• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You have a very simplistic view of a very complicated process.

The only thing that makes a process like evolution complex is the enormous mount of variables and the ever-changing environment.

And that goes for just about any process that is simple in principle and complex in reality.

That is why we design experiments under controlled conditions, so that we can zoom in on the essential bits.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-

There is no pretending here.

Generation 0 is a random cluster of polygons with no "design" whatsoever.

X generations later, through the very very simple process of evolution, we have neat designs of cars optimised for successfully completing the track.

That's literally the evolutionary process producing "designs".

I don't know how you can resist this point.
It's right there, on your screen (if you leave the site open for a while).

If you are intellectually honest about what genetic algoritms are, I have no clue how you can continue to deny this with a straight face...
Simple is an understatement. You are ignoring so many issues that are biologically unrepresented by this model that it is a so obvious the model is not representative of the process. It convinces only those who don't have a great deal of understanding of the evolutionary complexities.



No, it's not a misrepresentation of the evolutionary process.

There is an environment - the track.
There is a fitness test - scoring of a test drive on the track.
There is a selection process based on the fitness test - only the best performing reproduce.
There is a mutation rate - random changes to the individuals during procreation

How is this a misrepresentation of the evolutionary process??

Did you read my post, I gave you reason as to why it was a misrepresentation of biological evolution.



Which doesn't matter at all.
It's a simple example, deliberatly chosen.
I could also cite the example of Boeing who used GA's to optimise their fuel distribution systems - which was ridiculously more complex with a ridiculous amount of variables.
A simple example does not represent the complexity of evolution. That is exactly what I was pointing out.

It does matter and the fact that you don't understand that it matters exemplifies your lack of understanding of the issues that are being addressed.

I did that for clarity.

It doesn't matter.

The mechanics and principles are the exact same.
It does matter and the example of Boeing is a perfect example, the complexity it of human origin. It is a design which can be programmed with all the necessary elements exactly as needed even if it is complex it is not based on supposedly mindless, unguided, undirected, unplanned principles to begin with.



....you are talking about a lifeform that has a history of 3.8 billion years of evolution.
Again, try some intellectual honesty.

And again: completely irrelevant.

The point made is that the evolutionary process is more then capable of producing neat and efficient designs without any "intelligent" intervention required.
You haven't provided, in fact no one ever has a simpler or less complex life form from which all this is suppose to evolve from. Perhaps it is you who should look into the mirror to see the intellectual honesty lacking in your own reflection. This is not completely irrelevant because the only evidence we have for any life form is of complex and extreme amounts of information. You can't just manufacture some less complex and simple form that is not in evidence to scaffold your position.



So, do you complain about every single controlled experiment that it is "controlled"?
Because if that's the case, ALL OF SCIENCE goes out the window.
This is a rather ridiculous statement. All science experiments ARE controlled. The point is that intelligence was needed to produce the programs. No computer would produce evolutionary processes even in this terribly simplistic program without the aid of intelligence and that intelligence providing the necessary information and pre-set boundries; if you could provide a program where anything was possible you might have a true representation of evolution.



Mutation in the GA algoritm of the site can happen anywhere in the "chromosome". Perhaps you should first inform yourself before spouting obvious nonsense.

I don't know what you are saying here, chromosomes carry the genes determining heredity.

It's funny, because this is dead wrong.
Plenty of things in these cars are dependend on multiple things in the chromosome.

For example, the wheels...

Several variables are involved here:
- the angle of the attachment
- the force of the attachment
- the place of the attachment
- the force of the attachment of the polygon holding the wheel to other polygons
- the size of the wheels, which as impact on the force it exerts on the attachment

These 5 things need to be in balance or else the wheel comes off during driving.
I believe your hero Behe calls this "irreducible complexity". Remove/change one of them and the car no longer drives.
Again, this is so simplistic as to not even being coherent in regard to the systems that Behe is referring to.

Yet, the first generation doesn't drive at all.
But generation 100 drives very very successfully.
How exciting and totally irrelevant to the actual process of evolution and the intricate complexity of even the most simple example of organism. The generations are artificial.



NO, it is really really not.

As said, it starts with a random cluster of polygons.

There is NOTHING in the code that "pre-sets" ANYTHING.
Oh well then of course you must be right, I didn't realize that the computer acting completely in isolation produces this program and it is not pre-set by human intervention. I concede then that intelligence didn't have a thing to do with it. :)


However, it is true that successfully driving things are inevitable.
Not because it has been "pre-set", but rather because that is what evolution does: it optimises systems to pass their fitness test until a local optimum is reached.
Even if you were including all the elements needed (which is not the case) you would still not be showing the actual outcome of evolutionary processes because this is all intelligently designed. The material/information is instilled into the system.

You are talking to a person who implemented genetic algoritms in a professional setting.
To simulate evolutionary processes?
If it was known before hand what it would result in..... guess what.... nobody would pay me to write the algoritm!!!!
Did you write the program to simulate evolutionary processes?


Then how come the boxcar2d is doing exactly that, along with every other implementation of GA's?????
It isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In detail? No. Is that relevant? No.

Justlooking asked a question, I provided a link for starting point of some research (which I thought was actually doing something nice). He was the one coming to the forum asking a question that he could do research about.
Fair enough.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you going with the denial that molecular machines and systems do not look deliberately designed?

I said nothing about 'molecular machines' - please don't try and shove words into my mouth. If something 'looks like' something, it doesn't mean it is something.


The same evidence that the pyramids have for being deliberately designed. They appear to be deliberately designed for a purpose. The same evidence that a watch has for its deliberate design. We recognize deliberate design and those features we see in human design are seen in living organisms. If you believe that those deliberate designs observed are inaccurate, you need to provide evidence that shows how that appearance is produced other than by intelligent design as recognized by human design.

Poor examples. The difference being is that we are able to work out the pyramids and watches are intellingently designed because we have other evidence than just saying 'it looks like it's designed.' We can examine historical records about the building of the pyramids from a variety of sources. We can use these, in conjuctions with examinations of the pyramids and knowledge from other sources about technology and building techniques at the time, to work out the methods behind their construction. With watches we know exactly how they are built because we build them right now. You can examine the watch to find the marks of manufacture and we know the exact manufacturing techniques behind watches and you can take the watch to an experienced watch maker and they can explain exactly how each part was made and even make an exact copy using their tools.

Great! Now this is where you come in and show how the most simple cell in the most simple life on earth which encompasses many molecular machines and systems which function similarly to human machines and are human like in design was produced by evolution. I look forward to seeing it.

If you do a search for evolution of the cell, I'm sure you'll find plenty of information (I would post a link but you and justlooking don't seem to like being offered information). I'm not a trained biologist so you'd need to ask someone else about the exact detail. From the reading I have done there are some ideas currently being researched about the evolution of cells, but this needs to be continued. Since it's unlikely we'll get any fossil evidence from this period, it's difficult but the research will continue I'm sure, but just because science doesn't know something at the moment, doesn't mean it won't ever know it.

Do you deny that there is an appearance of deliberate design in all living things?

Personally, I'm not sure yet - but remember that a cloud that looks like a duck isn't a duck.

Really? Isn't objective evidence that which can be demonstrated to others? I think having all biologists admitting to observing deliberate design with a purpose in all living things makes that accusation false.

Which accusation? That something being complex and mind-boggling doesn't mean design?

In this case what would you think empirical evidence would entail?

Evidence that conclusively showed that intelligent design was necessary for life and the mechanisms behind it.

At the end of the day it intelligent design is a theory of ignorance. When confronted with a problem, scientists try to figure it out. Sometimes that takes a long time, sometimes mistakes are made. What intelligent design does, however, is look at a problem like the origin of life and rather than trying to solve the problem, shoves supernatural stuff in there. Science is about living on the boundary of ignorance and trying to push forward and learn more. When confronted with the boundary of what is known and unknown, IDers just say that the unknown stuff is due to the supernatural.

Don't worry - you certainly aren't the first. Isaac Newton, for all his brilliance in his discoveries, when he tried to figure out the elliptical orbits of the planets and how they remained stable, he wasn't able to. Rather than continuing his work or concluding that another scientist may figure it out, he said that God must do it.. Nowadays we have improved our theories of gravity and can explain the orbits of the planets much better than he can without needing to invoke God. Newton was a dedicated Christian and through all his other science writing he didn't mention God once because it wasn't necessary. When he then reached the boundary of ignorance and found a problem even he couldn't solve, he said it must be God. That's exactly what intelligent design does. At the moment scientists don't know exactly how life stared, they don't know exactly how the cell evolved - but they're working on it and trying to figure out the problem. To automatically shove the supernatural into the gaps of our knowledge whilst there is research being done on those gaps seems to me a rather rash thing to do and falls into the same trap as Newton and others over the centuries who invoked the supernatural for phenomena now scientifically explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gipsy
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The only thing that makes a process like evolution complex is the enormous mount of variables and the ever-changing environment.
Right, along with those things I pointed out.
And that goes for just about any process that is simple in principle and complex in reality.
You make entirely too simple to cover the elements that are involved.

That is why we design experiments under controlled conditions, so that we can zoom in on the essential bits.
You can't provide a program that eliminates the need for intelligent intervention first of all, you can't program how mutations would affect organisms which would result in harmful results. Seriously, the artificially produced generations alone make this project of simulation uncharacteristic of biological evolution.

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend that.
I'm sorry that you view this process in such simplistic and unrealistic way.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I said nothing about 'molecular machines' - please don't try and shove words into my mouth. If something 'looks like' something, it doesn't mean it is something.
I asked you a question, and I am shoving words in your mouth?????

Poor examples. The difference being is that we are able to work out the pyramids and watches are intellingently designed because we have other evidence than just saying 'it looks like it's designed.' We can examine historical records about the building of the pyramids from a variety of sources. We can use these, in conjuctions with examinations of the pyramids and knowledge from other sources about technology and building techniques at the time, to work out the methods behind their construction. With watches we know exactly how they are built because we build them right now. You can examine the watch to find the marks of manufacture and we know the exact manufacturing techniques behind watches and you can take the watch to an experienced watch maker and they can explain exactly how each part was made and even make an exact copy using their tools.
Ah, poor examples...not so much. IF we didn't have any record of the pyramids and they were just there without any form of verification we would still know they were humanly designed and the same is true of the watch. However, we don't just look at the watches outside and think it looks designed but how that watch is structured and the necessary elements that allow it to function would be recognized as design even if we found one on Mars.

If you do a search for evolution of the cell, I'm sure you'll find plenty of information (I would post a link but you and justlooking don't seem to like being offered information). I'm not a trained biologist so you'd need to ask someone else about the exact detail. From the reading I have done there are some ideas currently being researched about the evolution of cells, but this needs to be continued. Since it's unlikely we'll get any fossil evidence from this period, it's difficult but the research will continue I'm sure, but just because science doesn't know something at the moment, doesn't mean it won't ever know it.
I am not asking for information I lack. I was not involved in any research, but I have researched it extensively. Saying that science science will find an answer is rather begging the question.



Personally, I'm not sure yet - but remember that a cloud that looks like a duck isn't a duck.
Remember that this is not the same thing as we are discussing. You might like to push it off to that but it is not the same and no biologist thinks that way either.



Which accusation? That something being complex and mind-boggling doesn't mean design?
You were referring to objective empirical evidence, I believe.



Evidence that conclusively showed that intelligent design was necessary for life and the mechanisms behind it.

At the end of the day it intelligent design is a theory of ignorance. When confronted with a problem, scientists try to figure it out. Sometimes that takes a long time, sometimes mistakes are made. What intelligent design does, however, is look at a problem like the origin of life and rather than trying to solve the problem, shoves supernatural stuff in there. Science is about living on the boundary of ignorance and trying to push forward and learn more. When confronted with the boundary of what is known and unknown, IDers just say that the unknown stuff is due to the supernatural.
That is the straw man version of ID. It isn't a true representation of the science behind ID. It is also not a position from ignorance but exactly the opposite. It is with the new technologies that we have that we can actually observe the objective evidence of human like design in living forms.

Don't worry - you certainly aren't the first. Isaac Newton, for all his brilliance in his discoveries, when he tried to figure out the elliptical orbits of the planets and how they remained stable, he wasn't able to. Rather than continuing his work or concluding that another scientist may figure it out, he said that God must do it.. Nowadays we have improved our theories of gravity and can explain the orbits of the planets much better than he can without needing to invoke God. Newton was a dedicated Christian and through all his other science writing he didn't mention God once because it wasn't necessary. When he then reached the boundary of ignorance and found a problem even he couldn't solve, he said it must be God. That's exactly what intelligent design does. At the moment scientists don't know exactly how life stared, they don't know exactly how the cell evolved - but they're working on it and trying to figure out the problem. To automatically shove the supernatural into the gaps of our knowledge whilst there is research being done on those gaps seems to me a rather rash thing to do and falls into the same trap as Newton and others over the centuries who invoked the supernatural for phenomena now scientifically explained.
I am not worried in the least. I think that we are seeing a broadening affect of ID into the scientific mainstream. Time will tell.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, you don't get to redifine the question being asked in response to clear claims.

It wasn't about scientists who also happen to believe in god.

Oh I certainly do get to redefine it - since it was addressed to me - and I do not believe in a young earth. You have me confused with someone like yourself that ignores science. So where does that leave you? What are all your arguments against a young earth going to do you, since a belief in a young earth is not even supported by the Bible? How does that help you even the tiniest bit here, except that you thought you knew what I believed, without knowing anything at all?


This is something that fundie theists really need to get into their head......

Science is not about "belief" and it certainly isn't about "pick your hypothesis and stick to it".
None of us are "required" to "pick a hypothesis" that we then "need to believe".

Sort of like you "need to believe" in evolution? Oh it most certainly is about belief and faith. Your belief and faith that Darwin's Finches are separate species and underwent speciation despite the scientific fact that they have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands. Your "faith" is greater than mine since you believe despite the science, and I believe because of it.




Great.
To this, I say, "nice list of ideas".

And I'll await the outcome of the research.
And even when they all agree on one, it will still JUST be a tentative acceptance of that single idea.

Await the outcome of Christian reasearch? Maxwell already formulated the entire electromagnetic laws with Gauss and Weber and Faraday.

Georges Lemaitre already formulated your Big Bang cosmology. But I expect in your desire to believe in no God you conveniently forgot who started all of modern cosmology and gave credit to someone else instead?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Simple is an understatement. You are ignoring so many issues that are biologically unrepresented by this model that it is a so obvious the model is not representative of the process. It convinces only those who don't have a great deal of understanding of the evolutionary complexities.

There is nothing ignored.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

All these principles are present.

It makes no difference if the chromosome is 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.
It makes no difference if it is a single track or a thousand tracks.

The same principles apply.

Did you read my post, I gave you reason as to why it was a misrepresentation of biological evolution.

And I eplained why that "reason" was wrong.

A simple example does not represent the complexity of evolution. That is exactly what I was pointing out.

By that logic, every controlled experiment goes out the window in terms of usefullness.

This is nothing but anti-science rethoric.

It does matter and the example of Boeing is a perfect example, the complexity it of human origin. It is a design which can be programmed with all the necessary elements exactly as needed even if it is complex it is not based on supposedly mindless, unguided, undirected, unplanned principles to begin with.

:doh:

If that were true, there would be no need to employ a massive team of programmers to implement the GA.

You haven't provided, in fact no one ever has a simpler or less complex life form from which all this is suppose to evolve from. Perhaps it is you who should look into the mirror to see the intellectual honesty lacking in your own reflection. This is not completely irrelevant because the only evidence we have for any life form is of complex and extreme amounts of information. You can't just manufacture some less complex and simple form that is not in evidence to scaffold your position.

The point you made is that evolution can't produce designs.

Your point is refuted. You continue to dance around the issue.

The GA of carbox2d starts with shapes like this:

upload_2015-8-3_0-50-17.png


And after X amount of generations, you get shapes like this for the speed track:

upload_2015-8-3_0-51-19.png


And shapes like this for the track that has plenty of "rubble" on it:

upload_2015-8-3_0-52-4.png


And shapes like this for the track that has plenty of "gaps" where the cars can get stuck in:

upload_2015-8-3_0-52-50.png


Each of these three seem designed specifically for the track they exist on.
Yet, they all started out like random shapes, like the first one I posted.

Indeed, this is a direct refutation of the idea that the evolutionary process (mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat) can not produce design.

This is a rather ridiculous statement. All science experiments ARE controlled. The point is that intelligence was needed to produce the programs.

And intelligence was need to create the freezer. But that doesn't mean that the ice on the arctic isn't the result of natural processes.


No computer would produce evolutionary processes even in this terribly simplistic program without the aid of intelligence and that intelligence providing the necessary information and pre-set boundries; if you could provide a program where anything was possible you might have a true representation of evolution.

Not a SINGLE line of code has direct control of the designs being produced. NOT A SINGLE ONE.


NO intelligence WHATSOEVER is involved in producing these designs.

It's just a blind algoritm: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The only things that are programmed are:
- the selection pressures (a good algoritm will make these dynamic variables that can be changed while running)
- the fitness test which will test the individuals of a generation against the selection pressures
- a rather random "merge" algorithm to produce a new generation from breeding pairs
- a selection strategy (in GA, several are possible, some of them well explained on the carbox site - which you didn't bother to click around in

I don't know what you are saying here, chromosomes carry the genes determining heredity.

You don't know what I'm saying because you have no clue about GA's. And this quote right here is black on white evidence of that.

The "chromosome" is the name given to the string of characters/numbers that represents an individual in a GA. It's analogous to a DNA string in living creatures.

So, this is again black on white evidence that you insist on arguing against things that you have NO CLUE about.

Had you read about GA's - even only as an introduction-, you would have known this.

Again, this is so simplistic as to not even being coherent in regard to the systems that Behe is referring to.

How is it not?

A wheel's function is LITERALLY controlled by more then 3 variables. If one is out of whack, the wheel comes off.

So all of those variables need to be just right or the system does not work.

How exciting and totally irrelevant to the actual process of evolution and the intricate complexity of even the most simple example of organism. The generations are artificial.

:doh:


Oh well then of course you must be right, I didn't realize that the computer acting completely in isolation produces this program and it is not pre-set by human intervention. I concede then that intelligence didn't have a thing to do with it. :)

There is no intelligence whatsoever involved in producing the designs of the cars.
It starts with a random cluster of polygons and it ends with highly efficient cars.

The process by which this is achieved: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

To simulate evolutionary processes?

Did you write the program to simulate evolutionary processes?

It's not really a simulation...

It IS an evolutionary process. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gipsy
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Do you deny that there is an appearance of deliberate design in all living things?

Do you deny that there is an appearance of "deliberate design" of the cars in my previous post?

I especially like the ones that were evolved on the tracks with the rubble and the gaps.

Both of them seem to really be "deliberatly designed" to successfully complete the track, wouldn't you agree?

Yet, these designs were not "deliberate" by any means.
Both those designs were accomplished with ONLY "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat".

Science: 1
Once: 0
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Right, along with those things I pointed out.
You make entirely too simple to cover the elements that are involved.


You can't provide a program that eliminates the need for intelligent intervention first of all, you can't program how mutations would affect organisms which would result in harmful results. Seriously, the artificially produced generations alone make this project of simulation uncharacteristic of biological evolution.


I'm sorry that you view this process in such simplistic and unrealistic way.


Once more.......

The core principles apply. It doesn't matter if the chromosome is 8 bits in length or a gazillion gigabytes.
It's the same on every level of complexity: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

And when you start to state that GA's are evidence of "intelligent design", your argument is akin to "the north pole is artificial cause freezers".
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh I certainly do get to redefine it - since it was addressed to me - and I do not believe in a young earth.
Then you should have just clarified your views, instead of posting a list that didn't have anything to do with the question being asked.


Sort of like you "need to believe" in evolution?


I don't "need to believe" in anything.
I accept that which convinces me with sufficient evidence and I have no emotional attachment to any such theories.

I accept evolution because of the evidence and that's it.

Oh it most certainly is about belief and faith. Your belief and faith that Darwin's Finches are separate species and underwent speciation despite the scientific fact that they have been interbreeding and producing fertile offspring since they arrived on the islands. Your "faith" is greater than mine since you believe despite the science, and I believe because of it.

Errr....
I don't really care about what Darwin said... anymore then I care about what captain Kirk said.

Darwin was wrong about lots of stuff, just like Newton.
Yet, both are remembered for their incredible contribution concerning the things that they WERE correct about, or at least the things they theorised that put science on a whole new track, leading to a wealth of new information.

Other then that, I couldn't care less what some guy said 2 centuries ago.

Await the outcome of Christian reasearch?

Why would I care for "christian" research any more then you care about "muslim" research or "hindu" research?

What is this nonsense?


Georges Lemaitre already formulated your Big Bang cosmology.

I'm aware of Lemaitre. He's a big name in the University of Leuven (Louvain), where I also attended.

Are you trying to say now that big bang cosmology is "christian science", because Lemaitre also happened to be a catholic priest as well as a cosmologist?

Perhaps you are not aware of his letter exchange with the Pope, where he told the pope quite literally to not try to hijack his scientific theory to make a religious point.

But I expect in your desire to believe in no God you conveniently forgot who started all of modern cosmology and gave credit to someone else instead?

I have no desires to not believe or believe in anything.
Again, I accept those things that convince me with sufficient evidence.

My "desires" are quite irrelevant in that respect.

Also, perhaps you should think about who started modern algebra and astronomy.

Hint: it starts with an "m" and it ends with "uslim".

It doesn't matter.
Just like it doesn't matter that Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟321,829.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why the mockery?

thats often how it feels at times, we show all the evidence of evolution, and the arguments against seem to come down to, "I object." why? "Because it hurts my case." not all, but alot are, "UHuh." and, "thats not evidence." simple handwaving away. What evidence would you accept for evolution? What could ever be shown that wouldn't get a, "I object." response? we've shown time and time again on this forum the level of evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why the mockery?
You would think that if evolution explains the diversity so well and has mountains and mountains of evidence that those who debate it would be able to present something other than an intelligently designed model as evidence for the design in all living things. When that fails...mockery is the only option.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
thats often how it feels at times, we show all the evidence of evolution, and the arguments against seem to come down to, "I object." why? "Because it hurts my case." not all, but alot are, "UHuh." and, "thats not evidence." simple handwaving away. What evidence would you accept for evolution? What could ever be shown that wouldn't get a, "I object." response? we've shown time and time again on this forum the level of evidence.
You are the ones that are hand waving and using evolution as a blanket rather than providing actual evidence for the claims that are made about it.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
thats often how it feels at times, we show all the evidence of evolution, and the arguments against seem to come down to, "I object." why? "Because it hurts my case." not all, but alot are, "UHuh." and, "thats not evidence." simple handwaving away. What evidence would you accept for evolution? What could ever be shown that wouldn't get a, "I object." response? we've shown time and time again on this forum the level of evidence.

Well, first, no one has offered evidence for the form of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting an an alleged life form of long long ago. That causes no small amount of consternation among those who embrace such a view and will sometimes result in responses of mockery, such as yours.

While mockery may give you a certain amount of personal pleasure, it offers no substance concerning the various forms of evolution.
 
Upvote 0