No Missing Links?

[DerelictJunction]

Yeah, hold on here!

All complex and functional machines are the result of a designer except for those for which we cannot identify the designer, which are then the result of random/chance events. An example of this would be the complex and functional machine below which was created by random/chance events of water, wave and sand on the seafloor. And we haven't even addressed the issue of information being added to the complex and functional machine....by random/chance events of course. Quite a theory of random creation you have going!

I know I am going to regret corresponding with you but....

We know humans design things. We can see and document them doing the designing and fabrication.

We see other animals build things that they have designed. We can see their process of design because we can witness them designing.

You say that all life is designed by a designer because it is complex and functional. Show us the designer. Show us the process by which the design and manufacture of the life forms on this Earth was put in place by this designer.
For most of us to accept any description of the life building process, you will have to provide meaningful evidence of that process. Words in a book are not meaningful evidence if they cannot be backed up by other physical evidence.

I truly doubt that you will even try to step up and address my requests, but maybe we will all be surprised.

 

[justlookinla]

What part of "mainstream science" do you not understand?

LOL! I'm asking you, is it this one.....the theory which promotes the idea that humanity is the product of only random/chance mutations or another one?

 

[justlookinla]

I know I am going to regret corresponding with you but....

We know humans design things. We can see and document them doing the designing and fabrication.

We see other animals build things that they have designed. We can see their process of design because we can witness them designing.

You say that all life is designed by a designer because it is complex and functional. Show us the designer. Show us the process by which the design and manufacture of the life forms on this Earth was put in place by this designer.
For most of us to accept any description of the life building process, you will have to provide meaningful evidence of that process. Words in a book are not meaningful evidence if they cannot be backed up by other physical evidence.

I truly doubt that you will even try to step up and address my requests, but maybe we will all be surprised.

This isn't complicated, the issue is simple. Can one give an example of a machine which is complex and functional which isn't designed? The answer of course is no, one cannot. One need not know the designer nor the details of the process whereby the design was constructed, the fact that the machine under examination is complex and functional demands a designer.

To demand the identification of the designer and the process whereby the machine was constructed before one can determine if the complex and functional machine had a designer is asinine.

Add another level of complexity to machines which aren't only functional but are also information-rich and you have yet more evidence for a designer.

 

[RickG]

LOL! I'm asking you, is it this one.....the theory which promotes the idea that humanity is the product of only random/chance mutations or another one?

In light of developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject.

"Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory."

It then goes on to describe in further detail for several paragraphs.

 

[justlookinla]

In light of developments regarding the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in public schools, the Office of Theology and Worship offers the following, the Presbyterian Church U.S. 1969 GA-approved theological statement on the subject.

"Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory."

It then goes on to describe in further detail for several paragraphs.

The PCA then disagrees with the view, such as from the University Of California - Berkley, that only random/chance mutations is the creative force for all life? They reject the view which promotes the idea that humanity is the product of only random/chance mutation?

Would you identify the rejection of creation of all life (not abiogenesis) by only random/chance mutation as "mainstream science".

 

[RickG]

The PCA then disagrees with the view, such as from the University Of California - Berkley, that only random/chance mutations is the creative force for all life? They reject the view which promotes the idea that humanity is the product of only random/chance mutation?

Would you identify the rejection of creation of all life (not abiogenesis) by only random/chance mutation as "mainstream science".

No it does not. Here's the rest of the paragraph immediately following the sentence I posted:

"...Scripture states that "out of the ground" the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and "of the dust of the ground" the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth." After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: "Let us make man." This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation......."​

 

[DerelictJunction]

This isn't complicated, the issue is simple. Can one give an example of a machine which is complex and functional which isn't designed? The answer of course is no, one cannot. One need not know the designer nor the details of the process whereby the design was constructed, the fact that the machine under examination is complex and functional demands a designer.

To demand the identification of the designer and the process whereby the machine was constructed before one can determine if the complex and functional machine had a designer is asinine.

Add another level of complexity to machines which aren't only functional but are also information-rich and you have yet more evidence for a designer.

As I expected, you did not actually respond to my request. In fact, your response doesn't even give me the impression that you have any idea what I asked for.

I did not question the existence of the designer, although I don't actually think there is enough evidence to show it exists. However, for this conversation, I conceded that the designer is real.

I asked you to describe HOW the designer built the life that exists on Earth.

What process did that designer use?
What is the evidence you have for that process?

Care to take this conversation beyond the parrot stage?

 

[Loudmouth]

The questions in the opening post are still ripe for discussion.

Creationists claim that they are using the same evidence that evolutionists are using. However, it is starting to appear that this isn't the case. Evolutionists use the morphology of fossils to determine if they are transitional or not. Do creationists use the morphology of fossils to make the same determination?

So far, we have had mixed responses from creationists. At times, they claim that a fossil can't be transitional because it is not similar enough to another group of species. Other times, we are told that just being similar is not an indication of being transitional. So which is it?

Do creationists reject the fossil record out of hand, contrary to their claims that they use the same evidence as evolutionists?

 

[justlookinla]

No it does not. Here's the rest of the paragraph immediately following the sentence I posted:

"...Scripture states that "out of the ground" the Lord God formed every beast, Genesis 2:19, and "of the dust of the ground" the Lord God formed man, Genesis 2:7. Genesis 1 teaches that according to the Word of God there came into being Light, Firmament (called Heaven), the Earth and the Seas. Then, God said: "Let the waters bring forth" and "Let the earth bring forth." After the creation of Light, the Firmament and the Earth, after the Earth and the Waters brought forth plant, aquatic and animal life, then God said: "Let us make man." This man, Adam, meaning both a man and man, is by nature both individual and corporate. The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation......."​

How do you reconcile "the Lord God formed" with the evolutionary view, espoused by the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only of random/chance mutation? "The Lord God formed" isn't a statement of random/chance creation.

 

[RickG]

How do you reconcile "the Lord God formed" with the evolutionary view, espoused by the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only of random/chance mutation? "The Lord God formed" isn't a statement of random/chance creation.

I gather you didn't read the entire statement that I posed. Here's the part you must have missed.

"The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation."

Get the idea yet? We view it as a story about the creation, not a literal scientific account.

 

[justlookinla]

As I expected, you did not actually respond to my request. In fact, your response doesn't even give me the impression that you have any idea what I asked for.

I did not question the existence of the designer, although I don't actually think there is enough evidence to show it exists. However, for this conversation, I conceded that the designer is real.

I asked you to describe HOW the designer built the life that exists on Earth.

What process did that designer use?
What is the evidence you have for that process?

Care to take this conversation beyond the parrot stage?

Actually, I did respond to your request, specifically addressing your "Show us the designer. Show us the process by which the design and manufacture of the life forms on this Earth was put in place by this designer" request. You, on the other hand, are evading addressing the issue of complex and functional machines being the result of something other than a designer. One need not know nor understand HOW the machine was made, but if the complex and functional machine is produced by something other than a designer/creator, the burden of proof is upon you to give examples of complex and functional machines which were produced by something other than a designer/creator.

Stop evading the issue. Give an example of a complex and functional machine which was designed and constructed by something other than a designer/builder.

 

[justlookinla]

I gather you didn't read the entire statement that I posed. Here's the part you must have missed.

"The name Adam is simply a generic term for man brought forth from the Earth. Genesis 1 describes Creation as taking place in six days; however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation."

Get the idea yet? We view it as a story about the creation, not a literal scientific account.

Great, you don't view it as a literal scientific account, but you're still not answering the question. And I did read the entire statement, which included "the Lord God formed" concerning creation. Now, I ask again, how do you reconcile "the Lord God formed" with the evolutionary view, espoused by the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only of random/chance mutation? "The Lord God formed" isn't a statement of random/chance creation.

 

[RickG]

Great, you don't view it as a literal scientific account, but you're still not answering the question. And I did read the entire statement, which included "the Lord God formed" concerning creation. Now, I ask again, how do you reconcile "the Lord God formed" with the evolutionary view, espoused by the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only of random/chance mutation? "The Lord God formed" isn't a statement of random/chance creation.

It is not a literal account. I don't have to reconcile anything.

 

[justlookinla]

It is not a literal account. I don't have to reconcile anything.

I'm not asking you if the Genesis story is a literal account. The statement you posted from the PCA used, more than once, the phrase "the Lord God formed". This indicates that God created and formed, suggesting a plan and purpose, not some random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless actions by this creative God.

This doesn't reconcile with the evolutionary view of the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only random/chance mutation, which is inherently mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, does it?

Which view do you embrace and why?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Actually, I did respond to your request, specifically addressing your "Show us the designer. Show us the process by which the design and manufacture of the life forms on this Earth was put in place by this designer" request. You, on the other hand, are evading addressing the issue of complex and functional machines being the result of something other than a designer. One need not know nor understand HOW the machine was made, but if the complex and functional machine is produced by something other than a designer/creator, the burden of proof is upon you to give examples of complex and functional machines which were produced by something other than a designer/creator.

Stop evading the issue. Give an example of a complex and functional machine which was designed and constructed by something other than a designer/builder.

I am not evading the issue.
You answered my request to "show us the designer" with your request for us to show you a "complex functional machine" without a designer. How is that showing us the designer?

Also, you never even addressed my request for you to show us the process that the designer used to produce the diversity of life we see on the Earth today. So you are actually evading.

This direction of discussion is derailing the thread. So, I am not responding to any of your claims of complexity implies design.

You can stay on topic by answering the following questions.

Are there transitional fossils between ape ancestors and humans?
Scientists claim that certain fossils with characteristics of both ape ancestors and humans have been found and identified. What characteristics of these claimed transitional fossils eliminate them from being transitional fossils?

 

[RickG]

I'm not asking you if the Genesis story is a literal account. The statement you posted from the PCA used, more than once, the phrase "the Lord God formed".

Yes, and immediately preceding that they say "scripture states", and proceed to list several scriptural statements in parentheses. At the conclusion of those statements they then proceed to explain that they are not literal nor scientific, rather generic terms.

This indicates that God created and formed, suggesting a plan and purpose, not some random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless actions by this creative God.

How can I put it any simpler? PCA: "Scripture states". PCA: "but the context is not literal and does not exclude evolution.

This doesn't reconcile with the evolutionary view of the University of California - Berkley, that all life is the result of only random/chance mutation, which is inherently mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, does it?

Just like the PCA statement, you make up your own spin on it misrepresenting what is actually stated. It reconciles the Berkley definition of evolution quite well, which is completely different from what you say the Berkley description of evolution states, which is:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
​

Frankly, I and most people who accept the scientific theory of evolution don't really care whether you or anyone accepts the scientific theory of evolution or not. What we do care about is the continued misrepresentation of the physical sciences.

Is it really necessary to "deliberately" misrepresent and demean the physical sciences in the name of Christianity? Is this the behavior Jesus taught us?

 

[justlookinla]

I am not evading the issue.
You answered my request to "show us the designer" with your request for us to show you a "complex functional machine" without a designer. How is that showing us the designer?

That is showing that every complex and functional machine has a designer, without exception. Unless of course you can provide an example of a complex and functional machine which does not have a designer or creator.

Also, you never even addressed my request for you to show us the process that the designer used to produce the diversity of life we see on the Earth today. So you are actually evading.

I can't give you the process, it's far beyond my ability to produce the complex, functional and information-rich machine as the human body. The fact remains that any machine that is complex and functional always has a designer though.

This direction of discussion is derailing the thread. So, I am not responding to any of your claims of complexity implies design.

Not just complexity, complexity and functionality....also throw in information-rich here and there. Always a designer behind those kind of creations. Always.

You can stay on topic by answering the following questions.

Are there transitional fossils between ape ancestors and humans?

No, not in the sense of apes 'turning into' humans. That's just someone's guess, someone's supposition. They do share common design characteristics though. Sorta like a tricycle and the space shuttle sharing common characteristics, but they're completely different creations.

Scientists claim that certain fossils with characteristics of both ape ancestors and humans have been found and identified. What characteristics of these claimed transitional fossils eliminate them from being transitional fossils?

The claim that the characteristics of the alleged transitional fossils establish them as transitional fossils is bogus. The characteristics of the claimed transitional fossils are nothing more than common building blocks of similar design.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, and immediately preceding that they say "scripture states", and proceed to list several scriptural statements in parentheses. At the conclusion of those statements they then proceed to explain that they are not literal nor scientific, rather generic terms.

Are you actually saying that the PCA denies the view that God is creator of mankind? I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here.

How can I put it any simpler? PCA: "Scripture states". PCA: "but the context is not literal and does not exclude evolution.

How can I put it any simpler? Will you reconcile the view that God is creator, with humanity being one of His creations, with the contrary view that humanity is the result of only random/chance mutations?

Just like the PCA statement, you make up your own spin on it misrepresenting what is actually stated. It reconciles the Berkley definition of evolution quite well, which is completely different from what you say the Berkley description of evolution states, which is:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.​

​

The Berkley definition is much much more than that. What is the impetus for the creation of humanity, according to UC - Berkley? Why didn't you post their view of how we were created? It's not according to a God with a purpose, a plan.

Mutations
Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.


​

Mutations

Frankly, I and most people who accept the scientific theory of evolution don't really care whether you or anyone accepts the scientific theory of evolution or not. What we do care about is the continued misrepresentation of the physical sciences.

How is exposing a certain view of evolution as all life being the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago be misrepresenting the view?

Is it really necessary to "deliberately" misrepresent and demean the physical sciences in the name of Christianity? Is this the behavior Jesus taught us?

Simply because there is disagreement with the atheistic Darwinist creationist worldview that humanity is simply the product of only a series of random/chance mutations doesn't mean the disagrement isn't demeaning physical sciences.

 

[DerelictJunction]

That is showing that every complex and functional machine has a designer, without exception. Unless of course you can provide an example of a complex and functional machine which does not have a designer or creator.

I can't give you the process, it's far beyond my ability to produce the complex, functional and information-rich machine as the human body. The fact remains that any machine that is complex and functional always has a designer though.

Not just complexity, complexity and functionality....also throw in information-rich here and there. Always a designer behind those kind of creations. Always.

As I said, I won't respond to this line of discussion here. Start a new thread if you wish to be made more aware of your inability to support your contention that complexity indicates design.

No, not in the sense of apes 'turning into' humans. That's just someone's guess, someone's supposition. They do share common design characteristics though. Sorta like a tricycle and the space shuttle sharing common characteristics, but they're completely different creations.

The claim that the characteristics of the alleged transitional fossils establish them as transitional fossils is bogus. The characteristics of the claimed transitional fossils are nothing more than common building blocks of similar design.

I see.
At what point do common building blocks of similar design indicated relatedness.
Are you claiming that paternity tests are no longer valid? Are you related to your father or are you "completely different creations"?

What about relatedness based on physical structure? Is a robin related to a crow or are they "completely different creations"?

Are all the animals and plants of the world unrelated and "completely different creations"?

What does the term "completely different creation" mean scientifically?

If DNA and physical morphology are not valid indicators of relatedness, what method should be used to determine if 2 organisms are related or "completely different creations"?

 

[justlookinla]

As I said, I won't respond to this line of discussion here. Start a new thread if you wish to be made more aware of your inability to support your contention that complexity indicates design.

It sure would have been interesting for you to give an example of a complex and functional machine which doesn't have a designer/creator though.

I see.
At what point do common building blocks of similar design indicated relatedness.

Depends on what you mean by "relatedness". Everything is related in the sense that God used matter to construct all we observe today.

Are you claiming that paternity tests are no longer valid? Are you related to your father or are you "completely different creations"?

No, I'm not claiming that paternity test are no longer valid. My father and I are two completely different human creations, yet we're related. We're both human, the same creation, but we're not the same person.

What about relatedness based on physical structure? Is a robin related to a crow or are they "completely different creations"?

That's not relatedness.

Are all the animals and plants of the world unrelated and "completely different creations"?

No, they're related but completely different creations.

What does the term "completely different creation" mean scientifically?

I'm not a scientist.

If DNA and physical morphology are not valid indicators of relatedness, what method should be used to determine if 2 organisms are related or "completely different creations"?

The common building blocks in various organisms indicate their relatedness, while complexity and function indicate their status as "completely different creations".