the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[NailsII]

So what are we now to do?

We have a theory with no proof on one side, and a theory with no proof on the other.

Which to choose?

Well, Occam's Razor dictates the one we are to choose. That is, evolution.

That is why evolution is taught.

Because when the two are placed side-by-side, there is no proof for either. However, one is based on faith, and one is based on observation.

The bible has very little independant verification.
Evolution on the other hand has mountains of evidence and, while still a theory in scientific terms, can be counted on as fact. Evolution does happens, it has been witenessed and verified. Fact of the matter is, ther eis more knowledge of evolution than there is gravity - the only difference is that gravity can be predicted with precise knowledge whilst its cause is not currently completely understood. Evolution cannot be directly predicted because it relies heavily on chance to produce genetic variation. Where this variation will lead is too complicated for anything but a simple model, as reductionism does not work very well with biological systems. They are too complex and inter-dependant, but th ebasic model we have serves us well and can be used to make predictions - just rarely exact ones showing times and directions.

 

[NailsII]

Yes, I realize that makes no sense. How you cooked up that from the thing you quoted, heaven knows.
"The change was NOT IN our light! Our light is the result of the change in the other state universe"
So, the change was not in our light, neither is our light the same light. It is what was left, that can exist, and was meant to exist in this temporary universe. If our light was the same light, it would not take a long time to get here. Even the universe it travels in is different.

You're going to have to explain this in more detail because it makes no sense whatsoever.
If the whole univerese changed, what happened to what was there before?
When did this happen?
Chapter and verse would be nice, if that is all you have.

Not at all, how would it be strange that the evo theory expects missing links in the full spectrum of creation? All it does, is try to attribute the missing creatures to nothing but evolution. It doesn't know where to start, or where to stop. It simply interprets all through it's Creatorless belief system.

If life was created, our heads wouldn't develop from gills in the embrionic stage - just as in sharks.

Not at all, with all the life process differences, why rule it out?

Because tere is no evidence for it.
Why rule out Pastafarianism?

Biblical time allows for everything. A change in the climate, and conditions, after the flood sometime, many feel. Our ability to adapt included to hot and cold.

And where in human history is this recorded?

And not that far back, either. So?

DNA defects can be traced back to unicellular organisms as we share common pathways.
Hox genes are homologous between species - we have 4 sets (a-d) where as fruit flies have one.
We have more in common with fish, our ancestors from around 390 million years ago than you realise.

Sorry, fetuses growing sex organs close to their heart does not mean we are fish. That is absurd. Nor does it mean we came from fish. Talk about fishbowl philosophy! Filthy dreams.

I didn't say we are fish.
Just descendants of them.
Trace the patterns of the cranial nerve, and look at how it develops in the womb. Exactly the same way as in shark embryos, and the nightmare that ensues is becuase the fish design has been modified (as opposed to created) to become mammals.
Look at the routing of the nerves, only an idiot would create something like that!!

No, it can't. Just because we have eyes, and flies have eyes, does not mean that we came from flies. I have to tell you this??? Of course, I notice that the flatworm was called man's closest ancestor! Behold, the theory!!

Now you're being silly. Insect eyes and mammalian eyes are completely different and evolved seperatley.
As for flatworms, would it interest you that we share a homologous gene in our immune system?
Disfunction in this leads to allergies inhumans and has been linked with severe bowel disorders, such as aganglionic magacolon.
But they are still not our closest ancestor, that would be very silly. We are clearly closely related to apes; you do not need to be a genius to see that.

Does not matter at all if some creatures did evolve to get around on the migration from Eden! It never came from the mud. It came from some created creature, or maybe even was a created creature. Who knows? Is there some particular reason God would not make some creatures like that??

You just need to feel special, I understand that.
Hard evidence links us as direct descendants from fish. If you can't handle that, get a therapist.

Who said there even were viri? Do we know that? Or are we talking the ancestor of the virus? Tell us how you would detect DNA changes from a different past ancestral of a virus!!?

How else would they have ERV's?

Again, you use the 'different state' to wriggle out of questions to which you have no answers.

Balderdash. I am not sure why you like telling stories. Any real ties genetically to said creatures would be from either wicked pre flood man, and/or the different life processes of the past, and things like the different ways the ancestor of a virus may have spread.

Evidence please.
Again, I am particularly interested in ANY evidence you have that links sin with genetic change.

No, nothing at all shows that. Your assumed evolution in a present state from nothing dreams that.

Evolution doesn't start with nothing, and it doesn't comment on how life began - only what happened when it started.

Not if God wants babies. Proof for that is Abe's wife, having one when 90 years old. Most people I recall in the lists had kids some at 30 or 35 years old. In fact, that was the firstborn son, that was mentioned, so they maybe had tons of girls before that.

Do you not think that someone would make a comment if women severely outnumbered men?
Surley, if such a case arrived, then all marriages would have to be polygamist!! Not just exceptions.
But once again, you are arguing about the gaps in your knowledge because the bible as big gaps.

One suspects there was more to it. How would Noah have realized something went on, after he woke up?

I didn't comment on Noah, just on how absurd God's reaction was. Another act of bullying?
but I guess fairness isn't an issue for an omnipient being.

Science can't go back there at all. The bible speaks of many differences, and about the time they had to happen.

Chapter and verse please, if that's all you've got.

The created state nature worked a different way, and it can't be locked into the present processes, and scales. But, of course, the creation required God. Not like it popped out of a spark or something.

So basically it never happened outside of soemone's imagintion and an old book.
If you think the big bang theory has problems, the god theory is even more hole-ridden.
Nothing starts with complexity.
Especially not infinitley complex.

 

[dad]

This is the bottom-line; we can't get any farther than this:

Dad wants evolution and Big Bang Theory and such out of schools.

Right, as well as out of the educational videos, documentaries, churches, and anywhere else it might be.

His reasoning for this is because it is based on an assumption. I agree, an assumption. Unfortunately it is an assumption that we MUST use. But, I digress.

Ha. No we must not use any assumption that is opposed to God, unless we are darn sure it is absolutely right.

Now I'm speaking to Dad:

I know what you want in place of evolution and Big Bang Theory: The Bible.

So, would it really be any improvement?

Actually, the bible would not be appropriate for all the earth at the moment, as that would require force of arms. Therefore, I think that the local beliefs might have to suffice, where a belief is needed. A belief is needed, where all you have for a so called science case is some weird, unsupportable assumption.

Let me lay out for you what happens when you take evolution out of schools:

Every benefit that evolutionary theory has given us will be wiped away once the generation with knowledge about it dies off. Our children will not know about it, and they can do nothing.

Not at all. We simply don't give the devil credit for God's created ability that was in place, to adapt real good.

From TalkOrigins:

1. Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
   • Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.

That doesn't change if we start the decent of man, and modifications, from the garden.

1. • Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).

   • No need to find bull from some witch man, that wants to credit the evolving that may have happened to a little magic act life form appearing.

   [*]
   [*] Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).

I'm not nibbling on that one. You never supplied even a worm of evidence.

1. • Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.

   Try getting real selection, beats the artificial stuff.

2. • Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).

   So??

   • Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

   • Speaking of kacapoo, realizing that creation reacts to certain pressures, even still, is hardly a feather in the evo's cap.

   Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.

3. Right, and, lest we forget, crediting God's creation to sweet nothing omits the Judge, and the result is less than law and order. Learning how to tinker with genes is a Pandora's box, that is not all roses either.

Now, imagine a situation where the Bible is taught instead.

The first question is, why the Bible? Why not the Quran, or any other religion?

You guessed it, so, why?? Who says that I am like the godless evos, and want to cram my beliefs down everyone's throats by force and law, like they do??? That sort of thing will have to wait till we take over the planet.

The Bible has the same amount of proof as an assumption for a same state universe does: none. THE BIBLE HAS NO PROOF.

But it does have the record. In the absense of your proof, and the failings of science on the matter, I will take the premier book on the matter, thanks. You can take whatever you like.

So what are we now to do?

We have a theory with no proof on one side, and a theory with no proof on the other.

You act accordingly, unlike the evo blowharts have been doing, in cramming their masked beliefs down the throats of the innocents, disguised as science, so called..

Which to choose?

Doesn't matter, long as we know it is only a belief. Let's cut the charades, hoaxes, games, lies, and peddling devil's doctrines as if it were gospel science.

Well, Occam's Razor dictates the one we are to choose. That is, evolution.

No, the choice is no longer between evolving, and creation. A different past allows for both! The choice is between temporary universe, or what we see is all there ever was or will be!

Because when the two are placed side-by-side, there is no proof for either. However, one is based on faith, and one is based on observation.

Now you are passing air.

The majority of us would rather go for observation.

Start anytime, then.

 

[dad]

As expected. you have no evidence to support you, all the evidence contradicts you. So you make something up and try to use scientific sounding words to add weight to your claim.
It still means nothing, you are filling in the gaps in biblical logic with your own assumptions.

There is no evidence that contradicts me. Otherwise, I would have adapted to it already.

Again, you don't know therefore goddidit.

Well, you don't know, so you say whatever you feel like saying. The point is that science doesn't know. Long as everyone admits that, and stops the fraud, we'll be fine.

See your previous two replies. you have the problem of gaps, not I.
Can you provide a biblical record of an ice-age type event, or have you just made this up?

Well, I have read creationist claims that the main ice age started as a result of, and after the flood. Whether or not any sort of ice age, or some such existed before that, I do not know for sure. God did make fur coats for Adam and Eve after they got the boot.
The kinds were all on the ark. If we had one elephant kind, then the mammoth had to adapt to the cold, one would suspect, by the evidence. Others did not, like Indian, and African elephants. I try to use evidences we do have, as well as the bible record.

Continental seperation requires more than 6,000 years of hhistory - that is whay off the coast I live in (temperate UK) we find fossils of plesiasaurs, which lived in tropical areas.

No, it could happen in a short time in the different past state.

Dropstones are your answer, I will let you google it for your own pleasure.

"
Volcanoes

Whilst dropstones were once thought to be diagnostic of glaciers, it has since been realised that they can also be formed via volcanic eruptions. Volcanic 'bombs' are large fragments of rock, projected many miles by the force of an eruption. If these land in fine sediments, they can form dropstones.[2] Dropstones originating in this fashion are relatively rare in the geological record as most will invariably land on high ground, which has a poor preservation potential as it is in an erosive environment. However, a large blast may spread bombs far enough for them to end up in a marine setting of fine enough sediment for them to be recognised.

[edit] Turbidity currents

Dropstones can also be deposited through the action of strong ocean-floor turbidity currents.[3] Boulders the size of a man have been found in relatively recent finely laminated sediments near Jamaica,[4] which has been a warm tropical island entirely devoid of glaciers since it came into existence.[5] Whilst turbidity currents are cited as the origin of the boulders, they are not found in association with deposits formed by them.

[edit] Biological rafts

Stones can also be transported large distances by becoming bound in a raft of floating plant material,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropstone

Nice try, no cigar.

Around 600 million years ago, before the first multi-cellular organism are believed to have appeared, the entire planet was covered with ice - the so-called snowball earth theory.
There is a brief discussion of it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/snowballearth_transcript.shtml
More detail and evidence of drop stones and glacial activity in southern africa can be found here:

Absolute disgraceful attempt to avoid the flood explanation.

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis as it was originally proposed[1] suggests that the Earth was entirely covered by ice during parts of the Cryogenian period (850 to 630 million years ago) of the Proterozoic aeon. It was developed to explain sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at seemingly tropical latitudes,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=26445

On the contrary, you are filling page after page with gap-filling nonsense in order to validate your position. This entire thread is a classic example.

Vague nonsense. No gaps anywhere but in your mind. Creation is no gap, nor the flood, or the differences in the past and future that the bible explains in a cohesive fashion. You mystery specks, and animalistic philosophies are full of holes, not just gaps.

How convenient. You have no evidence, all the evidence contradicts you so you use the idea of an altered state to fill your gaps. But all it does is fills your boots with concrete.

No evidence contradicts me, on the contrary. Your myth is not evidence, it is only existent in your mind.

But I don't think you know very much about lizards, do you?
Let me enlighten you.
The fossil record tells us that snakes lost ltheir imbs around 100 - 95 mya as they began living underground; presumably the limbs were a hinderance as they buried.

Since you gave no details, I will give a link, maybe there is something else you want to add.
"
The team analyzed gene sequences from each of the species, using several statistical methods to determine how the species are related. "Although these genes have the same function in each species--and so, by definition, are the same gene--their structure in each species is slightly different because of mutations that have developed over time," Vidal explains. When the genetic comparisons were complete, Vidal and Hedges had a family tree showing the relationships of the species.
"Our results show clearly that snakes are not closely related to monitor lizards like the giant Komodo Dragon, which are the closest living relatives of the mosasaurs--the only known marine lizard living at the time that snakes evolved," Vidal says. "Because all the other lizards at that time lived on the land, our study provides strong evidence that snakes evolved on the land, not in the ocean."
The research suggests an answer to another long-debated question: why snakes lost their limbs. Their land-based lifestyle, including burrowing underground at least some of the time, may be the reason. "Having limbs is a real problem if you need to fit through small openings underground, as anybody who has tried exploring in caves knows," Hedges says. "Your body could fit through much smaller openings if you did not have the wide shoulders and pelvis that support your limbs." The researchers note that the burrowing lifestyle of many other species, including legless lizards, is correlated with the complete loss of limbs or the evolution of very small limbs."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040202070018.htm
Now, it seems the whole thing is based on assumptions. Because the snake, by their methods of reckoning, was not related to a water lizard, it gets assigned a role as having to be related to land lizards!!
Well, first of all, prove that snakes came from lizards?? Basically, this is a bunch of slapped together religion.

Around 50mya they moved back on the surface of the earth and have thrived on the small mammals that have colonised most of the planet.

Prove it. Forget the times, we know that can't be supported, just the basic claim they 'moved back to the surface of the earth'!! I will not allow you to just tell silly stories as if they were true.

If you think it is a one-off caused by god to be limbless then think again - skinks are evolving reduced limbs - Typhlosaurus are limbless, Neoseps have vastly reduced limbs with only one font and two back toes.
Or do you have another bilical curse up your sleeve to explain that one away?

How the skinks needed to adapt since the skink kind on the ark was let loose, is interesting. It doesn't affect anything I have posited, however.

Irrelevant how many, the fact that it happens means they are not cursed - or the story in Genesis is a lie, a myth.

No, the fact that childbirth is not a breeze for humans is not an issue. Don't kid yourself.

And i know which I think is true.
Like the USA right now - over half believe in genesis but it is amongst the most lawless countries on earth.

Right, it is real dangerous to walk through those churches after dark, I suppose! Have you ever considered that a lot of the killing is done by the ones that do not really follow God?

Would it suprise you to find morals and laws in the animal kingdom, without the need for a God?

Nothing goes on, but that God didn't set it up to begin with. Looking at plants or animals is simply looking at His creation. That requires adding Him in to the picture.

King cobras for example are highly venemous, and even though they eat other snakes they do not venomate each other in fights over territory or females - they merely wrestle.

How sweet.

What, you don't think they knew how long a year was and recorded their own history?

They do not have a record that is dependable for dating early Egypt. Look into it. That is why they resort to PO past assumptive dating.

At which time Egypt was flourishing, and building an empire - in only enough time to have reproduced around 100 generations by your reasoning.

Egypt did alright, so?? Are you suggesting you have some evidence or something, that says there were so many people in Egypt at the time, that I might find a problem with???

Africa and south america are indeed flourishing with christianity, let's hope that the catholic church doesn't let them all die of HIV with its sensless anti-condom message.

"In the majority of South American countries, injecting drug use and sex between men are the most important routes of HIV transmission. The virus is then passed on to other sexual partners. In Central America, drug use plays a smaller role and most infections appear to be occurring through sexual transmission (both heterosexual and between men)."
http://www.avert.org/southamerica.htm

Now, I wouldn't blame God for that! Didn't He make it clear to avoid that sort of thing?? You seem to want to shoot the kid with his finger in the dike, as the problem, rather than facing hard facts.

But as usual, developed nations are turning their back on god - that leaves us with only a few backwards-thinking nations to worry about - like Iran and Pakistan.

You have a problem with them? What, they don't have enough nukes yet, or something?? Maybe they should copy Britain.

Because Christianity with its finger on the big button is bad enough, Fundamental Islam is an unbearable option.

I disagree. I think any believer in God ought to disown all nukes yesterday. Period.

I think Christians did alright against Rome, and we could do alright against anyone on earth, that are bad guys. No nukes needed.

 

[dad]

You're going to have to explain this in more detail because it makes no sense whatsoever.
If the whole univerese changed, what happened to what was there before?
When did this happen?
Chapter and verse would be nice, if that is all you have.

Well, man was still here, and plants, etc. But, with the different laws in effect, we reacted differently, in things like the way we live our lives. Just because laws are different, doesn't mean there were none. Same with light, and etc.

If life was created, our heads wouldn't develop from gills in the embrionic stage - just as in sharks.

" That sounds remarkably like Haeckel's nonsense about Recapitulation. What the esteemed evolutionists writing the White Paper are calling *gill slits* are, in fact, Pharyngeal "pouches". What to them appears to superficially resemble fish gills, does not in fact have anything to do with any form of respiration! Yet this nonsensical line of reasoning is still being presented as an evidence that the TOE's macroevolution is science.
Rather than having anything to do with vestigial apparatus for breathing or respiration, the pharyngeal "pouches" develop into parts of the face, neck, and important glands! "In man and other mammals, these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands" - Dr. David Menton.
MEANWHILE, the embryo's lungs develop quite independantly of these "gill slits."
It appears that the White Paper is a fairy tale for adults.
Is the Human Embryo Essentially a Fish with Gills? http://www.gennet.org/Metro06.htm"
http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm

I haven't seen many moms swim out to sea to nurse the young, have you?

Because tere is no evidence for it.
Why rule out Pastafarianism?
And where in human history is this recorded?

We rule out same pastisism because there is no evidence for it by science. We cannot rule out creation, because there is no evidence against it.

DNA defects can be traced back to unicellular organisms as we share common pathways.

Only in your dreams. If you believe that junk, you do so by choice.

Hox genes are homologous between species - we have 4 sets (a-d) where as fruit flies have one.

So?? I have 2 legs, bees have six.

We have more in common with fish, our ancestors from around 390 million years ago than you realise.

They are not my ancestors, speak for yourself.

I didn't say we are fish.
Just descendants of them.

Quite a tale. Sounds like you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Trace the patterns of the cranial nerve, and look at how it develops in the womb. Exactly the same way as in shark embryos, and the nightmare that ensues is becuase the fish design has been modified (as opposed to created) to become mammals.

Sorry about your dark dreams.

Look at the routing of the nerves, only an idiot would create something like that!!
Now you're being silly. Insect eyes and mammalian eyes are completely different and evolved seperatley.
As for flatworms, would it interest you that we share a homologous gene in our immune system?

Hey, we share the same garden for tomatoes as well, so??

Disfunction in this leads to allergies inhumans and has been linked with severe bowel disorders, such as aganglionic magacolon.
But they are still not our closest ancestor, that would be very silly. We are clearly closely related to apes; you do not need to be a genius to see that.

I'll say! In fact you do not even need to be the least bit clever.

You just need to feel special, I understand that.

We are special. God came down here and died for us. He made the stars for us. He is coming here to earth to live with one day. However deeply you fantasize about similarities with apes, it can't make us one.

Hard evidence links us as direct descendants from fish. If you can't handle that, get a therapist.

You are misinformed. Stop telling stories.

How else would they have ERV's?

I already covered that. The different transmission of the ancestor of viri.

Again, you use the 'different state' to wriggle out of questions to which you have no answers.

The answers lay outside the same past state, that is the answer.

Evidence please.
Again, I am particularly interested in ANY evidence you have that links sin with genetic change.

Well, when evolution was rapid, that change would be more apparent. These days, evolving is real slow, so who really knows great great grandpa's sins, that may have resulted in some noticeable effect?

Evolution doesn't start with nothing, and it doesn't comment on how life began - only what happened when it started.

That is false. Your idea of when it started is based on fantasy, that begins with some little wonder speck. That is nothing, as far as I am concerned.

Do you not think that someone would make a comment if women severely outnumbered men?

Who says that would happen??? Just because a female would not be mentioned, doesn't mean she would not have several sons.

But once again, you are arguing about the gaps in your knowledge because the bible as big gaps.

You are spouting gaps, and dreaming gaps, don't blame me, or the bible. They ain't out here in the real world, just in your head.

I didn't comment on Noah, just on how absurd God's reaction was. Another act of bullying?

Let me be blunt. If little Cainnan blew Noah, or some such, act of sodomy, then God was right to lower the boom.

but I guess fairness isn't an issue for an omnipient being.
Chapter and verse please, if that's all you've got.

You missing His fairness doesn't make it go away.

Nothing starts with complexity.
Especially not infinitley complex.

So, let me get this straight. You feel popping out of a tiny spark is fine, because it is not complex. Wow. Someone ought to sue the school system, look what they done to your head.

 

[Danyc]

We rule out same pastisism because there is no evidence for it by science.

Neither is their conclusive evidence against it.

We cannot rule out creation, because there is no evidence against it.

Neither is their conclusive evidence for it.
(I assume you made a typo and meant 'creationism'.)



Once again, we end up on the same boat.

 

[Danyc]

So, let me get this straight. You feel popping out of a tiny spark is fine, because it is not complex. Wow. Someone ought to sue the school system, look what they done to your head.

What do you mean by 'popping out of a tiny spark'?

We did not simply come to exist from the Big Bang. It took billions of years for planets and stars to form from the matter that was released. Such is hypothesized.

It was not complex, it was simple. Lots of matter, which collected together due to various processes and became he universe we know today.

The Big Bang is NOT comparable to God snapping his fingers. THAT would be 'popping out of a tiny spark'.

The Big Bang Theory hypothesizes no such thing.

 

[dad]

Neither is their conclusive evidence against it.

So, when you don't know, don't fabricate a science case, I suppose is the moral of that story.

Once again, we end up on the same boat.

No, because the science boat only sails in the present universe box. The creation boat sails on clear into eternity, and back through the misty portals of time itself. You already admitted that you have no clue, no case, and no science in this thread. You were right, but do not presume to drag the rest of the believing world down with you.

 

[dad]

What do you mean by 'popping out of a tiny spark'?

We did not simply come to exist from the Big Bang. It took billions of years for planets and stars to form from the matter that was released. Such is hypothesized.

I am familiar with the fable. In the end, all that is, is said to have come from old sparky.

It was not complex, it was simple. Lots of matter, which collected together due to various processes and became he universe we know today.

Right, so small, and hot, was that little all containing soup, that the naked eye could not even see it at first. I really have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that.

The Big Bang is NOT comparable to God snapping his fingers. THAT would be 'popping out of a tiny spark'.

Well, no, it would not. It would more be like the final putting up of a well planned house. The earth also was created first, far as I can tell. The stars and sun, etc came after. You are faced with believing God, or not. The choice is hot or cold.

The Big Bang Theory hypothesizes no such thing.

Then, since the bible doesn't either, why bring up a silly strawman??

 

[NailsII]

There is no evidence that contradicts me. Otherwise, I would have adapted to it

There is, you just choose to ignore it.

Well, you don't know, so you say whatever you feel like saying. The point is that science doesn't know. Long as everyone admits that, and stops the fraud, we'll be fine.

Biological sciences are not a definitive, there is a lot of debate about many things. Creation is not one of them - it never happened.

Well, I have read creationist claims that the main ice age started as a result of, and after the flood. Whether or not any sort of ice age, or some such existed before that, I do not know for sure. God did make fur coats for Adam and Eve after they got the boot.

And, your point is?
Previously you tried to assert that humans had evolved body hair, but why would they need to if god clothed them?

The kinds were all on the ark. If we had one elephant kind, then the mammoth had to adapt to the cold, one would suspect, by the evidence. Others did not, like Indian, and African elephants. I try to use evidences we do have, as well as the bible record.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the mamoths were all gone in biblical times. That's why no-one ever wrote about them....

No, it could happen in a short time in the different past state.

But it didn;t - that's the whole point

volcanoes
Nice try, no cigar.

You have listed a few reasons that would cloud the theory, but you have yet to debunk it. You need to show how these drop stones could be found so far inland in areas we know have not been under water or near a volcano.

Absolute disgraceful attempt to avoid the flood explanation.

Don't need to avoid it, I just ignore it. It's a fairy story. Just ask anyone who knows a thing or two about rocks. There is no evidence for a global flood, only localised ones at different times.

Vague nonsense. No gaps anywhere but in your mind. Creation is no gap, nor the flood, or the differences in the past and future that the bible explains in a cohesive fashion. You mystery specks, and animalistic philosophies are full of holes, not just gaps.

then produce some evidence to back up your claim. Until then, it is a myth - and you fill in the gaps in the myth becuase the bible is not cohesive. Devisive may be a better description.

No evidence contradicts me, on the contrary. Your myth is not evidence, it is only existent in your mind.

What does contradict, you simply ignore.

Since you gave no details, I will give a link, maybe there is something else you want to add.

OK, a link that backs up what I said - thank you.

Now, it seems the whole thing is based on assumptions. Because the snake, by their methods of reckoning, was not related to a water lizard, it gets assigned a role as having to be related to land lizards!!
Well, first of all, prove that snakes came from lizards?? Basically, this is a bunch of slapped together religion.

If te common ancestor split between the two, it may appear to blur the lines a little. ut that is one line of inquiry, and that is why Evolution is more fact than myth - because it has other lines of enquiry:

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/11/21/which_came_first_the_snake_or_the_venom.php

Prove it. Forget the times, we know that can't be supported, just the basic claim they 'moved back to the surface of the earth'!! I will not allow you to just tell silly stories as if they were true.

Why not, you do.
There is no point in me providing links, becuase you'll just wave your hands and shout 'goddidit' and assume you're correct.

How the skinks needed to adapt since the skink kind on the ark was let loose, is interesting. It doesn't affect anything I have posited, however.

It provides a natural pathway for orgainsms to loose their legs - it means we don't need to make stories up any more.

Right, it is real dangerous to walk through those churches after dark, I suppose! Have you ever considered that a lot of the killing is done by the ones that do not really follow God?

But they pray, and they kill, and they repent..... The bible says that's ok, they'll still go to heaven. Can you bame them for playing that game?

Nothing goes on, but that God didn't set it up to begin with. Looking at plants or animals is simply looking at His creation. That requires adding Him in to the picture.

Fine, paint him where you want - but you won't find him in any equation - I wonder why that is.

How sweet.

Yes, and the Asian small-clawed otter avoids incest. Siblings can be housed together without fear of mating, and they didn't need to be told this or have it written down and shouted from the puplit.

They do not have a record that is dependable for dating early Egypt. Look into it. That is why they resort to PO past assumptive dating.

Wrong!! They had calanders and listed dynasties. This on its own gives a good timeline - and it doesn't concur with yours. Radio isotope dating merely adds more weight to it.

Now, I wouldn't blame God for that! Didn't He make it clear to avoid that sort of thing?? You seem to want to shoot the kid with his finger in the dike, as the problem, rather than facing hard facts.

Who blamed god?

You have a problem with them? What, they don't have enough nukes yet, or something?? Maybe they should copy Britain.

I should hope not.
We have no need for a nuclear deterent, when america has so many and pints them all over the place.

I disagree. I think any believer in God ought to disown all nukes yesterday. Period.

Yeah, let him send in the fire and brimstone if they have gay sex or or worship the wrong god or something.

I think Christians did alright against Rome, and we could do alright against anyone on earth, that are bad guys. No nukes needed.

Pacifistic resistance is doing good?

 

[NailsII]

Well, man was still here, and plants, etc. But, with the different laws in effect, we reacted differently, in things like the way we live our lives. Just because laws are different, doesn't mean there were none. Same with light, and etc.

You still havn't supplied a biblical quote to back this up, so I will just wave my hands and pretend you said something different.

" That sounds remarkably like Haeckel's nonsense about Recapitulation. What the esteemed evolutionists writing the White Paper are calling *gill slits* are, in fact, Pharyngeal "pouches". What to them appears to superficially resemble fish gills, does not in fact have anything to do with any form of respiration! Yet this nonsensical line of reasoning is still being presented as an evidence that the TOE's macroevolution is science.
Rather than having anything to do with vestigial apparatus for breathing or respiration, the pharyngeal "pouches" develop into parts of the face, neck, and important glands! "In man and other mammals, these arches and pouches develop into part of the face, muscles of mastication and facial expression, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands" - Dr. David Menton.
MEANWHILE, the embryo's lungs develop quite independantly of these "gill slits."
It appears that the White Paper is a fairy tale for adults.
Is the Human Embryo Essentially a Fish with Gills? http://www.gennet.org/Metro06.htm"
http://www.carm.org/evolution_archive/human_embryo_gillslits.htm
I haven't seen many moms swim out to sea to nurse the young, have you?

did you actually read my post?
I never mentioned lungs or breathing, that was all in your imagination - and that of the person you quoted.
Your trachea is made from the same cartlidge, by the same mechanism and the same genetic pathways that an embryonic fish makes its gill slits.
Same goes for your ears, ear bones, jawbone and all the neural connections included - which is why humans look a bit of a mess when opened up; a bit like an old stately building that now has telephone wires and electricity added later.
It does not look designed, unless the designer ws incompetent.

We rule out same pastisism because there is no evidence for it by science. We cannot rule out creation, because there is no evidence against it.

Yawn. just wave your hands and pretend it isn't there.......

Only in your dreams. If you believe that junk, you do so by choice.

Cardioencephalomyopathy. Google it for yourself. It is a mitochondrial fault that is usually fatal.
Paracoccus denitrificans was used to re-create the condition.
But this would not work if we were all created.

So?? I have 2 legs, bees have six.

Ignorance won't make evidence go away.

They are not my ancestors, speak for yourself.

Ignorance won't make evidence go away.

Quite a tale. Sounds like you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Your puns get worse.

Sorry about your dark dreams.

Again, you dismiss evidence without any kind of educated retort.

Hey, we share the same garden for tomatoes as well, so??

it indicates we shared a common ancestor.
Some worms even have opsin genes, the ones that allow us to see colour. But they don't have them in their eyes, so they wern't created very well, were they.

I'll say! In fact you do not even need to be the least bit clever.

If that was really true, GW Bush would have a degree in evolutionary biology.

We are special. God came down here and died for us. He made the stars for us. He is coming here to earth to live with one day. However deeply you fantasize about similarities with apes, it can't make us one.

You may have been to a special school, but that is as far as it goes.
In what ways are we different from apes then?

You are misinformed. Stop telling stories.

read your previous post, then look around and point to the one telling stories.

I already covered that. The different transmission of the ancestor of viri.

You have no idea what such an ancestor would look like, let alone behave.
It would transmit genetic information to its host, and in a strange set of events these would infect the germ cells and just sit there like evolutionary flotsam and jetsom - just like modern ones do.
You can't wave your hands, you need to use evidence to debunk - not a myth to cover up the shortages of your creation myth.

The answers lay outside the same past state, that is the answer.

It's not an answer.
Neither is goddidit.
Come up with a rational argument or stop wasting everyone's time.

Well, when evolution was rapid, that change would be more apparent. These days, evolving is real slow, so who really knows great great grandpa's sins, that may have resulted in some noticeable effect?

You call that evidence?

That is false. Your idea of when it started is based on fantasy, that begins with some little wonder speck. That is nothing, as far as I am concerned.

No, the clue is in the title of the book - On the origin of species.
Not origin of life, origin of matter - just species.
Getting such a basic fact wrong is however in line with all your posts thusfar.

Who says that would happen??? Just because a female would not be mentioned, doesn't mean she would not have several sons.

Except for the fact that it flies in the face of common sense - no wonder you accept it so easily.

You are spouting gaps, and dreaming gaps, don't blame me, or the bible. They ain't out here in the real world, just in your head.

Are you sure you havn't watched any Monty Python?
You can't have a serious debate by just contradicting the other person and using their own comments turned around.

Let me be blunt. If little Cainnan blew Noah, or some such, act of sodomy, then God was right to lower the boom.

Would make for a much better story though. How about he opened a crack house on the other side of the flood plain and Moses became a telly-evangelst.

You missing His fairness doesn't make it go away.

What fairness? I asked for chapter and verse, not a tired old retort because you can't find one.

So, let me get this straight. You feel popping out of a tiny spark is fine, because it is not complex. Wow. Someone ought to sue the school system, look what they done to your head.

If my head was created, I'd be at the front of the queue to comaplain - the wirings a total mess man, looks like it just followed a path all by itself......
Besides, universe from a tiny speck (a crude analogy, but I will let it slip) - isn't that simpler and more logical than ex-nihlo creation, without the baggage of a creator?

 

[dad]

There is, you just choose to ignore it.

No, you are here demonstrating that you have none. What, you are hiding it somewhere out in the desert?

Biological sciences are not a definitive, there is a lot of debate about many things. Creation is not one of them - it never happened.

I didn't ask you for an opinion on something you know nothing about. Long as you admit your un definitive 'sciences' are just that.

And, your point is?
Previously you tried to assert that humans had evolved body hair, but why would they need to if god clothed them?

You think I tried to assert that. I could allow for it, if the evidence was present, but don't blame the idea on me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the mamoths were all gone in biblical times. That's why no-one ever wrote about them....

No they were not. They were still hunted.

But it didn;t - that's the whole point
You have listed a few reasons that would cloud the theory, but you have yet to debunk it.

No need to debunk cloudy guesswork.

You need to show how these drop stones could be found so far inland in areas we know have not been under water or near a volcano.

Show me a dropstone in an area, and how you think you know it was not underwater, specifically.

Don't need to avoid it, I just ignore it. It's a fairy story. Just ask anyone who knows a thing or two about rocks. There is no evidence for a global flood, only localised ones at different times.

You don't know what to look for, so you are not qualified to ask about it.

then produce some evidence to back up your claim. Until then, it is a myth - and you fill in the gaps in the myth becuase the bible is not cohesive. Devisive may be a better description.

No need to prove creation, since science isn't up to the task, all we can say for sure, is that there is no reason to doubt it.

What does contradict, you simply ignore.
OK, a link that backs up what I said - thank you.

I can't ignore what isn't around, save in your head.

If te common ancestor split between the two, it may appear to blur the lines a little. ut that is one line of inquiry, and that is why Evolution is more fact than myth - because it has other lines of enquiry:

OK, so you want to retreat to some other defense, you think will serve you better, let's see it.

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/11/21/which_came_first_the_snake_or_the_venom.php

So, you say things with venom are a clade. That's nice. Apparently some in that blog site you linked are less than cheer leaders for the claims.
"
A few details here and there on this:
First, the animal in the picture isn't a lace monitor (V. varius), but is actually a Sand Monitor / Goana (possibly V. panoptes or gouldi or flaviurus; the taxonomy of this group is utterly insane). Lacies are much prettier, IMHO (google images and see what I mean).
Secondly, they're interesting results, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the phylogeny, since if you actually read the footnotes, they only test 5 lizard species and 4 of those were from the same genus, Varanus. The only non-varanid was a lone Iguanian (the super-family, part of family agamidae). As such, it's both too early to write off most of those other branches as not having venom, and too soon to start claiming clades without knowing the extent to which convergence of these protiens has occured over the 3000 odd lizard species (in 20-some-odd families).
Another thing that leapt to mind for me when reading was "so what?", since they don't address the relevance to the ecology/behavior of the species. It's clearly not for prey capture; the lone iguanian eats insects and plants (and just crunches them and gulps them down), and varanids are among the last things needing help dispatching prey (all species analyzed mostly eat small mammals, and they can dispatch those easily; I've personally cleaned rabbit intestines off the *ceiling* of a room-sized cage).
Furthermore, the Komodo strongly indicates against the potency of these chemicals, since, if it had something even approximating useful venom, why didn't it simply enhance that (as Gilas did) to subdue prey rather than evolving a totally distinct, bacteria-based mechanism? The fact that these two took totally separate routes to the same effective end from the same starting points indicates to me that the situation is substantially more complex that it first appears.
Another question I have concerns his previous work as applied to this: if venom protiens are recruited from protiens elsewhere, shouldn't we expect a high degree of convergence, if this recruitment occurs often (which I'd argue that the diversity of snake venoms that have evolved since the Miocene indicates it does)?
Personally, it's neat that he's found these protiens in lizard species, but I think a lot more work needs to be done before forming clades and assessing the role of these protiens in squamate evolution."
(same link)

Why not, you do.
There is no point in me providing links, becuase you'll just wave your hands and shout 'goddidit' and assume you're correct.

Try a link that doesn't just tell a story as if it were true. For example, if a picture claims that everything with venom almost had a single ancestor, back it up as to why.

It provides a natural pathway for orgainsms to loose their legs - it means we don't need to make stories up any more.

Well, if some skinks adapted after the ark, to depend less on legs, so bloomin what??? That does not make them a fruit fly, cockroach, flatworm, or canary.

But they pray, and they kill, and they repent..... The bible says that's ok, they'll still go to heaven. Can you bame them for playing that game?

Well, if people in the churches feel some remorse, that is a far sight better than the beastly sort that have no shame. I mean, maybe you think the little old ladies in church ought to have to check their umbrellas at the door, they might be a deadly weapon??

Fine, paint him where you want - but you won't find him in any equation - I wonder why that is.

Because He isn't a number?

Yes, and the Asian small-clawed otter avoids incest. Siblings can be housed together without fear of mating, and they didn't need to be told this or have it written down and shouted from the puplit.

Are you suggesting that the animal kingdom, as a whole has avoided 'incest'??

Wrong!! They had calanders and listed dynasties. This on its own gives a good timeline - and it doesn't concur with yours. Radio isotope dating merely adds more weight to it.

No it doesn't, that is probably why you do not show us the calendar exactly.
Furthermore, a lot of that stuff is based on assumptions. The sothic cycle, and the dog star, for example. They actually don't really even know for sure that is was Sirius. If, for example, early Egypt was before the split, all current guesses are off.

Who blamed god?
I should hope not.
We have no need for a nuclear deterent, when america has so many and pints them all over the place.

I see. So, what, you want some other country to have them, that you think will protect you?

Yeah, let him send in the fire and brimstone if they have gay sex or or worship the wrong god or something.

Well, if the main cause of the HIV in South America, (and you brought it up) was sodomy, that is what needs to be addressed. Obviously. If you defend it, you are to blame directly.

Pacifistic resistance is doing good?

Better than blowing up the planet, in my opinion.

 

[dad]

You still havn't supplied a biblical quote to back this up, so I will just wave my hands and pretend you said something different.

The fast plant growth, I deduce from the following. Plants were created only days before we ate the fruit off the tree, and the garden was PLANTED. Also, rapid plant growth was needed to feeed the animals on the ark, and after they got off. A bird was sent out off the ark. No trees. A week later, another one, and lo and behold, a fresh twig from a tree.

did you actually read my post?
I never mentioned lungs or breathing, that was all in your imagination - and that of the person you quoted.
Your trachea is made from the same cartlidge, by the same mechanism and the same genetic pathways that an embryonic fish makes its gill slits.

My airways did not come from a fish despite your strange determination to blow any similarities out of all proportion. You have an agenda. In no way is anything you say evidence of evolving from a fish, that is patently absurd.

I think the person was demonstrating that it did not even have the same purposes. Deal with it.

Same goes for your ears, ear bones, jawbone and all the neural connections included - which is why humans look a bit of a mess when opened up; a bit like an old stately building that now has telephone wires and electricity added later.

No, you have a demented imagination.

It does not look designed, unless the designer ws incompetent.

It looks designed to me. Have a boo at this, and tell me it is an accident.

Cardioencephalomyopathy. Google it for yourself. It is a mitochondrial fault that is usually fatal.

So????? It, what, started at the fantasy pond? No. Moot point.

Paracoccus denitrificans was used to re-create the condition.
But this would not work if we were all created.

Are you talking to yourself here, or do you intend to explain your musings?

Ignorance won't make evidence go away.
Ignorance won't make evidence go away.

Great. Great.

Your puns get worse.
Again, you dismiss evidence without any kind of educated retort.
it indicates we shared a common ancestor.
Some worms even have opsin genes, the ones that allow us to see colour. But they don't have them in their eyes, so they wern't created very well, were they.

Well, if they could use the genes for something, in the created state, I would think you were wrong. I have no reason to assume that is not the case.
As for educated retort, that is only needed if and when you provide concise and evidenced claims.

If that was really true, GW Bush would have a degree in evolutionary biology.

Guess you don't even rank that much savy.

You may have been to a special school, but that is as far as it goes.
In what ways are we different from apes then?

How many apes were in your school? How many countries do apes control? How many posts on this thread were done by an ape??? They are just an animal.

You have no idea what such an ancestor would look like, let alone behave.

Nor do you. So how is you you stick it in a same state past, and have it behave as modern viri?? Don't you think you should have a clue before making a claim?? I only bring it up to illustrate your unbased chatter.

It would transmit genetic information to its host, and in a strange set of events these would infect the germ cells and just sit there like evolutionary flotsam and jetsom - just like modern ones do.

Prophesy. How nice. PO state based prophesy, no less. Your pitiful projections are worthless unless backed up.

You can't wave your hands, you need to use evidence to debunk - not a myth to cover up the shortages of your creation myth.
It's not an answer.
Neither is goddidit.

Nothing needs to be debunked that is just made up. Otherwise we need to debunk the tooth fairy as well. No. We need to look at reality, and what the actual facts are. Until then, don't expect to be worthy of debunking.

Come up with a rational argument or stop wasting everyone's time.
You call that evidence?

I don't need evidence for the physical effects of sin. It affects just about everything. As mentioned, the main cause of HIV spread in S. A. is sin.

No, the clue is in the title of the book - On the origin of species.
Not origin of life, origin of matter - just species.

False, it is all life that it tries to explain without God. Face it. That is how they get to the imaginary pond, not by some evidence.

Getting such a basic fact wrong is however in line with all your posts thusfar.

It is exactly right, Darwinism tries to explain all created life, from an imaginary point, that has no god. Just because it happens to use the actual creation trait of the ability to evolve, does not validate the fantasy in any way whatsoever. It simply was the ignorant, inspired excuse for the anti God nightmares that oozed out of the evo minds, and hearts.

Except for the fact that it flies in the face of common sense - no wonder you accept it so easily.

You are not the jusfge of common sense, as your blind faith in your silly myths demonstrate clearly.

Are you sure you havn't watched any Monty Python?

Maybe a few seconds, before I could change channels.

You can't have a serious debate by just contradicting the other person and using their own comments turned around.

Try using sound comments, backed by evidence, and presented in a clear way. That way, it is sure to get shot down real fast, saving everyone time.

Would make for a much better story though. How about he opened a crack house on the other side of the flood plain and Moses became a telly-evangelst.

Cainnan was the one that got the curse, and punishment, as I recall. There has to be a reason for that.

If my head was created, I'd be at the front of the queue to comaplain - the wirings a total mess man, looks like it just followed a path all by itself......

I'll back you up there, if you need a witness.

Besides, universe from a tiny speck (a crude analogy, but I will let it slip) - isn't that simpler and more logical than ex-nihlo creation, without the baggage of a creator?

No. It is anti intelligent. Ridiculous, and religiously anti God. It is an offense to the intelligence, and dignity of man. Besides, I think there was plenty around before this universe. This was just a week's work. It may have been created from nothing in this universe, because it didn't yet exist. I don't know that we know that it had to all come from nothing anywhere?

 

[Chalnoth]

An accident? Evolution is not an accident! In fact, evolution is often better at solving problems than we are! We have come to start to recognize this as we start to use the power of evolution to find the solutions to problems, via genetic algorithms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

The "that doesn't look like it could have come about by accident" line is invalid precisely because of the amazing power of evolution at finding solutions to complex problems. The solutions that evolution finds, by the way, are typically vastly more complex than solutions found by humans.

So, dad, how do you explain that your "looks designed to me" argument has any bearing whatsoever, now that humans are using evolution to design some structures?

 

[Danyc]

Because He isn't a number?

No, because he isn't needed.

 

[Danyc]

How many apes were in your school? How many countries do apes control? How many posts on this thread were done by an ape??? They are just an animal.

Don't be purposefully thick. You know what he's asking you.


As to they are just an animal:

We are just an animal.

The only real difference between us is that we are more intelligent.

 

[dad]

An accident? Evolution is not an accident!

Amen. I agree, it was a created trait. So?

In fact, evolution is often better at solving problems than we are!

It is? Can it give autographs?

We have come to start to recognize this as we start to use the power of evolution to find the solutions to problems, via genetic algorithms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

Whoopee do. You start off with a created trait, then create a program, to mimic that, and realize that there is intelligence after all. The evidence mounts. But not for your side.

Now, apparently, if we want to compare this childish exercise in copycatting to the real world, we find there are limitations.

"The first and most important point is that genetic algorithms are intrinsically parallel. Most other algorithms are serial and can only explore the solution space to a problem in one direction at a time, and if the solution they discover turns out to be suboptimal, there is nothing to do but abandon all work previously completed and start over. However, since GAs have multiple offspring, they can explore the solution space in multiple directions at once. If one path turns out to be a dead end, they can easily eliminate it and continue work on more promising avenues, giving them a greater chance each run of finding the optimal solution."
-your link
So, now, let's add rapid evolution, and the ark into the mix, rather than some of the dead ends and see how reality checks out, in the copycat game!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

The "that doesn't look like it could have come about by accident" line is invalid precisely because of the amazing power of evolution at finding solutions to complex problems. The solutions that evolution finds, by the way, are typically vastly more complex than solutions found by humans.

An example? If you can't find any humans smart enough to grasp the wonderful problems, (so far not mentioned, for some reason) that, glory be, 'evolution' (moment of silence please) found a solution to, maybe ask an ape to help you.

So, dad, how do you explain that your "looks designed to me" argument has any bearing whatsoever, now that humans are using evolution to design some structures?

First, where did you dig up this so called 'looks designed to me' business? Why are you addressing such a thing to me? Is it because I posted a picture of a pretty girl, that really seems well built, to me? Well, I like to start with the obvious, and dummy down from there, for those that miss the obvious.

 

[dad]

No, because he isn't needed.

That depends on who we ask. If we ask a spiritually lobotomized and long indoctrinated believer in only the physical world, or if we asked the average man. Apparently, there are a great many that do believe in what is called God.
As for assigning Him a number for some baby math useless exercise, why, you may have a problem there. Maybe just ask an ape to hold up some fingers, and see what you can come up with.

 

[dad]

Don't be purposefully thick. You know what he's asking you.


As to they are just an animal:

We are just an animal.

The only real difference between us is that we are more intelligent.

Really, now? And what qualifies you to say that? Are you familiar with all things that comprise men and beasts, including the spiritual?
We are not just an animal, so you can save your little baseless philosophy for some that might be inclined to believe that.

I looked up the Lutheran beliefs, and creeds, by the way. Since that is your claimed faith. They believe in a resurrection from the dead of the body.

"He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies" Are you positing that all animals, especially apes will be raised also bodily from the dead at the return of Christ!?? If not, that is a difference to end all differences!

Now, I noticed this bit as well, and thought of Genesis, and the creation of man and animals separately.
"[SIZE=+1]All Lutheran doctrine (teaching) is to be taken from Holy Scripture. Our Lutheran Confessions are very explicit on this point. ". . . the Word of God shall establish articles of faith and no one else,"
[/SIZE]http://linetap.com/trinity/trinity2.htm#Belief

Are you getting this??

 

[Chalnoth]

Whoopee do. You start off with a created trait, then create a program, to mimic that, and realize that there is intelligence after all. The evidence mounts. But not for your side.

Incorrect. With evolutionary algorithms, you start with two things:
1. A set of ways in which a program can vary.
2. A goal.

Then, you let the program run, and, for many problems, solving them in this manner turns out to be significantly better than people attempting to design solutions. There is nothing telling the computer what the solution is: it finds it on its own through the usage of the evolutionary algorithm.

Now, apparently, if we want to compare this childish exercise in copycatting to the real world, we find there are limitations.

"The first and most important point is that genetic algorithms are intrinsically parallel. Most other algorithms are serial and can only explore the solution space to a problem in one direction at a time, and if the solution they discover turns out to be suboptimal, there is nothing to do but abandon all work previously completed and start over. However, since GAs have multiple offspring, they can explore the solution space in multiple directions at once. If one path turns out to be a dead end, they can easily eliminate it and continue work on more promising avenues, giving them a greater chance each run of finding the optimal solution."
-your link
So, now, let's add rapid evolution, and the ark into the mix, rather than some of the dead ends and see how reality checks out, in the copycat game!

What in the world do you think that this shows?

First, where did you dig up this so called 'looks designed to me' business? Why are you addressing such a thing to me? Is it because I posted a picture of a pretty girl, that really seems well built, to me? Well, I like to start with the obvious, and dummy down from there, for those that miss the obvious.

Yes, that's where you posted it. But, as evolutionary algorithms show, "well built" in no way implies an intelligent designer.