Intelligent Design / Evolution

[Wiccan_Child]

I never known you to speak jibberish before. The Hebrew people today have a common ancestor just like all other people have common ancestors.

They have many common ancestors.

You want to say that their common ancestor was NOT the Adam and Eve in the Bible,

I say that their matrilinear and patrilinear ancestors are not Adam and Eve.

but the Bible and all the scientific evidence we have available points to the Bible being true. You respond by saying we do not have enough scientific evidence. I say we do have enough evidence you just want to ignore the evidence we have.

And round and round the wheel goes.

For one thing there is no evidence saying that the Adam and Eve in the Bible were not real historical people just like Abraham, Moses and Noah were real historical people. There is NO evidence to show they are NOT real historical people.

Err, OK, just bear in mind that this logic ("You have no evidence against X, therefore, X is true!") equally applies to every other fictional and mythological being.

So if you put all your evidence on a scale, you have no evidence to show that the Bible is NOT true, I have LOTS of evidence to show the Bible is true. So you are the one with "no evidence" not me.

And yet, you haven't presented any. I've seen your genealogical data, and you've yet to explain how that constitutes evidence for any of your claims.

I have lots of evidence. Not the least of which is the geneologys we read in the Bible. I think maybe you got me speaking jibberish now also. Do you believe that David and his son Solomon were real people? Sense we still have the foundation in Jerusalem for Solomon's temple. How about Jesus, do you think he was a real person. Was Joseph, Mary and his half brother James real people?

As I see no evidence for any of those people, logic dictates that we reject the notion that they were real people. Remember, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

So, once again, I ask for evidence for your claims. Better yet, make a post detailing exactly what it is you're claiming, no detail spared., and then list the evidence you believe supports it. "The Bible is true, and science proves it", is hardly riveting debate material.

 

[idscience]

Your definition is more akin to the colloquial one than the scientific one. In evolutionary biology, 'evolution' refers to something more specific: a change in the frequency of inherited traits in a population over time. It doesn't simply refer to 'change'.

Additionally, 'evolution' refers to 'the theory of common descent', which is the theory that all life on Earth is descended from a single common ancestor, and variations among modern species is due to evolution by natural selection.

In a scientific context, 'evolution' refers to both the observed fact and the inferred theory, interchangeably.

Pretty much.

As does evolution.

What do you consider to be the best evidence for ID?

I know evolutionists have combined evolution and common descent but don't think the evidence holds up. One is a theory, the other an hypothesis. Deciding they are the same doesn't make it so.

evidence for common descent is weak and you have situations like being discussed on this thread. http://www.christianforums.com/t777103-8/
On page eight, a clear case of fabrication is discussed. If common descent was strong, these things would not be happening. I am not saying all common descent science is like this.

common descent hypothesis is connected to speciation which is under debate right now as to what a species even is.

• "variations among modern species is due to evolution by natural selection."

Except when it is due to jumping genes, or horizontal gene transfer, or conjugation. There is even a new paper out that is saying evolution has little to do with environmental pressures, and much more to do with expanding territory.

Many just don't see how the evidence for changes within species can be extrapolated to include changes from species. Changes from a species of one family to the species of another family. ie; fox like mammal into a whale, or a reptile into a bird.

I think the best evidence for ID is DNA code, information theory and everything that goes along with manufacturing in the cell.

Cheers

 

[KhaosTheory]

I'd think some people would get tired of being so wrong all the time.

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[idscience]

Such ancestors undoubtedly existed, but they didn't exist at the same time and in the same place. No such ancestors meet the necessary criteria to qualify as Adam and Eve. That, Jazer, is the problem.

I haven't heard anyone posit an explanation for this, common descent would have to produce and male and female at the same time. No only does common descent have to produce all the changes needed for procreation but it has to do it simultaneously.

Not only the hardware, but the knowledge of what to do with the hardware. I do not believe I have seen any papers on this subject.

This can lead into origins of instinct as well, and much more that common descent doesn't address.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I haven't has anyone posit an explanation for this, common descent would have to produce and male and female at the same time. No only does common descent have to produce all the changes needed for procreation but it has to do it simultaneously.

Not only the hardware, but the knowledge of what to do with the hardware. I do not believe I have seen any papers on this subject.

This can lead into origins of instinct as well, and much more that common descent doesn't address.

You're just a PRATT factory aren't you?

CB350: The origin of sex

 

[KhaosTheory]

You're just a PRATT factory aren't you?

CB350: The origin of sex

...and they wonder why we don't spend hours researching and debunking the claims that they keep bringing up over and over and over.

I'm just going to start copy/pasting the refutations instead of wasting my own time explaining something that they are just going to ignore and then re-post anyway.

 

[Jazer]

I say that their matrilinear and patrilinear ancestors are not Adam and Eve.

Ok, lets say that is true. That the people living in Jerusalem are not related to David and they have no right to the "thrashing floor" that David left to his descendants. Would that make the Bible any less true? I do not think so. The point is that Luke gives us the genealogy of Adam all the way to Jesus. Now, what leads you to believe that the Bible is not true? What leads you to believe that Adam and Eve in the Bible were not real people? What leads you to believe that any of the people in the Bible were not real historical people? What evidence do you have from modern science to show us that the Bible is not true and accurate?

Clearly there is overwelming evidence that the Flood was not a global flood. So science seems to be more then able to get the job done. So what overwelming evidence do you have to show us that Moses was not a real person and that he did not have a real boat with real people on that boat? Why can science falsify the world wide flood, but they can not seem to falsify that Noah was a real historical person?

Err, OK, just bear in mind that this logic ("You have no evidence against X, therefore, X is true!") equally applies to every other fictional and mythological being.

So you admit you can not discern the difference between truth and a lie or myth and truth stories about real people? Maybe you play to many video games and you need to join us in the real world.

 

[idscience]

You're just a PRATT factory aren't you?

CB350: The origin of sex

Cite bluffing mill.

"Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex"
Code for "no idea"


The audio files below discuss TalkOrigins speciation FAQ page and claims it is guilty of “cite bluffing”

• Talk Origins Full of Claims but Short on Real Evidence Pt#1
• Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims (skip to 1:00 to miss intro) Pt#2

This is a problem so be careful, and read what is put in front of you. In many but not all cases, evolution is being marketed.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This is a problem so be careful, and read what is put in front of you. In many but not all cases, evolution is being marketed.

@ someone posting Discovery Institute links and blaming evolution for being "marketed".

 

[idscience]

You're just a PRATT factory aren't you?

Here is a person, who confronted with a valid question ducks it. Instead of just saying that one is a tough one for common descent, which it is, then referred to a site that I guess this person holds in high regard, that has no answer?

Those who hold common descent as an article of faith, will never say they do not know. that is threatening to them. There is far more than just evidence and discussion when in a position without an answer, they resort to insult and generalizations. Common descent is loaded with generalizations, maybe's, and possibilities, yet is is presented as a fact as solid as gravity. This is a smoke show. At best common descent can make some fairly convincing inferences, but that is it.

It is easy to discern the quality of a persons position by the number of times they resort to offense, and deflection, rather than rebut. Another tell tale sign of someone just interested in arguments without reason, is one who says they are leaving the discussion but never do.

Critical thinking is all you need.

 

[idscience]

@ someone posting Discovery Institute links and blaming evolution for being "marketed".

The Discovery Institute links are not used as yours was. As gospel truth. They are discussing the numerous cites that have little to do with the subject argued. They also advise people to go to the source, and read for yourself.
That is the difference. Your cite led no where.
I will always rely on a site that promotes reading the original papers for yourself.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Here is a person, who confronted with a valid question ducks it. Instead of just saying that one is a tough one for common descent, which it is, I am called "stupid", then referred to a site that I guess this person holds in high regard, that has no answer?

Please link to the post where you are called "stupid". Otherwise, don't accuse people of calling you stupid.

Those who hold common descent as an article of faith, will never say they do not know. that is threatening to them. There is far more than just evidence and discussion when in a position without an answer, they resort to insult and generalizations. Common descent is loaded with generalizations, maybe's, and possibilities, yet is is presented as a fact as solid as gravity. This is a smoke show. At best common descent can make some fairly convincing inferences, but that is it.

It is easy to discern the quality of a persons position by the number of times they resort to offense, and deflection, rather than rebut. Another tell tale sign of someone just interested in arguments without reason, is one who says they are leaving the discussion but never do.

Critical thinking is all you need.

Honestly, I have better things to do than attempt to educate you on evolutionary biology. You come here with an agenda and no desire to actually learn what the other side is saying. You assume you already correct. Sorry, I don't debate with people who can't fathom the idea of themselves being wrong.

The Discovery Institute links are not used as yours was. As gospel truth. They are discussing the numerous cites that have little to do with the subject argued. They also advise people to go to the source, and read for yourself.
That is the difference. Your cite led no where. You read that there is no answer for the point I brought up but still felt compelled to call me stupid. They don't know, you don't know, but I am stupid just the same? Obviously you are not bases your assessment on that question so a personal bias must be involved.

I will always rely on a site that promotes reading the original papers for yourself.

1) I didn't call you stupid. Please retract that accusation.

2) The Talk Origins page has references. You're welcome to look them up if you're curious.

 

[idscience]

Please link to the post where you are called "stupid". Otherwise, don't accuse people of calling you stupid.

Honestly, I have better things to do than attempt to educate you on evolutionary biology. You come here with an agenda and no desire to actually learn what the other side is saying. You assume you already correct. Sorry, I don't debate with people who can't fathom the idea of themselves being wrong.

1) I didn't call you stupid. Please retract that accusation.

2) The Talk Origins page has references. You're welcome to look them up if you're curious.

1. REtracted
2. the references are for possible hypothesis

Why is it when the hard evolution questions are asked, No one wants to "educate". That is a poor excuse for not knowing.

You didn't have time to say, you didn't know that one? where is the education there? Every time I post a reasonable question, the old retreat is "I can't be bothered" or "you don't listen" or the big one, "you just don't know how evolution works". It is quite humorous when double and triple PhD's is told that.

This thread if full of people who don't have the time but spend much of their time here. The only replies are generalities and appeals to someone has already refuted that. No real answers though, just mocking.

I showed fabrication of rodhocetus and I don't get it? I don't want to learn? It's bad enough to over look that but to defend it? That is unwilling to learn in the face of facts.

All I am doing is presenting the facts. You can argue with them if you like.

 

[idscience]

I'd think some people would get tired of being so wrong all the time.

Johnny speed reader is pretty funny.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

1. REtracted

Appreciated

2. the references are for possible hypothesis

Since when is "hypothesis" a bad word? Yeah, we don't know the whole picture. But a gap in knowledge != intelligent design is correct. I was simply pointing you to the promising avenues of future research.

Why is it when the hard evolution questions are asked, No one wants to "educate". That is a poor excuse for not knowing.

A good number of us who post here have science degrees or are working on them. It's a bit difficult to communicate an area of expertise to someone who simply hasn't studied the fundamentals of biology all that much. I don't have the time to catch you up on a bachelor's degree's worth of biology. You wouldn't get mad at a math student on these forums for not attempting to teach you calculus, would you?

You didn't have time to say, you didn't know that one? where is the education there? Every time I post a reasonable question, the old retreat is "I can't be bothered" or "you don't listen" or the big one, "you just don't know how evolution works". It is quite humorous when double and triple PhD's is told that.

The arguments you are presenting are not new or unique. The reaction to your threads has pretty much been "oh my, these arguments again?"

All I am doing is presenting the facts. You can argue with them if you like.

From what I can tell in this thread and others, you suffer from a lack of understanding of what evolution is, why it is a strong theory, and the nature of the evidence that supports it. I can't talk about genetics with you if all you know about genetics is what you read on a creationist website.

Don't expect to be spoon-fed here, and don't expect people to automatically line up to answer all of your questions. Respect has to be earned, and if you don't know what you're talking about it's not much use replying to you.

Learn more about evolution from a non-biased perspective here:
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[idscience]

Let's look at what has not been refuted. By refuted I mean proven wrong. I don't mean disagreed with as evolutionists are in disagreement with themselves on many things and that has no bearing on the truth of it anyway.

1. Irreducible complexity
2. specified complexity
3. DNA is a code, and language by any definition
4. Whale evolution
5. falsified rodhocetus reconstruction and drawings
6. Speciation (debated)
7. Collapse of the phylogenectic tree
8. Stasis of the fossil record
9. collapse of a natural origin of life
10. Serious problems with population genetics and lineages ie: whale human

Out of these few subjects touched on there has only been a few intelligent replies or attempts to address these issues. I don't have all the answers, but I sure have some serious questions. If you are too busy or not inclined to "educate" those who have real questions I don't know what to say. Maybe you could look past your personal feelings for me, and do it for the hundreds that are watching the thread.

There seems to be a handful of Atheists here who like to stir it up among the sheep, I don't stir so easily.

 

[idscience]

Appreciated

Since when is "hypothesis" a bad word? Yeah, we don't know the whole picture. But a gap in knowledge != intelligent design is correct. I was simply pointing you to the promising avenues of future research.

1. A good number of us who post here have science degrees or are working on them. It's a bit difficult to communicate an area of expertise to someone who simply hasn't studied the fundamentals of biology all that much. I don't have the time to catch you up on a bachelor's degree's worth of biology. You wouldn't get mad at a math student on these forums for not attempting to teach you calculus, would you?

2. The arguments you are presenting are not new or unique. The reaction to your threads has pretty much been "oh my, these arguments again?"

3. From what I can tell in this thread and others, you suffer from a lack of understanding of what evolution is, why it is a strong theory, and the nature of the evidence that supports it. I can't talk about genetics with you if all you know about genetics is what you read on a creationist website.

4. Don't expect to be spoon-fed here, and don't expect people to automatically line up to answer all of your questions. Respect has to be earned, and if you don't know what you're talking about it's not much use replying to you.

Learn more about evolution from a non-biased perspective here:
Welcome to Evolution 101!

1. you wouldn't know it by the replies.
2. Not new and not answered. Since when is an old argument a bad argument when it isn't answered? You can only play the old gaps in the knowledge card so often before those here say, oh, no not those answers again.
3. Yeh, Yeh, same old answers. That has been working for decades. People just don't understand evolution. Pretty weak. Is that what your profs filled your head with year after year? I don't blame you , its the education, sorry, indoctrination system.
4. I don't expect a line for answers. I don't even expect answers, there are non. It is the questions that are important. What they do is show the arrogance of some, who don't know then try to answer like they do.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

4. I don't expect a line for answers. I don't even expect answers, there are non. It is the questions that are important. What they do is show the arrogance of some, who don't know then try to answer like they do.

Ah, so you enter these conversations despite the fact that you would refuse to acknowledge any evidence the other side brings. Noted. Now that I know your intentions, hello ignore list

 

[KhaosTheory]

Let's look at what has not been refuted. By refuted I mean proven wrong. I don't mean disagreed with as evolutionists are in disagreement with themselves on many things and that has no bearing on the truth of it anyway.

1. Irreducible complexity
2. specified complexity
3. DNA is a code, and language by any definition
4. Whale evolution
5. falsified rodhocetus reconstruction and drawings
6. Speciation (debated)
7. Collapse of the phylogenectic tree
8. Stasis of the fossil record
9. collapse of a natural origin of life
10. Serious problems with population genetics and lineages ie: whale human

Out of these few subjects touched on there has only been a few intelligent replies or attempts to address these issues. I don't have all the answers, but I sure have some serious questions. If you are too busy or not inclined to "educate" those who have real questions I don't know what to say. Maybe you could look past your personal feelings for me, and do it for the hundreds that are watching the thread.

There seems to be a handful of Atheists here who like to stir it up among the sheep, I don't stir so easily.

We don't keep responding to the posts you keep parroting because we've all been to Answers in Genesis and have already heard every single one of these arguments many, many times.

We've also heard the refutations of these claims many many times.
If you can't use Google, I can copy/paste stuff for you if you want.

I'm tired of wasting my time debunking these claims over and over again. But since I don't want the voice of ignorance to become louder than the voice of reason, I'll keep responding till my fingers bleed from typing:

1. Irreducible complexity -what do you think is irreducibly complex? The eye? The flagellum?

The Flagellum Unspun

I'll sum it up for you since I know how much you hate reading:

For the flagellum, if it's irreducibly complex, then if it's missing some of it's proteins (about 30), then it will cease to provide mobility to the organism.

Well, guess what? It doesn't! The whole premise is wrong. The flagellum still functions ever when missing parts of it. it's NOT irreducibly complex.

2. DNA is a code, and language by any definition - no it's not. I'm pretty sure we've already talked about this. A language only exists conceptually because the speaker understands what each word is a symbol for.

There are no symbols in DNA. The "language" of DNA is strictly determined by the chemical properties of it's 4 basic molecules. It has nothing to do with the subjective way we "read" the "code".

DNA is not a language | The Rational Response Squad

3.Speciation (debated) - what's debated about Speciation? It's existence? No. It's definition? maybe. You want to know why? It's simple.

A working definition of species is "any group that no longer mates with it's parent group" That's it. This can happen because of geological isolation which can lead to divergent mutations that cause drastic morphological or genetic changes.

But this definition isn't true always! For instance, a lion and a tiger can still mate, albeit rarely; so can a dolphin and a false killer whale. But we still call them different SPECIES because it makes sense! Now, we DON'T call great danes and chihuahuas different species because while they are quite morphologically different, they are still so genetically similar that they could mate quite effectively.

The fact that the definition of 'species' is not solid is NOT a failure of the term, it's proof that life is very fluid.

You seem to think that there are definite, unrelated species or "kinds" of animals but evolution never said that. Every form of life we see is fluidly related to everything else. Our classification system is just framework to help us categorize everything.

Your other points I either don't understand or have no knowledge of. if you would like to expand of them I'll gladly give you my take.

 

[idscience]

Ah, so you enter these conversations despite the fact that you would refuse to acknowledge any evidence the other side brings. Noted. Now that I know your intentions, hello ignore list

Ignore list? That would be a loss to the thread. Lets look at your contribution:

@ someone posting Discovery Institute links and blaming evolution for being "marketed".

Honestly, I have better things to do than attempt to educate you on evolutionary biology. You come here with an agenda and no desire to actually learn what the other side is saying. You assume you already correct. Sorry, I don't debate with people who can't fathom the idea of themselves being wrong.

Appreciated



Since when is "hypothesis" a bad word? Yeah, we don't know the whole picture. But a gap in knowledge != intelligent design is correct. I was simply pointing you to the promising avenues of future research.

A good number of us who post here have science degrees or are working on them. It's a bit difficult to communicate an area of expertise to someone who simply hasn't studied the fundamentals of biology all that much. I don't have the time to catch you up on a bachelor's degree's worth of biology. You wouldn't get mad at a math student on these forums for not attempting to teach you calculus, would you?

The arguments you are presenting are not new or unique. The reaction to your threads has pretty much been "oh my, these arguments again?"

From what I can tell in this thread and others, you suffer from a lack of understanding of what evolution is, why it is a strong theory, and the nature of the evidence that supports it. I can't talk about genetics with you if all you know about genetics is what you read on a creationist website.

Don't expect to be spoon-fed here, and don't expect people to automatically line up to answer all of your questions. Respect has to be earned, and if you don't know what you're talking about it's not much use replying to you.

Learn more about evolution from a non-biased perspective here:
Welcome to Evolution 101!

Here you spent an entire page telling me why you won't tell me anything?

You're just a PRATT factory aren't you?

Originally Posted by 3rdHeaven

I thought atheism is lack of belief?

Lack of belief is a spectrum?

You know, belief is sounding more and more like faith to me
​

Still waiting on your reply. You give the intelligent designer credit for all the beautiful things in creation...do you also want to give the designer credit for the awful things? The horror? Which some would argue is the true nature of this world, as opposed to kitties and puppies playing in fields of flowers?

Now there is an educated comment. Are you one of the ones you said were working on your degree or do you have it aleady?

I'm sure the helpless, blind African children are very grateful for their rather short, painful lifespan



So...you don't have an answer for me?

Exactly. It makes your position look like nonsense.

If an intelligent designer created every living thing, then that intelligent designer created all of these terrible pathogens that wreak havoc on us. I'd like an explanation of why we have all these pathogens.

wow.

Other great pieces of evidence for intelligent design:

Onchocerciasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Malaria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leishmaniasis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Smallpox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cholera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ebola virus disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't get it, pal.

The other guy was claiming that the beauty of creation was evidence for creationism/intelligent design. I was just pointing out that not all of this creation is beautiful. It's easy to let your God take credit for the sunrise and pretty flowers, but man up and also give him credit for the eye-obliterating parasites.

no. that's not how science works. the conclusion is there because of the evidence (150 years of research).

I really just posted to subscribe to the thread (too lazy to manually subscribe). This guy seems like a loose cannon, and I enjoy watching him reach his boiling point.

OK there we have it. the sum of all your wisdom. No cites, no facts, no answers of any kind! no papers, just opinion. Thread will miss ya. Good luck with that degree.