Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[BradB]

. Taking Gould out of context is not evidence against evolution. Gould was speaking of punk eek . A change in anatomy that shows up in the geological record as species one turning into species two rapidly without intermediates . What really happens in that case is this. Species one meets an environmental challenge that selects strongly for the new trait . The species does have intermediates but the change happens so quickly that the intermediates are few . Fossilization is a rare phenomenon and a lineage with few members most likely won’t fossilize. You go on to claim this is a just-so story BUT we can see this in living species. For example Timema cristinae. Timemas are background mimics and the newer ones have a different color pattern . The old pattern on the newer plant food gets eaten ( timemas are insects) and the new pattern on the old plant food gets eaten because they’re highly visible . The intermediates get eaten . There aren’t many of them . These things are already showing mate preference. Wider and green with wider and green. Narrow and striped with narrow and striped . Eventually they will become 2 different species as they prefer the food that they mimic . View attachment 254285
Yes eyes do show a common homologous ancestry to answer your question . But you’re being dishonest and comparing 2 extremely distantly related organisms like octopuses and humans without taking that into consideration and showing more closely related organisms and their eyes

I didn't take Gould's statements out of context. At least not in the sense that I used what he said to mean something apart from what he meant it to mean. Who cares why he believes there are no gradualist fossils. The point is that's what he said is observed in the physical record. If Bozo the Clown went outside and came back in saying he observed rain, I wouldn't care if he believed rain was caused by aliens taking a leak from the space ship or gods crying over humanity. What he "believes" is irrelevant to the point. The point is what he observed. I of course used Gould in particular here so that no one can say "he's a biased dumb o'l creationist just makin it up."

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes but being from a population that is less than "HALF" the size of the population of a different population that likely didn't inter breed, would reasonably raise some big questions.

Nope. Many mammalian species have that much variation in size. You're getting confused again, by "looks like", rather than homologies.

Your attempt at making light of this is very telling.

I suppose so. It says that I actually know something about biology.

When are you going to quit running from God friend?

Maybe if you set aside your obsession with making yourself God, you'd do better here.

Barbarian observes:
He merely used existing organisms to make new kinds of organisms.

Except that's not what His word reveals He did.

It's already been shown to you that He didn't say how he did it.

His word reveals that He made each individual kind and created them to only reproduce after their own kind.

No, your alteration of God's word does that. Nowhere does it animals "reproduce after their own kind." You just inserted that to make His word acceptable to you.
You have to accept that the Bible says what it means and it means what it says, instead of trying to change it.

But I have found after 41 years of searching, God never fails or lets me down.

You let him down, every time you add your own ideas to His word. Please stop it.

I can trust His word and take it to mean exactly what it was intended to mean.

If you did trust Him, you wouldn't be adding to His word. Instead, you try and change it with some weird obscure rendering of the text that was never intended.

 

[The Barbarian]

I see... your wanting proof in the negative. Your right. I can't prove leprechauns don't exist with magical powers either. The only thing I can do is demonstrate that to date no evidence has been presented for the existence of leprechauns and therefore I have no logical reason to believe in them. If however just one leprechaun were to be found then this would of course change.

But if thousands of transitional fossils are shown to you, you just ignore the evidence.

Likewise I can't provide some scientific basis for falsifying special creation.

It's a new religious belief. Religious beliefs are rarely falsible.

However I can say that if we were to observe just one fact that cannot be logically explained apart from special creation, then everything changes.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise points out many of them.

Physicists tell us the laws of physics are fine tuned to the exact parameters necessary for life.

I'm always stunned that YE creationists aren't aware that this is evidence against creationism. It indicates that God created the universe to bring forth living things, rather than prancing around like a little middle eastern god, making a rabbit here, and a tree there. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

We look at the arrangement of the systems of the universe. Like the way that our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky way's chaotic spiral arms. Coupled with the size of our sun. Scientists tell us our sun is quite small compared to the majority of the observable stars in the universe

yet its the perfect size and temperature to support life. Our distance of 93 million miles from the sun. The perfect distance.

Nope. In fact, it varies by over one million miles from the sun, every year.

The Goldilocks Zone refers to the habitable zone around a star where the temperature is just right - not too hot and not too cold - for liquid water to exist on an planet.

Just because a planet or moon is in the Goldilocks Zone of a star, doesn't mean it's going to have life or even liquid water.

At the other end of the Sun's Goldilocks Zone is Mars which also once had liquid water flowing across its surface in rivers, lakes and oceans.

"However, the Red Planet is now a freeze-dried desert, with a thin carbon dioxide atmosphere, and only one 99th the atmospheric pressure of sea level on Earth," Professor Webb said.

"The lack of both a significant atmosphere and a global magnetic field - thanks to its mostly solidified core - means the Martian surface is constantly being irradiated by the Sun.

"Any water still on Mars, which hasn't degassed into space and been blown away by the solar wind, or irradiated into hydroxyls on the surface, is either frozen in the planet's ice caps and permafrost, or quickly subducts directly from ice to gas during the local Martian summer."

After all, Earth isn't the only planet in the Sun's Goldilocks Zone - Venus and Mars are also in this habitable zone, but aren't currently habitable.

"Venus is Earth's sister planet, both are about the same size and in the same region of the solar system, and Venus once also had water," Professor Webb said.

"However, Venus now has a runaway greenhouse effect going on, with a surface temperature of over 460 degrees Celsius, which has boiled away all its liquid water."
What is the Goldilocks Zone and why does it matter in the search for ET?

Couple this with our own moons size and distance from the earth. The perfect size and distance to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun which of course forms our four seasons, without which their could be no food chain and again no life.

Odd then, that the moon has varied greatly in distance from the Earth. It's still moving outward. And the Earth is not constant in angle WRT the Sun, either. It changes by a factor of almost 10%. Doesn't sound very precise to me. And at the equator, where there are no seasons, living things seem to do just fine.

A long time ago, a man who devoted his life to God and the truth had an important lesson for you:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.


The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.


Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine of Hippo De Genisi ad litteram

You do much harm with these specious "proofs" that are nothing of the kind, and you bring our faith into disrepute thereby. Please stop it.

 

[BradB]

No, your alteration of God's word does that. Nowhere does it animals "reproduce after their own kind." You just inserted that to make His word acceptable to you. You have to accept that the Bible says what it means and it means what it says, instead of trying to change it.

1:11-12 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.​

The text here dictates to us what God means when He says "according to its kind." In this passage it teaches us that it means the vegetation yields only seeds and fruit like itself. Jesus enforces this when He says a fig tree cannot produce thorns nor a thorn tree figs. It reproduces after its own kind. So what God wants us to understand and get used to here is that this is what the phrase means.

1: 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”​

We have no indicators in the text that God means something by, "according to their kind" here other than to reproduce after their kind like He meant with the vegetation. He actually couples "multiplying" with this statement here so down through the ages no bubble heads like me could get confused on the matter.

 

[BradB]

But if thousands of transitional fossils are shown to you, you just ignore the evidence.

I ignore it because I have never asked for thousands of "transitional fossils." Not once. I have however consistently asked for just ONE example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms. A concept you consistently seem to intentionally pervert to mean something else. I've explained exactly what I want so clear that a child could understand. You do not want to understand because you know the fossil record is completely devoid of such a chain. But you can't admit that I am right about that so you must twist what I say to mean something else so you can provide me with your "thousands of transitional fossils" and claim I am stupid and unknowledgeable etc. I think at this point, unless I see you actually attempt to present me with what I ask for, or admit it doesn't exist, we have no more to discuss.

I'm not giving up on you friend, I am just giving you "up" to Him. I am praying for the eyes of your understanding to be opened.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But if thousands of transitional fossils are shown to you, you just ignore the evidence.

I ignore it because I have never asked for thousands of "transitional fossils." Not once. I have however consistently asked for just ONE example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, gave you many such. Finely graduated chains of fossils between two major forms. I listed all of them for the transition between reptiles and mammals.

And you made excuses. Everyone notices.

You do not want to understand because you know the fossil record is completely devoid of such a chain.

Kurt Wise is an honest creationist, and he says, about those many finely graduated chains of fossils:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

But you can't accept this fact, so you must twist what I say to mean something else, and falsely accuse me of calling you "stupid", and so on.

I think at this point, you have shown everyone that you have no intention of accepting those facts, and will do whatever you can to dodge. I'll continue to comment on your posts when you are in error, but it's clear you're so locked into your new doctrines that you are unable to acknowledge anything that brings them into question.

I'm not giving up on you friend, I am just giving you "up" to Him. I am praying for the eyes of your understanding to be opened.

God is truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Let go of the man-made doctrine of YE creationism, and let God be God.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, your alteration of God's word does that. Nowhere does it animals "reproduce after their own kind." You just inserted that to make His word acceptable to you. You have to accept that the Bible says what it means and it means what it says, instead of trying to change it.

(cites plants with fruit)

No animals reproducing according to kind? No new plants according to their kinds? That's what I told you. You wanted to add that, and so you did. But it's your word, not God's

 

[pitabread]

However I can say that if we were to observe just one fact that cannot be logically explained apart from special creation, then everything changes. Again I have mentioned many.

Special creation doesn't explain anything though. You're just treating as a default (e.g. the null hypothesis). The problem is it is *not* the null hypothesis.

The other problem is that it's an unbounded explanation; in order words, it explains anything and everything. Consequently, there is no way to test any ideas based on special creation. You see this obvious issue given the sheer number of different (and conflicting) creationist beliefs in existence.

These systems all have to exist at the exact same time, at the exact perimeters, and the exact locations they exist. Famous physicist Arno Penzias (Nobel prize winner) said:
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe with the exact conditions required to permit life. One with, you might say, a supernatural plan."

This is post-hoc fallacy. And you're ignoring the fact that most of the universe is not hospitable to life. Life that doesn't exist can't argue about its non-existence.

We also don't have a basis for comparison with any other universes because ours is the only one that we know exists.

And then of course the DNA of all life contains a code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. A code that by my interpretations, is the signature of a creator Himself proclaiming, "THERE IS A GOD!"

This is just an argument from awe; e.g. an emotional argument. It is not a conclusion reached via logical deduction or inference.

 

[pitabread]

I think at this point, you have shown everyone that you have no intention of accepting those facts, and will do whatever you can to dodge.

Can confirm. And this not a new pattern either.

 

[tas8831]

If we take the Bible at face value

What sort of educated person would do that?
Except to see it as it actually is - a collection of ancient middle eastern tales.

 

[tas8831]

And then of course the DNA of all life contains a code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. A code that by my interpretations, is the signature of a creator Himself proclaiming, "THERE IS A GOD!"

Wow, OK, bro - Tell us all about your extensive expertise in DNA, won't you?

Why do you turn off comments on your silly Youtube videos - afraid that people will debunk your naive gibberish?

 

[AV1611VET]

Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent.

Actually it does take a modicum of intelligence to support it.

But for the record, ID is a joke.

It makes allowances for such ideas as panspermia.

Creationism is where it's at.

Specifically, Genesis 1 embedded age creationism.

Anything else, as Mrs. Paul would say, throw it back.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow, OK, bro - Tell us all about your extensive expertise in DNA, won't you?

Why do you turn off comments on your silly Youtube videos - afraid that people will debunk your naive gibberish?

I notice he stumbled around a bit, and then abandoned any attempt to tell us how we measure "information", or even how it's defined.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually it does take a modicum of intelligence to support it.

But for the record, ID is a joke.

It makes allowances for such ideas as panspermia.

Creationism is where it's at.

Specifically, Genesis 1 embedded age creationism.

Anything else, as Mrs. Paul would say, throw it back.

which there’s no evidence for . Sorry Charlie !
( boy am I giving away my age with that one)

 

[AV1611VET]

I notice he stumbled around a bit, and then abandoned any attempt to tell us how we measure "information", or even how it's defined.

If I remember correctly, data gives rise to information.

In other words: data + data = information.

 

[AV1611VET]

which there’s no evidence for . Sorry Charlie !
( boy am I giving away my age with that one)

Only the best tasting tuna gets to be StarKist ... right?

 

[The Barbarian]

If I remember correctly, data gives rise to information.

In other words: data + data = information.

No. It's a mathematical concept, and it is a bit more complex than that. (pun intended)

 

[tas8831]

I have however consistently asked for just ONE example of a finely graduated chain of fossils leading between any two major forms..

I guess you are ignoring me like a coward these days, but the issue here is - why do you expect such a thing?

WHY a "finely graduated chain of fossils"? WHAT IS a "finely graduated chain of fossils"?

This is exactly why I have questioned your knowledge of genetics and development in the past, because expecting to find such a thing indicates 1. your ignorance of fossilization, finding fossils, etc. 2. the relationship between genes and development

One of my favorite examples that demolishes this naive creationist developmental genetics idea is seen in the mutation in the FGFR3 gene - a point mutation that produces dwarfism in a single step. No 'fine gradation', no 'intermediate' - in a single 'step' in a single individual, we get alterations in limb proportions and length (which includes ALL of the things in limbs - muscles, bones, nerves, blood vessels, etc. - actually had a creationist insist that there must be a specific mutation for every millimeter of finger length added...).

Point is, we should not actually expect such a thing as a "finely graduated chain of fossils"* given the above realities.



*some anagenetic examples of bivalves and such are an exception)

 

[AV1611VET]

WHY a "finely graduated chain of fossils"? WHAT IS a "finely graduated chain of fossils"?

QV please: My Daisy Chain Challenge

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

 

[BradB]

Barbarian observes:
But if thousands of transitional fossils are shown to you, you just ignore the evidence.



Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, gave you many such. Finely graduated chains of fossils between two major forms. I listed all of them for the transition between reptiles and mammals.

And you made excuses. Everyone notices.



Kurt Wise is an honest creationist, and he says, about those many finely graduated chains of fossils:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

But you can't accept this fact, so you must twist what I say to mean something else, and falsely accuse me of calling you "stupid", and so on.

I think at this point, you have shown everyone that you have no intention of accepting those facts, and will do whatever you can to dodge. I'll continue to comment on your posts when you are in error, but it's clear you're so locked into your new doctrines that you are unable to acknowledge anything that brings them into question.



God is truth. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth. Let go of the man-made doctrine of YE creationism, and let God be God.

No finely graduated chain presented...
No comment.