Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Poster0]

Evolution theory, the foundation of scientific fallacy, not biology.

So its the religion of Evolution theory which has sold us the fallacy that the appendix is a useless organ, and that most of our DNA is only junk left over from the evolutionary process. Pure science however (good science, the true foundation of biology) has corrected this evolutionist fallacy. Why should i believe more fallacy from evolutionist theory? Why should i believe that i evolved from an ape like beast and i now have a useless appendix along with a lot of Junk, leftover DNA? Please, dont try to sell me a fairy tale. Give me the true foundation of biology, not evolution theory which only proves that is is the foundation of scientific fallacy.

 

[Poster0]

Who cares what Ken Ham says? His ideas have long been discredited.

Evolution theory fallacy concerning junk DNA and useless appendix organs is what has been discredited.

 

[paulm50]

He said natural selection isn't intelligent therefore Gods creation isn't intelligent. I was only saying that we cannot possibly see the whole picture and also cannot possibly claim to know if the design is intelligent or not. I have heard people look at the design of cars nowadays and talk about how flawed the design is, how unintelligent it is. They point out how there is not enough room to replace components and how the positioning of certain components could have been better, However there are reasons for those things but they don't see it. The engineer however knows exactly why he designed and built it that way That example wouldn't even begin to compare to us humans trying to judge creation in all its mystery and complexity. I guess the moon counterweight thing was something i once read about the effects of the moons gravitational pull. Never mind.

Natural selection is one of nature defining what lives, breeds and changes via breeding.

This we can see, so we know about it. To link it to car design, shows a lack of knowledge.

I think that the theory of evolution is really nothing more than a religion. Its a religion for people who refuse to accept the possibility of a creator. They, for some reason, cannot accept the possibility that this universe was created, even though it is completely logical to accept this possibility. So they end up trying to explain how things were created without an intelligent creator. Its really not based on pure science but is polluted with idealism. It really doesn't take a scientist to see this. Once explained anyone can understand science, but so far science has not given any credible explanation for evolution, and it really does seem to more of a religion for atheism, rather than a scientific fact.. Pure science can be followed by creationists, and science is still a vast mystery.

The fact of evolution isn't a religion, it's a science. It's been proven to still be happening.

You'e wrong about it not accepting a creator. It's still open to the possibility of a creator starting the process on Earth with single cell beings. Or the big bang being kicked off by a being. It's only disproven religious stories.

The scientists aren't trying to prove a creator or not, they have just disproved your idea of one. So far religion has not given any credible evidence for creation. That hasn't been proven wrong.

 

[Poster0]

Natural selection is one of nature defining what lives, breeds and changes via breeding.

This we can see, so we know about it. To link it to car design, shows a lack of knowledge.
The fact of evolution isn't a religion, it's a science. It's been proven to still be happening.

You'e wrong about it not accepting a creator. It's still open to the possibility of a creator starting the process on Earth with single cell beings. Or the big bang being kicked off by a being. It's only disproven religious stories.

The scientists aren't trying to prove a creator or not, they have just disproved your idea of one. So far religion has not given any credible evidence for creation. That hasn't been proven wrong.

Not true. There is good science and bad science. Bad science has tried to tell us that the appendix was a useless organ, and is only a remnant of evolution from the past. IT was bad science because it didn't build this fallacy on any pure, observable science, but instead used obscure, theoretical, nonsensical, bad science of evolution theory. This apparent lack of pure, discernible science has proven that evolution theory science is incapable of even understanding the purpose of a human organ, let alone prove if God exists or not. Surely i cant trust them to discern the origin of mankind either.


Thats not science, its idealistic fallacy

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you link some evidence for this as I am interested in discovering more.

Google is your friend. For instance, here is one major discovery, here's another one. In cases like these, they use spectroscopy to detect it remotely. In the case of the moon and Mars, water has also been detected in a variety of other ways.

Why.

Chemistry. Life needs liquid water, the elemental macronutrients (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), a benign chemical environment (i.e. one that allows organic chemistry - e.g. no excess of powerful oxidants & reductants, protection from ionizing radiation, etc.), and long term environmental stability.

No thy have hypothesized that there is water in these places they havnt proven this. It could be another liquid of some sort and not water as we know it. They would have to go there and test it to find out which they havnt done. So actually I do understand the science and science states that you dont assume but do tests to verify things.

No. You don't appear to understand this science - spectroscopy is a test that can unambiguously verify water (and there are other, more indirect, techniques).

Lets say there is then the type of water that these places will have will not be the same as water on earth. We can tell this without having to test it because the type of water on earth needs certain conditions. One of those is oxygen. For oxygen you need to have the right atmosphere which is like earths. As far as we know all these places we have thought to have water do not have the same atmosphere as earths.

No. Please don't pretend knowledge you clearly don't have. There's plenty of information about this online - for example, where does water come from? and water in the universe. We can't yet detect the atmospheric composition of most habitable planet candidates, but they're unlikely to be like Earth's is today. When life started on Earth, the atmosphere was very different, with practically no free oxygen, and more methane and ammonia. The evolution of photosynthesis changed that, producing free oxygen that killed off most anaerobic life (the Oxygen Catastrophe), leading to more modern atmospheric conditions - which humans have also been changing.

Remember the point was that earth is special and has many finely tuned conditions to give it what it has. One of those is an atmosphere which will produce the unique water we have which is a prerequisite for life itself.

Earth water is not unique, it's just H2O. Water found on some comets (remember Rosetta?) contains more heavy hydrogen (deuterium) than Earth's, but the water in asteroids is just like Earth's, and much of Earth's water is thought to have come from asteroidal impacts.

Life demands many finely tuned conditions which makes things hard to believe that it all just blew into place by naturalistic processes and then happened to fall into exactly the right place in our part of the universe. Not just with a few right conditions but 100s. Thats why scientists like to use the multiverse as a way of explaining our finely tuned universe.

You're confusing the appearance of cosmological fine tuning with the statistical probability of a planet being habitable; they're two quite different domains. For planets, it's just the 'law of big numbers' - given a large number of planets that vary randomly (within certain constraints), even a low-probability configuration is likely to occur. As it happens, a roughly Earth-like habitable configuration is more common than was expected - we already have a large catalogue of candidates.

But they would rather believe that there are millions of other universes with millions of other conditions and life forms than believe that maybe there is some ID in ours.

No, the multiverse hypothesis has nothing to do with that. Our own observable universe has around 200 billion galaxies with around 200 billion stars in each, and is part of a universe at least 20 times bigger than that. Even if the chances of life getting started on a planet selected at random were trillions to one against, the universe would contain millions or billions of examples; although at those odds the average separation would be so great we'd be unlikely to detect them. But given the number of habitable candidates already discovered, there is some optimism that life may be far more common than previously anticipated.

 

[Poster0]

Evolutionists keep saying that their theory is the foundation of biology but that is totally absurd. The foundation of biology is what scientists have observed, tested and repeated, and proven. Evolution theory has not been observed, tested, repeated and proven, despite what they assert to the contrary. They didn't test, observe, repeat nor prove that the appendix was a useless organ, or that humans have a bunch of junk DNA. No, and this fallacy was derived from atheism's idealistic notions, but not from science. However they assert that they are the foundation of biology, but this is nothing but atheistic faith and religion. That's the truth, regardless of the denial.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution just makes up stories that they use to be another type of animal that was a different shape and the bat eventually morphed into its present shape. In fact evolution claims the bat use to be some animal without wings just like the bird. But there is no evidence for this. The bat appears in the fossil record millions and millions of years ago just the same as it is today.

Here's an example of a bat precursor. But it won't surprise me if you now say, "But that's not a bat".

 

[Poster0]

Here's an example of a bat precursor. But it won't surprise me if you now say, "But that's not a bat".

Evolutionists have perpetrated so many charades over the years. The missing links, including "Lucy" which has been offered as evidence in this thread, are nothing more than hoaxes that have been disproved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But we now know that the organs and structures once labelled as vestigial have been found to have an important purpose.

That isn't an argument or objection to evolution, rather the opposite. The history of life is a catalogue of organs and appendages being repurposed. Discovering useful functions served by seemingly vestigial parts can help explain why they're still present (e.g. it was a puzzle why the appendix persisted when, seemingly, it only gave us appendicitis, which is maladaptive; we now know it has benefits that outweigh this disadvantage).

 

[Poster0]

That isn't an argument or objection to evolution, rather the opposite. The history of life is a catalogue of organs and appendages being repurposed. Discovering useful functions served by seemingly vestigial parts can help explain why they're still present (e.g. it was a puzzle why the appendix persisted when, seemingly, it only gave us appendicitis, which is maladaptive; we now know it has benefits that outweigh this disadvantage).

Please, that makes no sense. This is fantasy not science. The appendix has the same purpose it always has, It has not evolved. There is no real evidence to support your assertion, there is only this fantasy you have offered as evidence. The truth is that evolution has no real evidence and is a huge charade. We have dug up a multitude of dinosaur fossils that are supposedly 65 million years old, but cant even dig up one credible missing link in human evolution. Surely in 65 million years we would have some fossils of missing links. Surely we would have found many of them just as we have dinosaur fossils. All we have found however are a few fraudulent hoaxes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolutionists have perpetrated so many charades over the years. The missing links, including "Lucy" which has been offered as evidence in this thread, are nothing more than hoaxes that have been disproved.

There have been hoaxes (I used to work for Joe Weiner, who helped expose the Piltdown Man hoax), but the vast majority of hoaxes have been made by amateur fossil hunters or people seeking money or media attention. In the early days, it was possible to fool some of the experts on visual examination, but with the techniques and technology of today it's exceptionally hard to make a convincing hoax, and previous finds are continually being re-examined with the latest techniques to learn more. So the vast majority of fossil finds used for research have been authenticated with modern techniques, although there are vast numbers of fossils awaiting study that have not been more than superficially sorted and stored. In the case of 'Lucy', it's a partial skeleton of a subspecies of Australopithecenes, called Australopithecus afarensis, and over 20 other examples of A. afarensis have been discovered that are consistent with that discovery, so no, it's not a hoax.

 

[Poster0]

There have been hoaxes (I used to work for Joe Weiner, who helped expose the Piltdown Man hoax), but the vast majority of hoaxes have been made by amateur fossil hunters or people seeking money or media attention. In the early days, it was possible to fool some of the experts on visual examination, but with the techniques and technology of today it's exceptionally hard to make a convincing hoax, and previous finds are continually being re-examined with the latest techniques to learn more. So the vast majority of fossil finds used for research have been authenticated with modern techniques, although there are vast numbers of fossils awaiting study that have not been more than superficially sorted and stored. In the case of 'Lucy', it's a partial skeleton of a subspecies of Australopithecenes, called Australopithecus afarensis, and over 20 other examples of A. afarensis have been discovered that are consistent with that discovery, so no, it's not a hoax.

Its a hoax because its said to be a missing link but its just an an extinct species of ape, not a missing link in human evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please, that makes no sense. This is fantasy not science. The appendix has the same purpose it always has, It has not evolved. There is no real evidence to support your assertion, there is only this fantasy you have offered as evidence.

The evidence is out there if you look.

We have dug up a multitude of dinosaur fossils that are supposedly 65 million years old, but cant even dig up one credible missing link in human evolution. Surely in 65 million years we would have some fossils of missing links. Surely we would have found many of them just as we have dinosaur fossils. All we have found however are a few fraudulent hoaxes.

There are thousands of examples of fossils that represent numerous hominin species and subspecies. There are always going to be gaps - fossilisation is rare and occurs in limited locations, but new examples are being discovered all the time - for example, a recently discovered successor to Australopithecenes and precursor to genus Homo.

 

[Poster0]

The evidence is out there if you look.

There are thousands of examples of fossils that represent numerous hominin species and subspecies. There are always going to be gaps - fossilisation is rare and occurs in limited locations, but new examples are being discovered all the time - for example, a recently discovered successor to Australopithecenes and precursor to genus Homo.

Many scientists don't believe Lucy or any other fossil is actually a missing link in human evolution. Evolutionists however will give us the impression that the whole scientific community accepts these fossils as credible evidence of a missing link. This is nothing more than a huge charade.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its a hoax because its said to be a missing link but its just an an extinct species of ape, not a missing link in human evolution.

Oh, I see. Well it's not uncommon that misattributions are made when there is limited evidence, but that doesn't make it a hoax - there is no intent to deceive. There is no certainty in particular attributions of direct ancestry. Like all scientific discoveries of this type, they're provisional, based on similarities and differences of the fossil bones, the age of the strata in which they're found, and contextual evidence such as tools, middens, animal bones, fire sites, etc. In some cases genetic evidence can give a direct estimate of relatedness, but the precise ancestral hierarchy is uncertain, despite media hype.

 

[Poster0]

ITs strange how many of these charades go on and people don't see it. Politics are just one big lie built on corruption and deceit but people just keep swallowing the politics and news, so is evolution science also just a big lie. Look what Hitler did, he told the big lie and convinced a nation to go to world war. Im afraid Hitler only showed our political and scientific leaders how to fool people easier. Tell the lie over and over, and people will believe it. Its been interesting, thanks for the thread and debate. Have a nice day everyone.

 

[bhsmte]

Many scientists don't believe Lucy or any other fossil is actually a missing link in human evolution. Evolutionists however will give us the impression that the whole scientific community accepts these fossils as credible evidence of a missing link. This is nothing more than a huge charade.

Well, you just keep on believing that if you need to.

 

[Poster0]

Well, you just keep on believing that if you need to.

I dont need to, i just do because its true. You can believe these fake fossil missing links, even though they have been debunked so many times, but not me. Peace and have a nice day bhsmte.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many scientists don't believe Lucy or any other fossil is actually a missing link in human evolution.

That's understandable; it's quite possible A. afarensis is not a direct ancestor of homo sapiens, but a branch from a common ancestor, in the same way that contemporary primate species are branches from a common ancestor, all mammals, and all life on Earth has a common ancestor. The precise relationships between closely related species that are long extinct, and for which we have only a limited set of representatives, are necessarily uncertain.

Evolutionists however will give us the impression that the whole scientific community accepts these fossils as credible evidence of a missing link. This is nothing more than a huge charade.

This sounds like a straw man - what, exactly, do you mean by 'missing link'?

 

[stevevw]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10914-013-9248-z

I cant access this paper so its no good to me.
Its funny I found a couple of other sites that talked about bat evolution. They say that Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide. They say that they appeared suddenly in the fossil records completely formed and similar to modern bats. Then they try to make up an excuse as to why there are no transitional fossils around because they are so fragile. Yet we have many fossils of other fragile creatures.

The they begin to paint the story of the evolution of bats and this is where they fill in the gaps to an idea that they already believe and assume happened. So this helps them make up the finer details. They say that bats started to turn up around the time of when flowers were coming onto the picture. So of course they will say this. Why because flowers bring insects and many bats love to eat insects. Yet none of this has been verified.

steve, we are apes.

Thats what evolution states. But this is refuted by many. A lot of the evidence they use is superficial and speculative.
But it does remind of a good song.