Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[AskTheFamily]

I posted this on RichardDawkin's site but it has not been approved, I got impatient and decided to post it here:


By the Name of God.

I think this century people tend to sell their minds to people and stick to cliches and slogans without every deeply thinking about a matter.

Evolution is not a new thing of this century. In many times before that, there existed Atheists, whom believe the universe didn't have a Creator and Designer. They existed long before Darwin. Of course they didn't believe when they looked at animals that they popped into design out of no where, but that process took place that lead to this. The details of their theory there was none and they also had no idea how complicated life was.

Now the issue is natural selection in itself a possible explanation to the many signs of a Designer and Creator we see?

Take for example the Bird. I really think we should think about this. I'm not going to go into the detail of how the lungs and other things all must correspond to fly, but let's simple talk about the issue of wings and flight.

Micro evolution never provides a huge significant change in one generation. It's suppose to be minor changes that over a very long period of time that leads up to a positive change with help of the mechanism of natural selection.

Now 1/10 wing or anything in development, won't even glide let alone fly. It provides virtually no advantage at all. Thus natural selection doesn't apply here. It would not get fined tuned. This an example we can easily relate to.

However there is countless instances of this in creation. There is countless things that inbetween stages of it are of absolutely no advantage.

An ear for example that doesn't work, there is no advantage at all of having an ear that doesn't work. Either it has to be developped fully to work or it isn't.

This is now an argument that applies in all ages. It his the basis of the theory.

We can apply this thinking to many things that really, we should ask , why have we lucked out so much? Take for example fruits. We see trees without fruits are more numerous. There is really no need of developing fruits through stages, as they are not advantage over the non-fruit trees which are more spread and numerous.

So how do we have fruits? Indeed fruits are sign of a Creator.

And if we ponder over ridable animals. What are the chances we ever get them? Think about it. It's still a very low chance that ridable animals exist in the 1st place out of the many animals that exist. Yet we have them. And what would mankind do without them.

Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.

It's the way you choose to think. Things add up. Now there is aside from this other logical proof of a Creator. But I am simply talking about design of things.

There is also the golden ratio which we should really think about. Why are things not far away from the golden ratio but about there with it. Things would look ugly without the golden ratio. Yet through creation, we see constantly, the golden ratio. Is this not a proof of creator. If things were all to chance, you would expect some super ugly far from golden ratio things also survive and make it. So the beauty in creation is another sign. We don't see abominable creation, we see everything designed on the golden ratio which is a huge sign of a designer.

Now a cell as we know is very complicated like a city. There is no way this could have come through random process. This is not appeal to ignorance we say this, it's knowledge of design. And not only did it have to form, but it had to replicate itself, and be able to survive.

Now if we think about so many things, like, just our tongue and various sounds we make. Our mind and the logic we have.

When did "logic" first develop? All sorts of these questions in which we will recognize there is a Desinger. Logic is not a simple issue. It covers so many things and applies to so many things. However inbetween stage of illogic and logic is useless. If things were illogical and didn't rationalize what they saw, it would be useless. There is ofcourse stages of conciousness and use of logic, but logic itself again is something that is either there or not.

If we think about the matter deeply, when we think marcoevolution, natural selection doesn't really prove anything. This specially when we consider that mutations simply change what is already there and don't really add new entire things.

Now if we ponder over the many fruits and vegetables we have, we all have to admit, this didn't have to be all here. How does this not count for design? Some fruits, but this many, when trees without fruits are doing better then trees with fruits? So how does natural selection cover this? It doesn't.

1/10 development of wings can't be advantage so it shows there is a Designer.

Birds prove a Creator. Now microevolution I have no problem with. However, even to say that is random is not fair. Mircoevolution occurs because of a design in nature. This is why it occurs. However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened.

I gave a simple example of a bird because we can all relate to it. There is all sorts of things that the same logic applies, and this includes systems working together, a half system will entirely fail when everything has a use. A useless thing will never be part of it, because natural selection would pick it out. So either everything in a system has to be working together or not. For example, lungs that don't work are of no use. All the other parts that are in need of lungs and work with it, are of no use without it.

So if we really think about nature, it's clearly evident there is a Desinger. Be humble about it and don't call Creationist stupid and what not.

Even if somehow (it's impossible but for sake of argument) that evolution was possible without a designer, there is a lot of things that still can prove a Creator. So where is the haste in concluding there is no proof of a Creator?

Let's keep thinking and not get be put down by people claiming to be more intelligent then the average person. We shouldn't be afraid to think and ponder just because we don't have as much knowledge in science.


------


What do Atheists have to say?

 

[Zoot]

How many tenths of a wing would you say the flying fox has?

 

[AskTheFamily]

How many tenths of a wing would you say the flying fox has?

What I meant by 1/10 wing was some random thing that doesn't resemble a wing at all, but is suppose to be the basis of later becoming a wing.

Because any wing, whether it's just to glide or not, cannot come up randomly by a mutation or just a few. It needs to be tons right, but all that it leads up to there, it's absolutely useless.

Let's not get stuck on terms and just understand what is meant.

Flying Fox has a wing, it's a full wing, and can improve by microevolution over the years.

 

[Cute Tink]

I'm not a biologist, so I'm not really qualified to provide the scientific evidence to dispute your claims.

However, I don't believe that your logical reasoning "because A has not been witnessed, B must be true" is truly sound.

Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer.

The idea that it must be created because it is useful to us is just as valid as it is useful to us so we use it.

It seems like you are putting forth the same concept as Intelligent Design: it seems too complex so it must be creation. Not enough to convince me.

Also, because something can be done by a creator, it is not proof that there was one. Take, for example, I can squash a bug, but that it not proof that a particular bug was squashed by me.

 

[razeontherock]

"However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened."

Proven to be possible? I think Ev has done quite a bit of that; I use the term 'plausibility' for this. To prove it did happen as they describe? No, but that doesn't stop it from being taught as if it were factual. That's the only problem I have with it. I think it should be taught because it's makes you think and teaches you how to learn, but the vast amount we don't know should be taught instead of being covered up, if for no other reason than to stimulate curiosity and more advancement in science.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I'm not a biologist, so I'm not really qualified to provide the scientific evidence to dispute your claims.

LOL, listen, there is data, and analysis. You don't need to be biologist to do the analysis of the data the provide and the theory. There is logic in the theory that is unrelated with scientific data, and this where they are wrong. Therefore, being a biologist or not, is irrelevant to answering this.

However, I don't believe that your logical reasoning "because A has not been witnessed, B must be true" is truly sound.

Wow, when did I use this logic?

The idea that it must be created because it is useful to us is just as valid as it is useful to us so we use it.

When I talked about Iron, I was talking about how things add up. One thing, two things, but when there is so many things pointing to a desinger, at the very least you can humbly say, it seems like there is a Designer.

It seems like you are putting forth the same concept as Intelligent Design: it seems too complex so it must be creation. Not enough to convince me.

Haha, this is not my reasoning. I remember back when that site had forums, I provided a proof of God through a metaphysical proof, and every single person that forum lacked logic to analyze what I said.

Also, because something can be done by a creator, it is not proof that there was one. Take, for example, I can squash a bug, but that it not proof that a particular bug was squashed by me.

you saying this is being mean to imply I used such reasoning or is it that you are informing of this obvious fact because you think I didn;t know it?


Don't worry I got more arguments to prove God coming. Try to read what I write instead of putting in my writting what I didn't say.

 

[AskTheFamily]

"However the line "give it enough time, micro evolution becomes macroevolution" is rhetoric and is not been proved to be possible in any instance that is claimed to have happened."

Proven to be possible? I think Ev has done quite a bit of that; I use the term 'plausibility' for this. To prove it did happen as they describe? No, but that doesn't stop it from being taught as if it were factual. That's the only problem I have with it. I think it should be taught because it's makes you think and teaches you how to learn, but the vast amount we don't know should be taught instead of being covered up, if for no other reason than to stimulate curiosity and more advancement in science.

The theory can be taught, I don't have a problem with them teaching an impossible theory that a child can figure it's impossible by just thinking about a bird, everyone is allowed to say what they like.

I showed why it's not possible, so let alone the fact they have not proved it to be possible.

 

[Zoot]

What I meant by 1/10 wing was some random thing that doesn't resemble a wing at all, but is suppose to be the basis of later becoming a wing.

Because any wing, whether it's just to glide or not, cannot come up randomly by a mutation or just a few. It needs to be tons right, but all that it leads up to there, it's absolutely useless.

Let's not get stuck on terms and just understand what is meant.

Flying Fox has a wing, it's a full wing, and can improve by microevolution over the years.

It's not really a full wing, though, is it? It can't flap, only glide. And it's really just an extra stretchy piece of skin between the front and back legs. Its ancestors were running around in trees, jumping about, and some of the kids were better at jumping than others, because of their slightly different shape.

 

[Cute Tink]

LOL, listen, there is data, and analysis. You don't need to be biologist to do the analysis of the data the provide and the theory. There is logic in the theory that is unrelated with scientific data, and this where they are wrong. Therefore, being a biologist or not, is irrelevant to answering this.

It is not irrelevant. I wouldn't know whether some convoluted biological snippet was valid or not.

Wow, when did I use this logic?

Throughout. Not in those exact words, but I was paraphrasing.

"Then think about many things we use. Like Iron, etc. All this didn't have to be here. Yet we have them and they are of us. All this is sign of a Creator and Designer."

It didn't have to be here, but it is, so that is evidence of a creator. In other words, no proof of A so B must be true.

When I talked about Iron, I was talking about how things add up. One thing, two things, but when there is so many things pointing to a desinger, at the very least you can humbly say, it seems like there is a Designer.

There is only your (and by that I mean you and those of like mind) opinion that there are things pointing to a designer. I happen to disagree.

Don't worry I got more arguments to prove God coming. Try to read what I write instead of putting in my writting what I didn't say.

I did read what you wrote. I think you are making a leap in judging each and every example to be evidence of a creator simply because the one alternative you provide isn't as valid to you.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I read (present tense, not past) that you are confusing what has been distinguished as the difference between mechanical design on the one hand and organic design on the other. Computers and buildings and other such things that could not work period or not work very well lacking one important part are certainly evidence of design, but only because they are contingent by a series of strict relations (no spark plug=no ignition for example)

But cells and evolved things such as the eye and ear and wings and the like are not necessarily on such a strict basis. The example of teh eye has been quite soundly debunked by virtue of the gradation example. An organism with a patch that detects light is eventually able to deepen and contrast degrees of light and then deepen further to focus and eventually we progress by degrees to the eye that humans have or the eye that other animals have.

Evolution in biology is not to be thought of as a ladder or a strict shape of any kind, the very nature of the process of natural selection implies a less than consistent, but still predictable pattern of changes and adaptations over time, like a tree who gets branches cut off or pruned.

 

[Booko]

If God wants to create us using changes to DNA, who am I to tell Him He can't?

 

[AskTheFamily]

It is not irrelevant. I wouldn't know whether some convoluted biological snippet was valid or not.

Ok there is biologist books. You go search any explanation of how 1/1000000000000 of a wing went to 1/100 to 1/10 when all these are useless for a creature. You tell me a book and we will analyze it. The reality is the Scientists don't have an explanation but talk about their lack of explanation as something that will be explained in the future by other scientists. However, over here, it's unrelated with Data, it's a matter of logic. This is why they don't have an explanation, not because of lack of data, but because it's logically impossible.

It didn't have to be here, but it is, so that is evidence of a creator. In other words, no proof of A so B must be true.

I was talking in the context of things adding up. I can go on and on, about bees, about honey, and medicines in creation, etc... but it was in context on how to look at things, and the golden ratio and all this, was about things adding up.

It's up to if you want to reflect like that, or simply, to say to everything, "chance". Really up to you...

I will quote what I concluded:

It's the way you choose to think. Things add up.

I did read what you wrote. I think you are making a leap in judging each and every example to be evidence of a creator simply because the one alternative you provide isn't as valid to you.

Ok if you going to keep attributing me logic I am not using, it's up to you.

I hope you learn to address what a person is actually saying. When a person says:

It's the way you choose to think. Things add up.

Then he is talking about how there is Signs and evidence in this sense, that taken all together, it provides signs of a Designer.

However when I talked about the bird, the bird itself is a proof of a creator in the sense it's a proof in itself. The same is true of the many fruits, because fruits don't provide advantage to trees over others. However, when I emphasized the many trees, and ridable animals, and iron, I was talking about evidence adding up.

Words are meant to convey meaning. You can simply quote words and address them or you can see what the person means and address what he means. I honestly think Richard Dawkins for example doesn't at all at all know how to the latter. He just knows how to quotes word and a babble, he is as described in God's book "they have tongues but do not understand".

 

[AskTheFamily]

If God wants to create us using changes to DNA, who am I to tell Him He can't?

I don't have a problem either. However, evolution is not about God making design changes in creation, and upgrading them, it's about explaining things without a Eternal Creator and Designer. This what is impossible and illogical.

If God created 1/10 wing, the 1/10 wing is not advantageous. So we can conclude he didn't make 1/1000000thing wing to 1/1000thing wing, and so on till if finally became useful to glide or fly.

It doesn't make any logical sense. So we can assume rationally, that God created birds with ability to fly, or if he gave them wings after, it was not a long process, but spontanous, and he spontanously changed them.

So new age 2012 people think that there is concious wave comes every long period and causes things to evolve big time. This is ofcourse not random stuff.

However Darwinism is not possible, it's an impossibility that is not rationally possible let alone proven as some people claim.

 

[Zoot]

Ok there is biologist books. You go search any explanation of how 1/1000000000000 of a wing went to 1/100 to 1/10 when all these are useless for a creature.

I've given an example of a fraction of a wing being useful for a creature.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I've given an example of a fraction of a wing being useful for a creature.

Alright explain how 1/100000 wing would be advantagoues, and this would get upraded closer and closer to a wing that can glide, then that would improve to a wing that can fly.

Go ahead. If you can then do so. You might even win a nobel prize as Scientist have no explanation.

 

[Cute Tink]

Ok there is biologist books. You go search any explanation of how 1/1000000000000 of a wing went to 1/100 to 1/10 when all these are useless for a creature. You tell me a book and we will analyze it. The reality is the Scientists don't have an explanation but talk about their lack of explanation as something that will be explained in the future by other scientists. However, over here, it's unrelated with Data, it's a matter of logic. This is why they don't have an explanation, not because of lack of data, but because it's logically impossible.

I think this is where your context of things adding up is, perhaps, biased by your belief in a creator. You don't see how it could be a useful trait, so it must be useless and therefore impossible. This reminds me much of the Fast Food Society theory - you want proof now or the entire line of possibility is without merit.

However when I talked about the bird, the bird itself is a proof of a creator in the sense it's a proof in itself. The same is true of the many fruits, because fruits don't provide advantage to trees over others. However, when I emphasized the many trees, and ridable animals, and iron, I was talking about evidence adding up.

This is more of the same issue. They are all the same issue, no matter how you are using them in your argument. You don't see how there is an advantage (now, by the way or ever?), so there must be no advantage. Have you considered the possibility that it is not about an advantage of a fir tree over an apple tree, but possibly about the advantage of an apple tree over a previous incarnation?

Words are meant to convey meaning. You can simply quote words and address them or you can see what the person means and address what he means. I honestly think Richard Dawkins for example doesn't at all at all know how to the latter. He just knows how to quotes word and a babble, he is as described in God's book "they have tongues but do not understand".

Perhaps I am simply not expressing my objections to your presentation well. You express that things are logically impossible and leave your logic flawed in your expressed reasoning.

 

[AskTheFamily]

And if you guys know biology proffessors or scientists as friends, you can invite them all to this forum, I gurantee they will not be able to refute this logic. Data is one thing, and how to analyze data is another.

I am waiting for it be posted on Richard Dawkins site, however I have feeling they will not allow it.

 

[Zoot]

Alright explain how 1/100000 wing would be advantagoues, and this would get upraded closer and closer to a wing that can glide, then that would improve to a wing that can fly.

The slightest mutation in the direction of flying foxes gliding would be an advantage, because they'd be a shape just slightly better at jumping around. They'd get more food, escape more predators, and therefore be more likely to have kids with their slightly wider skin flap.

Each further mutation in the same direction would be a greater advantage again, giving the even-wider skin-flap rodents an edge over the others.

Eventually, they are able to jump further distances, and the ones who behave in certain ways with their advantageous skin flaps glide. That behaviour gets passed on and the gliding rodents have the greatest advantage.

As for becoming wings that can flap, that hasn't happened so far. Perhaps slightly more developed muscles would allow some flying fox to extend a glide with a clumsy flap. Over time, the extended-glide flying foxes outcompete the other ones. Then there's a flying fox who flaps a few times, or flaps with differently angled muscles, and can glide even further.

And so on.

At each stage, it's an advantage.

And perhaps you're forgetting that a mutation doesn't have to be advantageous to be passed on and developed further, it just has to not be so disadvantageous as to kill its owner.

Go ahead. If you can then do so. You might even win a nobel prize as Scientist have no explanation.

If you're to capitalise a letter in that sentence, it should be the 'N' in Nobel, not the 's' in scientist.

 

[Cute Tink]

I gurantee they will not be able to refute this logic.

By who's estimation?

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think this is where your context of things adding up is, perhaps, biased by your belief in a creator. You don't see how it could be a useful trait, so it must be useless and therefore impossible. This reminds me much of the Fast Food Society theory - you want proof now or the entire line of possibility is without merit.

Ok tell me how 1/1000000 wing will develop to 1/100 wing by means of natural selection. Go ahead. Tell me the usefulness of totally useless wing.

It's not about appeal to ignorance, it's knowledge here. We know 1/1000000 wing is not going to be advantagaous, and develop to 1/10000 wing over hundreds of thousnads or millions of years, because 1/1000000 wing is totally useless, and 1/10 wing is totally useless.

Please try to understand, perhaps whatever it is that mutated might have some advantage, but it won't be developing towards a wing over years for sure by random mutations and natural selection. This is a logical conclusive sure fact we can all rationally conclude. The problem is not the rational behind this, the issue is, is your heart ready to accept a Creator?