Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

They understand it quite well. They dedicate their entire lives to studying it. This is just you moving the goal posts because you don't want evolution to be true.

No sir. I honestly believe that its far from being understood fully.

 

[Extraneous]

If your hypothesis is "God did it" please explain in detail how you can do repeatable experiments to show that your hypothesis is true. More importantly what test can I run in attempts to falsify your hypothesis? If your hypothesis is not falsifiable, you have to throw it out because it has no explanatory power and cannot make predictions about the natural world.

You missed my point i think.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No sir. I honestly believe that its far from being understood fully.

You keep saying that, but have given nothing but your opinion. Actually give us evidence that scientists don't understand everything about evolution.

 

[Extraneous]

Basically put: if you have no degree, then you cannot categorically say that evolution is wrong or that scientists have it wrong. It's an opinion only.
Just because scientists don't know something now, doesn't mean they won't know more in the future. And saying that God created everything is a religious opinion, which is not something backed by evidence.

I didnt say it was wrong, i only said that they are looking for a needle in a haystack, and they wont be finding it any time soon. Well, i know you think that evolution theory is conclusive, but i must remain skeptical.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Thats just the way God created bacteria. Its supposed to mutate like that.

Wrong. Mutations are random and natural selection is non random. There was an experiment run to demonstrate this by breeding many many many generations and populations of bacteria and then introducing penicillin into the populations later. The bacteria populations with the resistant mutation were already there before being introduced to the penicillin. They were awarded the Nobel Prize for this. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didnt say it was wrong, i only said that they are looking for a needle in a haystack, and they wont be finding it any time soon. Well, i know you think that evolution theory is conclusive, but i must remain skeptical.

I never said that evolution is conclusive. I do accept that it is the single best theory that science has for how life created the various species of life on Earth, purely because no-one has given any single evidence to show that God or some other deity started this process, only claims.
And again: you keep making the claim that scientists don't know everything. Can you give any evidence to back up your claim?

 

[Extraneous]

You keep saying that, but have given nothing but your opinion. Actually give us evidence that scientists don't understand everything about evolution.

I did but you didn't acknowledge it. They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example. Basically they are wanting me to believe that although they are far from understanding the mysteries of DNA, that they can still tell me what happened millions of years ago, by using that DNA, and watching some bacteria mutate, and by observing some inconclusive fossil evidence. Is there anything more than that? Because if there isnt i must remain skeptical for now.

 

[lasthero]

Lets say that God created this world, just for argument sake. Surely God created everything from the same source, so naturally everything would be related and share DNA.

This is something I've never understood.

Creationists often talk as if everything sharing DNA is something we should expect if life was created by the same being.

Why?

God - at least, the God that most creationists champion - is a being with infinite resources. He can make anything anyway he wants. Couldn't he have just as easily designed life in such a way that animals don't share DNA?

 

[Extraneous]

I never said that evolution is conclusive. I do accept that it is the single best theory that science has for how life created the various species of life on Earth, purely because no-one has given any single evidence to show that God or some other deity started this process, only claims.
And again: you keep making the claim that scientists don't know everything. Can you give any evidence to back up your claim?

I just did

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did but you didn't acknowledge it. They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example. Basically they are wanting me to believe that although they are far from understanding the mysteries of DNA, that they can still tell me what happened millions of years ago, by using that DNA, and watching some bacteria mutate, and by observing some inconclusive fossil evidence. Is there anything more than that? Because if there isnt i must remain skeptical for now.

You saying "they don't know" isn't evidence. That's just your claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just did

No you didn't.

 

[Extraneous]

Well, i dont like talking to three people at once, its too much for one person. However i thank you for answering my questions. Im going to go now.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example.

Except that they DO understand DNA. They've sequenced entire genomes!

It's you that doesn't understand it and it sounds like you don't want to understand it because you're afraid of the conclusions.

Is there anything more than that? Because if there isnt i must remain skeptical for now.

You haven't demonstrated any desire to learn. You just want to hand wave everything away and make claims that geneticists don't understand what they're looking at, when in actuality they do. Stop trying to move the goal posts. It's a dishonest fallacy.

 

[JacksBratt]

A software engineer is someone who engineers/designs software - any software. It's just a fancy title for "programmer".
A software engineer, furthermore, should not be confused with computer science either.

Off course GA's and neural networks are touched upon during classes. Every programmer who had a college or university education in ICT most likely was exposed to it in one way or the other.

But that doesn't mean that it was done in detail. It's quite a specialised branch, which is not covered in detail in a general ICT education, especially not when the focus is on enterprise-level development.

The life of a software engineer / programmer is a lifetime of study. A lot of college and university tracks will just give you a foundation on which you'll have to build yourself, depending on the job or industry you end up working in.

Typically, when it comes to for example such heavy math based optimisation methods, it won't even be the programmers that will design the required algorithms. They'll just implement it in code. They'll have to roughly understand what is going on in the algorithm. But understanding the algorithm and being able to design it from scratch are two very different things in that world.

I've worked on plenty of projects where none of us actually really understood what all the values/variables/formula's really represented. A functional analyst would write it all out, step by step, and we'ld just implement it like code monkeys. And when you'ld ask a programmer of that team "what are you working on?", he'ld just answer with "use case X". And when asked "what is X about?", the answer would be "i don't have a clue".

Building software can be funny that way.

This is to be expected. If we would have to learn and understand the actual business behind every project we'ld work on, we'ld have to start studying months for every new project. In a consultancy firm, where you work on another project every 5 months, this is simply not possible and a waste of resources.

Not that long ago, we did a project that was all about risk management. Huge amounts of data were fed into mathematical models that would analyse it and spew out results. We created a framework in wich that analysis took place but we didn't design that math model. None of us was strong enough in math to do so. Instead, 2 mathematicians were part of the business team and they were the ones that told us how to implement what. They designed the model. We merely translated it into code.

All software designers are creators. They live and exist in a world outside the rules of computer language. They create within the world of computer language where their creations must follow the rules. They are not subject to such limitations.

This is exactly like our creator. He exists outside the rules of our dimension. He created us based on the rules of our dimension but is not confined by them or limited by them.

Our world is created by intelligent design. Software designers function in a similar type of world.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

People are apes.

 

[Extraneous]

Except that they DO understand DNA. They've sequenced entire genomes!

It's you that doesn't understand it and it sounds like you don't want to understand it because you're afraid of the conclusions.



You haven't demonstrated any desire to learn. You just want to hand wave everything away and make claims that geneticists don't understand what they're looking at, when in actuality they do. Stop trying to move the goal posts. It's a dishonest fallacy.

What about this idea of Junk DNA? I thought that some DNA that was previously thought to be junk, but ended up having a purpose after all. That just shows me that they lack proper understanding of DNA. I gotta go friend. I would have loved to talk about it a little but i cant answer three different people at one time. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution isn't just about similarities, it's about the PATTERN of similiarities. Evolution forms branching lines of descent into a nested hierchy. Cars DON'T.

Similar design equals same designer.

 

[lasthero]

Similar design equals same designer.

Different designs can equal the same designer. There's nothing stopping a designer from using new designs.
Similar designs can equal different designers. There's nothing stopping different designers from coming up with a similar design.

Same design doesn't equal the same designer, and different designs don't mean different designers.

Oh, and can you show any human designs that fall into a nested hierchy? Because you'd be the first creationist I've ever seen do that.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

What about this idea of Junk DNA? I thought that some DNA that was previously thought to be junk, but ended up having a purpose after all.

Moving the goal posts again, I see.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

This is exactly like our creator. He exists outside the rules of our dimension. He created us based on the rules of our dimension but is not confined by them or limited by them.

This is special pleading. What tests can you run that support your claim?

Our world is created by intelligent design.

Not according to the multiple court cases ID has lost. What evidence do you have?