Intelligent Design - can it even be called science? (*moved thread*)

[Papias]

Hi Sophrosyne-


You wrote:

macro is evolution across the boundry of a species into a new species

after the examples of Chiclid fish, mosquitos, flies, worms and such were given:

these don't impress me as macroevolution as they may be considered new species perhaps but fish turning into fish and flys and mosquitos turning into other flys and mosquitos don't make me consider any change that would explain evolution upwards they are more sideways and irrelevent IMO

Oh, looks like I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you wanted examples of macroevolution that humans have observed (because you said "new species", so I gave observed examples of new species evolving). If you are saying that you are only looking for examples at the "family" level or higher, and that you accept "micro" evolution below that, then is it correct for me to conclude that you accept that humans evolved from a chimp-like ancestor, since that is below the level of "family" you accept?

Instead of the examples given, it sounds like you want examples of macroevolution that bridge classes or so, which takes millions of years, so of course if that’s what you are asking, you aren’t asking for ones that people have observed. There are tons of good examples of transitional fossils, and indeed series of transitional fossils showing change from one class to another (like fish to amphibian, or lizard to mammal). Would you like to learn about some of them?

Can you explain the Cambrian Explosion? How come suddenly things were evolving like mad then stopped according to evolutionists?

Yay, the Cambrian explosion is a cool topic! What a wonderful diversification of life! Let’s correct a few things, too. First, it’s not a sudden appearance, as there are transitional fossils for many of the animals seen in the Cambrian explosion. Second, it’s called an explosion because we have a lot more fossils rather “suddenly”, which appears to be due to the fact that the animals evolved hard shells then, which are much more likely to be fossilized. It only looks like an “explosion” because of the better fossilization. Third, I put quotes on “suddenly” because it ramped up over a dozen million years or more – not that short today, but in comparison to the many millions of years before that with little change, it appears sudden by comparison, hence the term "explosion?. Fourth, you said "stopped". Could you explain? There has been a ton of evolution since then. After all, there were no mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians or even fish in the Cambrian explosion, all of those have evolved since then.

But, to circle back to previous topics – do we agree that mutations and DNA are consistent with evolution and make sense? I don’t want to abandon topics without resolving them – it’s a common creationist tactic to jump from topic to topic without learning or resolving anything, and that won’t help us learn here. Some of the past topics Sophrosyne was discussing:

1. The mutation of DNA, that there is no evidence that DNA is “designed” to “resist” harmful mutations any more than beneficial ones, because natural selection acts on the level of the organism, not the DNA.
2. The formation of ring and area species, where species blend into one another (species aren’t strict categories).
3. the 2nd law of thermodynamics – were you using that as an argument, or do we agree that it is consistent with evolution?
4. The changing rate of evolution. In the Cambrian explosion comment, he implied that a changing rate was a problem, but scientists see all kinds of different rates of evolution, as I pointed out when we talked about fast and slow evolution as a function of the environment (a quickly changing environment gives fast evolution, a stable envrionment gives slow or even undetectable evolution). Sophrosyne, do we agree that a mix of fast and slow evolution is consistent with evolution?

Similarly, Marlowe was discussing IC, and hasn’t responded to the information that IC was predicted by an evolution supporter in 1939 as evidence for evolution. Is Marlowe gone?

Susa was talking about the Sternberg stealth creationist paper - is more discussion there useful, or does Susa agree that the stealth creationist paper does not supply an example of published creationist research data?


Have a fun day-

Papias

 

[Sophrosyne]

Hi Sophrosyne-


You wrote:



after the examples of Chiclid fish, mosquitos, flies, worms and such were given:





Oh, looks like I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you wanted examples of macroevolution that humans have observed (because you said "new species", so I gave observed examples of new species evolving). If you are saying that you are only looking for examples at the "family" level or higher, and that you accept "micro" evolution below that, then is it correct for me to conclude that you accept that humans evolved from a chimp-like ancestor, since that is below the level of "family" you accept?

Instead of the examples given, it sounds like you want examples of macroevolution that bridge classes or so, which takes millions of years, so of course if that’s what you are asking, you aren’t asking for ones that people have observed. There are tons of good examples of transitional fossils, and indeed series of transitional fossils showing change from one class to another (like fish to amphibian, or lizard to mammal). Would you like to learn about some of them?

I have seen the so called transitional fossils and they are like force fitting pieces into a biased jigsaw puzzle. It is not conclusive and even evolutionists struggle to find the missing links between the levels of life to prove evolution leads to more complex life.

Yay, the Cambrian explosion is a cool topic! What a wonderful diversification of life! Let’s correct a few things, too. First, it’s not a sudden appearance, as there are transitional fossils for many of the animals seen in the Cambrian explosion. Second, it’s called an explosion because we have a lot more fossils rather “suddenly”, which appears to be due to the fact that the animals evolved hard shells then, which are much more likely to be fossilized. It only looks like an “explosion” because of the better fossilization. Third, I put quotes on “suddenly” because it ramped up over a dozen million years or more – not that short today, but in comparison to the many millions of years before that with little change, it appears sudden by comparison, hence the term "explosion?. Fourth, you said "stopped". Could you explain? There has been a ton of evolution since then. After all, there were no mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians or even fish in the Cambrian explosion, all of those have evolved since then.

there is no proof anything has evolved upwards that I have seen. by admission evolutionist have had to force fit ideas to explain the explosion and because of bias any lame idea is accepted. Even Darwin thought it was a problem but he was trying to come up with reasons for it so he could deny there was a designer involved. Evolutionists tell you it takes millions and millions of years when the fossil record doesn't change for that period of time but when something like the cambrian explosion happens they adjust their figures and make excuses for the contradiction. With a larger population of species I would expect the *explosion* to continue on with even greater force creation newer even more complex species but we get nothing. Evolution has fizzled out only producing one new complex species according to it... man.

But, to circle back to previous topics – do we agree that mutations and DNA are consistent with evolution and make sense? I don’t want to abandon topics without resolving them – it’s a common creationist tactic to jump from topic to topic without learning or resolving anything, and that won’t help us learn here. Some of the past topics Sophrosyne was discussing:

no, you agree DNA is, I agree it is designed to encourage birds to change in order to adapt to their environment but they will still be birds, fish to change to survive but they will always be fish so evolution if you want to use that word loosely isn't full blown but limited by DNA to expanding species sideways on the charts.

1. The mutation of DNA, that there is no evidence that DNA is “designed” to “resist” harmful mutations any more than beneficial ones, because natural selection acts on the level of the organism, not the DNA.
2. The formation of ring and area species, where species blend into one another (species aren’t strict categories).
3. the 2nd law of thermodynamics – were you using that as an argument, or do we agree that it is consistent with evolution?
4. The changing rate of evolution. In the Cambrian explosion comment, he implied that a changing rate was a problem, but scientists see all kinds of different rates of evolution, as I pointed out when we talked about fast and slow evolution as a function of the environment (a quickly changing environment gives fast evolution, a stable envrionment gives slow or even undetectable evolution). Sophrosyne, do we agree that a mix of fast and slow evolution is consistent with evolution?

1)the evidence of DNA resisting men with 4 legs and cats with 6 is that there are none, unless you can give an explanation why there isn't one that is force fitted by bias to support evolution (throwing away logic) then you have to lean towards design.
2. these species are sideways to each other on the charts and although they are *new* they are no proof that evolution goes up or even downwards proving the chain of life from dead matter to complex intelligent animals.
3)everything else breaks down to simpler levels, logically only evolution seems intelligent enough to find its way past the chaos of the universe. I say only because of the programming in DNA resisting mutation and the design of species from the start do we have anything living here. Life is too complex to have made itself from nothing, but scientists have to accept it did or embrace ID and their bias makes them reject logic in favor of evolution.
4)scientists *see* with a narrow vision, when they uncover something that no longer fits with their speculations they scramble to make something that fits instead of saying they were wrong and don't know and leaving it at that they make excuses for failed science and their pride allows them to even propagate excuses that help explain their position putting them in textbooks and stuff to *prove* it. It is far easier to say maybe there is some intelligent design in evolution than to use vague generalizations to excuse the shortcomings of a flawed theory and then triumph it as fact.

Similarly, Marlowe was discussing IC, and hasn’t responded to the information that IC was predicted by an evolution supporter in 1939 as evidence for evolution. Is Marlowe gone?

Susa was talking about the Sternberg stealth creationist paper - is more discussion there useful, or does Susa agree that the stealth creationist paper does not supply an example of published creationist research data?

Have a fun day-
Papias

I don't care to discuss second hand conversation of those issues, I would address those individuals personally if I do.
I say to all evolutionists, if in school ID was never logically discussed on equal basis with evolution but instead was ignored then it makes you wonder if science is interested in searching for truth or is just about defending the *truth* it already indoctrinates people with. ID is a valid theory that has merit and explains complex life elegantly even if you must accept evolution from life to complex life making it designed by programming it with DNA specific to each type would be an elegant solution. If a scientist were to terraform a planet 1000 years from now he would be an intelligent designer and would modify DNA programming it for the life that would thrive in the environment instead of just hoping dead matter and a trillion years terraformed the planet for him.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Ah, some background is probably useful, on both Meyer and on that paper, which was removed.

Meyer is not a scientist, and has no scientific degree. The paper cited contains no original research, and was simply a collection of polemical arguments lifted from creationist books.

It was only published because the acting editor at the time was a stealth creationist, who put it in without proper peer review in the last issue he would be editing. It has since been withdrawn, with an apology from the journal for the mistake.

I can understand why Susa may think that this incident was relevant to the question asked because creationist organizations will often cite this paper, without telling anyone (such as Susa) anything about the story.

More can be read here:

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do you account for all the other peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design?

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973

Axe, D.D., Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004

Lönnig, W-E., Dynamic Genomes Morphological Stasis and the Origin of Irreducible Complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pages 101-119, 2005

Couvreur, P., and Vauthier, C., Nanotechnology; Intelligent Design to Treat Complex Diseases, Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 23, Number 7, Jul 2006

Marks, R.J., and Dembski, W.A., Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, Systems Man and Cybernetics: Part A Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions, Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 1051-1061, Sep 2009

Is the scientific community full of "stealth" creationists?

By the way, stealth makes creationism sound so much cooler.

God is so stealth!

"Seek him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name:" -- Amos 5:8

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

 

[Sophrosyne]

No, not according to evolutionists - according to geologists.

They only appear to be evolving quickly because the ticks of the geological record pass by slower than the lifespans of the organisms themselves. It's like trying to compare the times of a stopwatch against a calendar - the scales don't match, so hour-long processes will look "instantaneous" relative to the calendar.

that is a vague explanation for sure. I have seen evolutionary theory *evolve* itself adjusting time frames to match data rather reluctantly along the way to fit the records. I would say this is another instance where evolution stumbles so much that even Darwin himself had issues about it in his book and attempted to explain it away.

 

[Cabal]

that is a vague explanation for sure. I have seen evolutionary theory *evolve* itself adjusting time frames to match data rather reluctantly along the way to fit the records. I would say this is another instance where evolution stumbles so much that even Darwin himself had issues about it in his book and attempted to explain it away.

No "adjusting" was done. Once the actual time frames were properly understood, the "explosion" made sense.

So you believe geology and ecology don't operate on different timescales, then? The analogy I provided is similar to what goes on with punctuated equilibrium. It is quite illogical to disagree with it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

No "adjusting" was done. Once the actual time frames were properly understood, the "explosion" made sense.

So you believe geology and ecology don't operate on different timescales, then? The analogy I provided is similar to what goes on with punctuated equilibrium. It is quite illogical to disagree with it.

I believe everything happens in time, but I see evolutionists desiring their theory to explain everything that they keep looking for things with a non scientific bias in mind instead of just saying evolution doesn't make as much sense during that time period. Geology and evolution and fossils use circular reasoning at times to explain each other so I tend to take the timeline figures with a grain of salt. I know they find fossils and use them to date strata and then use strata to date fossils instead of dating strata and fossils on their own merits and when they don't match up with dates they conveniently adjust things to match. The cambrian explosion shows a lot of evolutionary *progress* according to those believing in it but the progress is inconsistant with slower evolutionary progress earlier and later and skewing timelines and saying evolution is acting at differing rates in timelines doesn't explain anything but admitting unsurety to me is more logical than suggesting not believing any suggestion that explains away *I don't know* is logic.

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you account for all the other peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design?

There are hundreds of thousands of articles in biology journals on evolution. Let's see how many "ID" articles there are:

Crick, F.H.C., and Orgel, L.E., Directed Panspermia, Icarus, Volume 19, Pages 341-346, 1973

Not a biology journal, and Crick, like Phillip Johnson (who invented ID) thinks space aliens started life on Earth. Interesting, but not what a Christian would accept.

Axe, D.D., Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds, Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 341, Issue 5, Pages 1295-1315, Aug 2004

The abstract says nothing about design, intelligent or not.

Behe, M.J., and Snoke, D.W., Simulating Evolution By Gene Duplication of Protein Features that Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues, Protein Science, Volume 13, Number 10, Pages 2651-2664, Oct 2004

And this one actually endorses evolution. Behe has, BTW, since admitted that irreducible complexity can evolve.


Couvreur, P., and Vauthier, C., Nanotechnology; Intelligent Design to Treat Complex Diseases, Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 23, Number 7, Jul 2006

This one is about proven examples of intelligent design, i.e. that done by humans.

So you have two that are actually by people who have belief in ID. The rest was a bit of padding to impress us, I guess.

 

[Cabal]

I believe everything happens in time, but I see evolutionists desiring their theory to explain everything that they keep looking for things with a non scientific bias in mind instead of just saying evolution doesn't make as much sense during that time period.

It may not make sense to you, but why should that give pause to those that do understand it? Personal incredulity isn't evidence for anything.

Geology and evolution and fossils use circular reasoning at times to explain each other so I tend to take the timeline figures with a grain of salt. I know they find fossils and use them to date strata and then use strata to date fossils instead of dating strata and fossils on their own merits and when they don't match up with dates they conveniently adjust things to match.

Uh, no. Radioisotope dating is an independent dating method, and the order of the geological column is an accurate indicator of geological time in general.

The cambrian explosion shows a lot of evolutionary *progress* according to those believing in it but the progress is inconsistant with slower evolutionary progress earlier and later and skewing timelines and saying evolution is acting at differing rates in timelines doesn't explain anything

And you'd be right, because that's not what punctuated equilibrium involves.

Please tell me, is it sensible to try and measure milliseconds with a calendar whose smallest unit is days? The Cambrian layer is 60 million years long, now on that scale, what do you think a speciation event of a few thousand years is going to look like?

"Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous", relative to the several million years of a species' existence."

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using properly scaled units is a fairly basic concept in science - this is not a fudge of any kind. It was missed because until recently, there was less overlap between the academic fields of geology (well, palaeontology) and evolutionary biology.

but admitting unsurety to me is more logical than suggesting not believing any suggestion that explains away *I don't know* is logic.

Again, the only person here who seems unsure of how punc eq works is yourself, I'm afraid. If there really wasn't a notion of how to interpret the Cambrian explosion, it would be admitted as such - Darwin did, at the time, because the answer wasn't known yet. But now it is, why should that be denied otherwise?

 

[laconicstudent]

I believe everything happens in time, but I see evolutionists desiring their theory to explain everything

I don't see that.

that they keep looking for things with a non scientific bias in mind instead of just saying evolution doesn't make as much sense during that time period.

But Evolution does make sense.

Geology and evolution and fossils use circular reasoning at times to explain each other so I tend to take the timeline figures with a grain of salt.

How are they circular?

I know they find fossils and use them to date strata and then use strata to date fossils instead of dating strata and fossils on their own merits

You seriously think that the results would be any different? There is no reason for the fossil and the sediment it is found in to be different ages. It would, in fact, completely violate what we know of geology.

and when they don't match up with dates they conveniently adjust things to match.

Pure hearsay. You have no evidence that this occurs regularly enough, if at all, to falsify the entire field of paleontology.

The cambrian explosion shows a lot of evolutionary *progress* according to those believing in it but the progress is inconsistant with slower evolutionary progress earlier

Not really. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EXPLAINING THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION: CAUSE, CONSEQUENCE OR COINCIDENCE?

and later and skewing timelines and saying evolution is acting at differing rates in timelines doesn't explain anything

Evolution occurs at different rates because the environment changes. We see Evolution moving more rapidly in the time immediately after mass extinction events for example.

but admitting unsurety to me is more logical than suggesting not believing any suggestion that explains away *I don't know* is logic.

Because we have reasonable theories explaining variable rates of evolution that you are apparently unaware of.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

There are hundreds of thousands of articles in biology journals on evolution.

And your point is?

"If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1970

Let's see how many "ID" articles there are

Why?

"If 50 million believe in a fallacy it is still a fallacy." -- S. Warren Carey, geologist, 1970

Interesting, but not what a Christian would accept.

You don't speak for all Christians.

I'm a Christian and I accept directed panspermia and intelligent design.

The abstract says nothing about design, intelligent or not.

Then perhaps you should read the whole article and not the abstract.

This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, "roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain" and that the "overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077." Axe concludes that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".

***

And this one actually endorses evolution. Behe has, BTW, since admitted that irreducible complexity can evolve.

Behe believes in intelligent design.

From the article you didn't read:

In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe's case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics.

***

This one is about proven examples of intelligent design, i.e. that done by humans.

Exactly. Do you claim you don't believe in proven intelligent design?

 

[Sophrosyne]

It may not make sense to you, but why should that give pause to those that do understand it? Personal incredulity isn't evidence for anything.

I understand it well enough but I have seen evolutionists *adjust* the times of things to fit their theory so therefore I have little trust when they say anything using time as an excuse when evolution doesn't work as expected.

Uh, no. Radioisotope dating is an independent dating method, and the order of the geological column is an accurate indicator of geological time in general.

so what do they do when the geological layer and fossil dating doesn't match up?

Please tell me, is it sensible to try and measure milliseconds with a calendar whose smallest unit is days? The Cambrian layer is 60 million years long, now on that scale, what do you think a speciation event of a few thousand years is going to look like?
"Sterelny (2007) claimed that Eldredge and Gould's "hypothesis has been misunderstood in two important ways. In some early discussions of the idea, the contrast between geological and ecological time was blurred. Hence, Gould and Eldredge were interpreted as making a very radical claim: species originate more or less overnight, in a single step. (But) Gould and Eldredge agree that the new structures are almost always assembled over a number of generations, rather than all at once by macromutation...So by 'rapidly', they mean rapidly by geologist's standards". So with a coarse and incomplete fossil record, "a speciation that took 50,000 years would seem instantaneous", relative to the several million years of a species' existence."

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Using properly scaled units is a fairly basic concept in science - this is not a fudge of any kind. It was missed because until recently, there was less overlap between the academic fields of geology (well, palaeontology) and evolutionary biology.

so two guys agree that are called scientists about something and essentially say 50k years isn't small when evolutionists are claiming it takes millions of years in other instances.... who is right? sounds like they move the time goalposts around when it suits them so they can believe in evolution easier to me. Just another copout instead of saying we don't understand why in some cases evolution is faster we will say in some cases it is faster and then we don't have to explain what logically doesn't make sense.

Again, the only person here who seems unsure of how punc eq works is yourself, I'm afraid. If there really wasn't a notion of how to interpret the Cambrian explosion, it would be admitted as such - Darwin did, at the time, because the answer wasn't known yet. But now it is, why should that be denied otherwise?

I don't need to understand how it works, I understand the logic behind evolutionism and the logic of DNA and the complexity of life and from that I can equate that evolutionists throw out logic whenever it suits them to explain the discrepencies for the behavior of things to promote their idealogy. They blurr things and overgeneralize when it suits them by focusing on microevolution to prove macroevolution and ignore the logic of mutations causing more problems than solutions and ignore that any brains could exist in the process when they themselves have a brain in their head that came about from the process. nonintelligent processes creating intelligence is IMO..... logically insane.

 

[Mallon]

I don't need to understand how it works

Sadly, a common refrain among anti-evolutionists.

 

[laconicstudent]

I don't need to understand how it works, I understand the logic behind evolutionism and the logic of DNA

This statement is an oxymoron.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Sadly, a common refrain among anti-evolutionists.

I understand enough to know how the process works, I have learned that many people only understand what they have been indoctrinated by other evolutionists to understand and really have thrown logic out the window because of their desire for belief in evolution. I remember being taught evolution in high school, and the false pictures of horses that *proved* evolution in my textbook that have been rejected by the evolutionists. I have rejected evolution because it is unproven scientifically and depends on only belief that nothing else can explain it. If you have to get to point C and point A is the start and point B is a mile from point A then evolutionists claim the fact we can see it making from A to B means C can be made too. the problem is the distance between A and B can be measured and observed on a level of scientific inquiry that is acceptable but to get from B to C is nothing but sheer speculation based upon having a pile of buried road signs from every point of time on the earth saying other places exist... There is no clear path of evolution of man, yet evolutionists hope they will find one and believe in it hoping for such proof. What if 10 million years from now they never find enough missing links after man genetically terraforms and seeds a dozen planets designing life forms that grow up to be intelligent. would a designer on those planets shake their heads when the humans there reject him and say dead matter evolved me you are stupid to think intelligence had a thing to do with it? it would be ironic wouldn't it? According to science this is not possible but probable in evolution man will one day be smart enough to manipulate DNA to force life to whatever design he chooses.. by intelligence; even to the point of controlling how it evolves later.

 

[USincognito]

I don't need to understand how it works, I understand the logic behind evolutionism and the logic of DNA and the complexity of life and from that I can equate that evolutionists throw out logic whenever it suits them to explain the discrepencies for the behavior of things to promote their idealogy.

... that is why there are not 4 legged humans because they do not evolve beyond 2 legs.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh dear.

 

[Bushido216]

I understand enough to know how the process works, I have learned that many people only understand what they have been indoctrinated by other evolutionists to understand and really have thrown logic out the window because of their desire for belief in evolution. I remember being taught evolution in high school, and the false pictures of horses that *proved* evolution in my textbook that have been rejected by the evolutionists. I have rejected evolution because it is unproven scientifically and depends on only belief that nothing else can explain it. If you have to get to point C and point A is the start and point B is a mile from point A then evolutionists claim the fact we can see it making from A to B means C can be made too. the problem is the distance between A and B can be measured and observed on a level of scientific inquiry that is acceptable but to get from B to C is nothing but sheer speculation based upon having a pile of buried road signs from every point of time on the earth saying other places exist... There is no clear path of evolution of man, yet evolutionists hope they will find one and believe in it hoping for such proof. What if 10 million years from now they never find enough missing links after man genetically terraforms and seeds a dozen planets designing life forms that grow up to be intelligent. would a designer on those planets shake their heads when the humans there reject him and say dead matter evolved me you are stupid to think intelligence had a thing to do with it? it would be ironic wouldn't it? According to science this is not possible but probable in evolution man will one day be smart enough to manipulate DNA to force life to whatever design he chooses.. by intelligence; even to the point of controlling how it evolves later.

So, I should here point out that the fossil evidence we have for such things as whale, human and horse evolution (to name a few) is at least as good as, if not better than, archaeological evidence we have for some ancient civilizations. We've found less on Sumeria than we have on horse evolution, yet I'm willing to bet that you didn't scoff at your history textbook.

If creationists tried to enforce the same standards on evolutionary theory as they do on anthropology, they should flatly reject that Egypt, or Sumeria, or the Aztec, or whatever, ever existed.

 

[Cabal]

I understand it well enough but I have seen evolutionists *adjust* the times of things to fit their theory so therefore I have little trust when they say anything using time as an excuse when evolution doesn't work as expected.

So you keep saying....(repeatedly)

But you have yet to show any evidence for your claims, so I'm disinclined to believe that. I have not seen evolutionists "*adjust*" anything - I have seen creationists post unsubstantiated claims countless times.

Next time you want to broadbrush scientists as dishonest, maybe have the honesty to post some evidence, thanks.

so what do they do when the geological layer and fossil dating doesn't match up?

Why should it not? The only scenario I can think of would be if there was some large-scale geological upheaval or small scale erosion that might cause the geological record to get muddled, but that would be noticeable and that area would be a less reliable indicator of palaeontological history.

Although this statement seems to suggest that there are dozens of examples where the layers and the dating don't match up. There aren't.

so two guys agree that are called scientists about something and essentially say 50k years isn't small when evolutionists are claiming it takes millions of years in other instances.... who is right?

Uh...you do realise they're talking about a single speciation event, right? The more drastic transformations are what take millions of years.

sounds like they move the time goalposts around when it suits them so they can believe in evolution easier to me. Just another copout instead of saying we don't understand why in some cases evolution is faster we will say in some cases it is faster and then we don't have to explain what logically doesn't make sense.

Why should the rate of evolution necessarily be fixed? Again, the point which you don't seem to be grasping is that the rates of evolution WASN'T faster. There only APPEARED to be an "explosion" of different lifeforms because the timescale was NOT a biological one.

I don't need to understand how it works, I understand the logic behind evolutionism and the logic of DNA and the complexity of life

You should probably define those terms properly first. Not that I suspect it will do you any good - methodology is pretty much key to any science, so claiming you don't need to understand how it works and yet then immediately claiming you understand "the logic behind evolutionism" is bunk.

and from that I can equate that evolutionists throw out logic whenever it suits them to explain the discrepencies for the behavior of things to promote their idealogy.

Like refusing to see the illogic in measuring millisecond processes with a calendar, perhaps?

They blurr things and overgeneralize when it suits them by focusing on microevolution to prove macroevolution

Because you can walk a foot, but you can't walk a mile, right?

and ignore the logic of mutations causing more problems than solutions

This is blatantly untrue. Most mutations are neutral. Some research has just been completed in the UK which implies that on average, heavy smokers self-inflict one mutation on themselves every 15 smokes. But only ONE of those mutations is actually fatal. The other mutations are neutral - this is representative of most mutations - they don't actually cause much. The really bad ones kill you off before you can reproduce and are therefore not propagated as much.

and ignore that any brains could exist in the process when they themselves have a brain in their head that came about from the process.

TE aside, this just sounds like a rehash of the complexity argument. So what made the brain that made our brains?

nonintelligent processes creating intelligence is IMO..... logically insane.

Again, if intelligence requires a designer, who designed our intelligent designer?

 

[Mallon]

I understand enough to know how the process works

With respect, you don't. That's why people here with education far beyond your high-school level training in evolution are patiently trying to correct your misconceptions. Unfortunately, you evidently don't value education, preferring to call it "indoctrination" instead ("brainwashing" is another common creationist refrain). With that attitude, I'm not really sure if it's worth anyone's time trying to speak to you if you're intent on not learning from one another.

I remember being taught evolution in high school, and the false pictures of horses that *proved* evolution in my textbook that have been rejected by the evolutionists.

I'm not sure which "false pictures" you're referring to (does it have to do with linear vs. cladogenic evolution?), but I thought that I should point out that YEC baraminologist Todd Wood feels the evidence for horse evolution is strong. Check out his blog post here:

Todd's Blog: The horse series and creationism

I have rejected evolution because it is unproven scientifically and depends on only belief that nothing else can explain it.

You've been given lots of evidence so far, but rather than explaining it, you've only explained it away.
I don't expect you'll read over these links, but if anyone reading this is interested in the evidence for evolution, here are some good places to start:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
What is the evidence for evolution?
SpringerLink - Journal Issue

If you have to get to point C and point A is the start and point B is a mile from point A then evolutionists claim the fact we can see it making from A to B means C can be made too. the problem is the distance between A and B can be measured and observed on a level of scientific inquiry that is acceptable but to get from B to C is nothing but sheer speculation based upon having a pile of buried road signs from every point of time on the earth saying other places exist...

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say with this analogy.

There is no clear path of evolution of man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[Cabal]

I understand enough to know how the process works, I have learned that many people only understand what they have been indoctrinated by other evolutionists to understand and really have thrown logic out the window because of their desire for belief in evolution.

So is it "indoctrination" if creationists only listen to other creationists? Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that this won't be classed as that....

I remember being taught evolution in high school, and the false pictures of horses that *proved* evolution in my textbook that have been rejected by the evolutionists.

Please cite the textbook, with page numbers and image numbers.

I have rejected evolution because it is unproven scientifically

NOTHING is "proven" in science. Atoms aren't "proven". Gravity isn't "proven." You can have theories disproven by science, but evolution has not been.....for now.

and depends on only belief that nothing else can explain it.

Because evolution is the best scientific theory we have for explaining the many observations that have been taken of fossils, genotypes, etc. None of them have yet falsified evolution.

If you have to get to point C and point A is the start and point B is a mile from point A then evolutionists claim the fact we can see it making from A to B means C can be made too. the problem is the distance between A and B can be measured and observed on a level of scientific inquiry that is acceptable but to get from B to C is nothing but sheer speculation based upon having a pile of buried road signs from every point of time on the earth saying other places exist...

What was the phrase you used regarding my calendar analogy?

"This is vague at best"

All of the principles of evolution have been observed; natural selection, speciation, etc. so why should they not apply in all cases? Evolution has no magical barrier against macroevolution, the only ones insisting that there is are creationists and they have no proof for it - only mistaken ideas about how mutations work.

There is no clear path of evolution of man, yet evolutionists hope they will find one and believe in it hoping for such proof.

Erm....yes, there is. At the very least, there is very clear genetic evidence that we share a common ancestor with other primates, so special creation is blown out of the water.

What if 10 million years from now they never find enough missing links after man genetically terraforms and seeds a dozen planets designing life forms that grow up to be intelligent. would a designer on those planets shake their heads when the humans there reject him and say dead matter evolved me you are stupid to think intelligence had a thing to do with it? it would be ironic wouldn't it? According to science this is not possible but probable in evolution man will one day be smart enough to manipulate DNA to force life to whatever design he chooses.. by intelligence; even to the point of controlling how it evolves later.

The reason why it is not empirically apparent that we are intelligently designed is that we know there are sufficient physical processes in effect that allow chemicals to form more complex structures and for life to reproduce. It ISN'T reasonable to extend the watchmaker argument to life, because we KNOW there aren't natural processes that assemble watches automatically, whereas we know there are natural processes that generate life.

So this is a pretty poor analogy - if we did create life of our own, it would have to be using natural processes that already exist - in other words, using the same processes that abiogenesis used. So if we can design things to evolve by evolution, why is it so unreasonable to think God did not do the same?

If we didn't leave any personalised traces in their design, they would also not be able to empirically conclude their design, much like there is no empirical evidence of our design, so this analogy fails on another level.