no "evidence" of gradualism in the fossil record.

Except that there is.

Look at the nostril location on skulls of the whale lineage for example. You can literally see it moving from the front of the face, to the top of the head through the ages.

Look at cranial capacity of human lineage. You can literally see it expand through the ages.
The oldest skulls have the smallest brain sizes.

The history of most fossil species includes two features in consistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

That's like saying that you don't age, if the only photographs you can show are 4 pics of when you were 8 years old and 7 pics from when you were 19 years old.
This point here, is you pointing at those 4 first pictures and then claiming "see? he remains 8 years old throughout the series of photo's"

2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."

I'll refer to the first 4 pictures again in the previous example. This second point of yours, is the assertion of "see? humans aren't born! instead, they just appear as 8-year olds". While completely ignoring the baby pictures.

One believes in evolution (Darwins)

I don't "believe" evolution. I accept the accuracy of the explanatory power of evolution, based on the actual evidence.

.... ok .... however has one spent very much time considering intelligent design as well and really looking at the complexities of life?

There's nothing there to consider. It's just creationism disguised in a lab coat.
It's a gigantic argument from ignorance, motivated by fundamentalist theistic beliefs.

It reveals complexity more and more all the time but science does not "prove" evolution.

Science doesn't "prove" any theory.
Theories are only ever supported by evidence, never "proven".

Life is very complex .... for me .... difficult to believe the odds of millions of random "happenings" produced over millions of years is a pretty far reach in comparison of the complexity of life as we see and experience.

Evolution isn't random.
Evolution has random components. That doesn't make it random.

The more complex ... the more evidence of intelligent design.

Complexity is not an indicator of design and it is easily demonstrated how it is not.
I can design a walking cane, which is basically just a stick. It doesn't get much simpler then that.

Now a hurricane, THAT is quite complex. To describe a hurricane - let alone predict its manifestation and path - it takes an ENORMOUS amount of parameters. But hurricanes are naturally occuring and not designed.

So there you go....
Complexity is NOT an indicator of design.

At all.

Here's one - Science and creation: Evidence from Science | The Institute for Creation Research

Try a scientific source instead of a known and exposed fundamentalist religious propaganda platform.

Just saying ..... consider the "evidence" of intelligent design

What evidence? All you have given me so far is the fallacious assertion of "it's complex".

Essentially an argument from ignorance / incredulity.
As in: "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't understand it".

, which is shown through science as well.

The actual science is kind of settled on the matter... the accepted explanation is evolution.

There are many out there, consider them as well.

Why would I waste my time doing that?

 

[xianghua]

That was not really evidence. That was an attempt to disprove by relating it to a watch.
A watch does not have DNA.
A watch does not show Crossing over.
Also, a self replicating watch seems more like an axexually reproducing organism like Hydra, Plasmodium, etc.

right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?

They don't exist xianghua, so drop it for pete's sake...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?

To answer the question though, I'd answer "natural process", because it would be apparent that they reproduced naturally.

 

[xianghua]

It's more like saying that an intelligent Sony camera engineer would not put all the wiring in front of the photon sensitive lense, creating a blind spot which would then have to be rectified by adding additional energy consuming software to the camera to "fill in the blanks".

It's more like saying that an intelligent electrician who needs to connect 2 points that are only 1m apart, would not run the cable from point 1 all the way to the basement, all the way up again to the attic, then 3 times around the house only to end up in point 2, right next to where he started out.

It's more like saying that an all-intelligent creator of species would not give a bipedal species like humans a spin that isn't actually fit for bipedalism, which causes lower back pains in about 70% of humans at one point in their life. Or wouldn't give a species a mouth that isn't big enough to accomodate all the teeth, which is why a lot of people need to have their "wisdom teeth" pulled, to avoid immense pain and infection.

Etc etc etc.



Ow, I see the problem all right.
It's called "willfull ignorance".

are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?

the retina doesn't even seem to be intelligently designed, let alone present as a good example of it...

 

[Skreeper]

right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?

Invoking imaginary beings to make an argument automatically renders your point moot.

How about you deal with reality and things that actually exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

are you saying that the retina isnt an example of a good design?

If "good design" means things like:
- efficient
- working well
- durable
- etc

Then the human eye most definatly is not an example of that.
If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm gonna have to ask you to define what you mean by "good" in "good design".

 

[xianghua]

If "good design" means things like:
- efficient
- working well
- durable
- etc

Then the human eye most definatly is not an example of that.
If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm gonna have to ask you to define what you mean by "good" in "good design".

i refer to dawkins claim about the retina structure. do you agree with him saying that the retina is example of a bad design since its designed backward?

 

[DogmaHunter]

i refer to dawkins claim about the retina structure. do you agree with him saying that the retina is example of a bad design since its designed backward?

I already answered that question.
Do you think it's good design?
If yes, then define what you mean by "good" in "good design".

 

[xianghua]

I already answered that question.
Do you think it's good design?
If yes, then define what you mean by "good" in "good design".

in this case by good i mean that this backward retina structure actually improve vision. the opposite of dawkins claim.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

right. so if you will find a self replicating watch (with DNA or without)you will conclude design or a natural process in this case?

Neither. There is no watch that replicates itself.
For an asexually reproducing organism, natural.