The Creationist Explanaton

[dmmesdale]

This is completely untrue. Evolution can and does explain it.

Does not make it right.
Defined.
That all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. (Absent an intelligent designer)

It uses the observed mechanisms as support for that explanation.

We would like to see the observed mechanisms that support all sexual reproduction from asexual without purpose. At face value, it is more of a faith proposition.

We can perform experiments on living organisms and observe the changes that occur during development related to those genetics. We can compare them against each other and against completely different organisms and draw further conclusions. etc.

Don't use intelligent intervention to deny intelligent intervention.

What mechanisms can creation/ID point to to support the conclusion of design of biological systems other than it being observed to perform a function and concluding that it was designed by some unknown/unknowable agent using some unknown/unknowable mechanism to perform that function?

Digital code in DNA for one. It is the fingerprint of intelligence. It can be decoded probably right down to eye color. If it looks designed and for a purpose then how do they know it was not designed and for a purpose?

You have to be able to derive design from observation.

Digital code, body design does all that. If its living then it source is living not exclusive nonliving. These are all facts.

So far, it is being assumed from the start.

What is being assumed from the start is the demarcation of an intelligent designer based on unscientific atheistic mandates which do zero to falsify an intelligent designer.

Evolution is a derived conclusion from observation. Not an a priori assumption.

No divine footprint in the door.

'The physicist Paul Davies tells us that “science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being’’


These are a priori. Demarcating an intelligent designer and then refusing to consider because it is deemed unscientific means the answer can be factually correct though scientifically false. It is contradictory and contradictions do not exist in reality. Atheists need to falsify an intelligent designer, not just refuse to consider because they do not like it.

 

[xianghua]

. Dolphins are evolved from terrestrial mammals and have different anatomical configuration for movement from their mammalian roots versus sharks which had purely aquatic lineage going back to the first fish in the Cambrian.

actually sharks have many unique (or almost unique) traits of a land creature (for instance they lack a swim bladder, unlike a tipical fish). so according to this criteria sharks also evolved from a land creature. here is another case of a "walking shark" (again: like a land creature):

New 'Walking' Shark Species Caught on Video

 

[pitabread]

actually sharks have many unique (or almost unique) traits of a land creature (for instance they lack a swim bladder, unlike a tipical fish). so according to this criteria sharks also evolved from a land creature.

No.

 

[xianghua]

No.

what a deep explanation.

 

[pitabread]

what a deep explanation.

There's nothing to explain. Nobody thinks sharks evolved from terrestrial organisms.

Proposing a scenario that nobody believes (including you) is pointless.

 

[xianghua]

But that design is present is not obvious to those of us who actually study biology for a living.

here is what prof dawkins have to say about that: "Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose."

are you also aware that most biologists believe in higher power?

That all organisms are related by common descent is simply a fact

if its a fact please provide a fact to support this claim.

 

[xianghua]

There's nothing to explain. Nobody thinks sharks evolved from terrestrial organisms.

Proposing a scenario that nobody believes (including you) is pointless.

so the evidence of whale evolution depend on what poeple believe? ok.

 

[pitabread]

so you admit that the whale evolution is just a belief. great.

I never said that. You're just playing dumb games and trying to twist my words.

 

[Speedwell]

are you also aware that most biologists believe in higher power?

So what? It wouldn't matter if they all believed in God. Science would still be what it is. Nothing about the theory of evolution denies or rules out the existence of God

 

[Speedwell]

Atheists need to falsify an intelligent designer, not just refuse to consider because they do not like it.

No they don't. Intelligent Design is scientifically unfalsifiable and they know it. They also know--as do most Christians and other theists--that Intelligent Design is bogus, nothing but a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism. Trying to make the evolution/biblical creation controversy into an atheist versus theist controversy is intellectually dishonest.

 

[dmmesdale]

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Intelligent Design is scientifically unfalsifiable and they know it.

Intelligent design is not unfalsifiabale. They do it all the time.

They also know--as do most Christians--that Intelligent Design is bogus, nothing but a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.

Opinion as distinct from fact. Let's not conflate the two.

Trying to make the evolution/biblical creation controversy into an atheist versus theist controversy is intellectually dishonest.

Accusations are not convictions. Given the mandates, make your case.
Let's not slime it all up with opinions and accusations absent any basis for rational discourse. The quotes were provided. Natural evolution defined above is atheistic history of life here.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes they do. Intelligent design is not unfalsifiabale. They do it all the time.

No, they just deny that IDists have demonstrated the presence of Intelligent Design.

Opinion as distinct from fact. Let's not conflate the two.

Proven in a court of law and asserted in the Discovery Institute's own publications.

The Wedge Document
Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts

Accusations are not convictions. Given the mandates, make your case.
Let's not slime it all up with opinions and accusations absent any basis for rational discourse. The quotes were provided. Natural evolution defined above is atheistic history of life here.

No, that dog won't hunt. Too many Christians and other theists understand and accept the theory of evolution, including evolutionary biologists. Admit it: this is not about the existence of God, it's about the Bible, as usual.

 

[AV1611VET]

Too many Christians and other theists understand and accept the theory of evolution,

Ain't that the truth!?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You must have a really low bar. And be very egotistical. What matters to you is nice and all, but it is folly to presume that that is enough.

No, my bar is God. That's higher than anything, FYI. God is enough of an answer for everything.

 

[USincognito]

so the evidence of whale evolution depend on what poeple believe? ok.

So's Law in action.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And this again reinforces that creationism has no explanatory power beyond "because God made them that way".

Nor do we need one. And I'm not a pure creationist. Christianity/Judaism's Old Testament is not a science text book, and doesn't attempt to explain things. God did it, that's good enough for me. I hold evolution as true, but we don't have it 'right' yet. Darwin tried to exclude God altogether.

 

[sfs]

here is what prof dawkins have to say about that: "Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose."

However much I respect Dawkins(*), I think he's wrong here. To my eyes, biological systems have the appearance of function, not of design. They look the opposite of designed, in fact.

(*) Which is very little, in fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

To my eyes, biological systems have the appearance of function, not of design. They look the opposite of designed, in fact.

Then why is so much biology reflected in artwork?

 

[sfs]

Then why is so much biology reflected in artwork?

I'm having trouble coming up with any answer other than "Huh?" Unless I missed a memo, the goal of artwork is not to provide representations of designed objects.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm having trouble coming up with any answer other than "Huh?" Unless I missed a memo, the goal of artwork is not to provide representations of designed objects.

This "nondesigned" piece of art will set you back $1470.00.

Perhaps artists know something scientists don't?