The Creationist Explanaton

AV1611VET · Jun 2, 2018

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
*sarcasm* Oh boy. Another of your challenge threads! What fun! *sarcasm*

Not all learning is fun, is it?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 2, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Not all learning is fun, is it?

You tell me.

The IbanezerScrooge · Jun 2, 2018

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You tell me.

Seems like you guys need an aside.

Doveaman said:
Because they were designed different.

Shark tails are designed vertically requiring side to side motion:

Dolphin tails are designed horizontally requiring up and down motion:

This is a good start. A lot to unpack, though. "Design" is being assumed from the start. Who was the designer? Since an intelligence is being assumed here then we can also ask the reason for the particular design (something only the designer can answer definitively, which takes us back to the first question). What were/are the mechanisms of design? Is the designer still designing today? How were the designs implemented? Most importantly, what evidence do you have to present to support whatever answer you give to those questions?

Why do humans have two hands and two feet, and chimpanzees have four hands?

Environmental and ecological selective pressures favoring standing upright/walking/running and other traits kept mutations in HOX and other related genes related to the development of the lower torso, pelvis and hind limbs in a lineage of human-chimp precursors evidenced by experiments observing changes in these genes and fossil finds showing a successive morphological change of the anatomy of hominids over time.

...AND, presumably creationists would consider, say an ostrich and an eagle to be the same kind, but there is arguably as much or more morphological difference between those animals as there is between chimps and humans, so I would imagine this would still need an explanation from a creationist perspective that would apply to your question regarding hominid limbs just as well.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

Doveaman said:
Because they were designed different.

Yup. Its not rocket science!

HitchSlap · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
Yup. Its not rocket science!

Correct. It’s evolutionary biology.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

HitchSlap said:
Correct. It’s evolutionary biology.

Right blind faith. Designed different presupposes a designer. You missed that. But you go ahead and falsify an intelligent designer. Show how naturedidit.

pitabread · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
But you go ahead and falsify an intelligent designer.

Once again, not how the burden of proof works.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

pitabread said:
Once again, not how the burden of proof works.

The burden lies with the person making the claim. Now falsify an intelligent designer and stop with the excuses. All the nauseating appeals to science are simply lip service and stacked decks.

pitabread · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
The burden lies with the person making the claim.

Exactly. If you're proposing a designer it's up to you to demonstrate that.

Now falsify an intelligent designer and stop with the excuses.

Still not how it works.

All the nauseating appeals to science are simply lip serrvice and stacked decks.

We have a scientific explanation for the difference between shark and whale tails based on their respective evolutionary ancestry. If you have a problem with that, oh well. Deal with it.

If you want to propose an alternative, then do so. But so far the alternatives proposed haven't managed to rise past "they were just made that way".

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

pitabread said:
Exactly. If you're proposing a designer it's up to you to demonstrate that.

That has been done thru digital code in DNA. It tells us things. Show us building plans and its source is intelligence. It resonates with the reasonable and ignored, explained away, or outright denied with atheists. (It's not code? If you don't know code then you don't know squat!) So now you demonstrate how complex digital code got there in the first place via natural processes absent all the excuses. Chemical reactions do not create digital code. We know more about code then we do about gravity. If it appears designed then how do you know it was not designed? Jacques Clouseau was brilliant by comparison.

We have a scientific explanation

Science is not in the business of the promotion of fiction. What you have is a blind faith belief in extinct imaginary creatures you do not know the identity nor could it be identified if the remains were found since bones do not come with lineage attached. It is all ginned up after the fact by story spinners.

for the difference between shark and whale tails based on their respective evolutionary ancestry. If you have a problem with that, oh well. Deal with it.

I don't have a problem with your fictions as long as they are kept to your little group of cultists. I do have a problem with outright lying to children under the guise of science. Children need protection from cultists.

pitabread · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
That has been done thru digital code in DNA.

No it hasn't. Claiming that DNA is "code" and therefore has an intelligent source is simply an assertion. Demonstrating the validity of this assertion is a whole 'nother matter. And this is unfortunately where the ID movement has gotten stuck.

I'll grant there are demonstrable examples of such whereby humans have genetically manipulated DNA in organisms. But that's not the same thing as asserting that some other intelligence must have also written existing strands of DNA. Especially since a lot of what we observe genetically suggests processes around mutation, selection and so on in how naturally-occurring DNA has been shaped.

It resonates with the reasonable and ignored, explained away, or outright denied with atheists. (It's not code? If you don't know code then you don't know squat!)

This sounds like you're making an emotional argument. Unfortunately making an emotional argument doesn't help here.

So now you demonstrate how complex digital code got there in the first place via natural processes absent all the excuses.

We already know how DNA can be naturally altered via reproductive processes and these alterations can have different effects on an organism, including gain of entirely new functions.

If you're asking about the ultimate origin of DNA, that is still being worked on although the answer appears to lie in DNA-precursors. Regardless, that's not relevant when discussing shark and dolphin tails.

Science is not in the business of the promotion of fiction.

You're right, that's religion's job.

I don't have a problem with your fictions as long as they are kept to your little group of cultists. I do have a problem with outright lying to children under the guise of science. Children need protection from cultists.

Like it or not, the modern theory of evolution is a foundational component of modern biology. All the whining in the world isn't changing that.

The IbanezerScrooge · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
That has been done thru digital code in DNA. It tells us things. Show us building plans and its source is intelligence.

I just want to point out that if you're going to push the designer all the way back to the origins of DNA, then evolution would still be true.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
I just want to point out that if you're going to push the designer all the way back to the origins of DNA, then evolution would still be true.

Fair enough. Your atheism would be false. Besides it all depends on definitions. Even 6 day creationists agree with change over time.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

pitabread said:
No it hasn't. Claiming that DNA is "code" and therefore has an intelligent source is simply an assertion.

It is code and it has and is being decoded. The code is telling us information, body plans, lineage, identity. To name a few. Unique and complex information. It is a rational deduction. An inference, not an assertion. You can't even get that right. If you take it back to a start point then there has to be an efficient cause. The only known efficient first cause for complex code is intelligence, not chemical reactions. If chemical reactions could produce codes then there would be a template for artificial intelligence. It would be a gold mine. As it is, it is fiction.

Demonstrating the validity of this assertion is a whole 'nother matter. And this is unfortunately where the ID movement has gotten stuck.

It is demonstrated and you cannot falsify it. Science is about what is false.You can't falsify it nor do you have a natural explanation for its source. Your appeals are to ignorance. We don't know. That is not how it all works in the real world. They go with what they have and know free of atheistic stipulations. Liberated from front loaded unscientific mandates by cultists who refuse to consider the real possibilities.The real truth stoppers. If you don't know code, you don't know squat. If you don't know code then what else do you not know?

Like it or not, the modern theory of evolution is a foundational component of modern biology.

Garbage. it is all fiction and overstatements by cultists. No more valid than the overblown claims of moonies. Assuming they have them.

The IbanezerScrooge · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
Your atheism would be false.

Which I freely admit. If it can be proven that there actually is a god then I would be compelled to no longer be an atheist. Luckily for you the god you believe in is unfalsifiable so your beliefs are safe.

dmmesdale · Jun 2, 2018

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Which I freely admit. If it can be proven that there actually is a god then I would be compelled to no longer be an atheist. Luckily for you the god you believe in is unfalsifiable so your beliefs are safe.

Well you better get compelled because as it is you are without excuse and even if you do the right things it would be for the wrong reasons. Its your life. We have our day and God will have His.

pitabread · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
It is code and it has and is being decoded.

So? Even if you call it "code" this isn't the same thing as demonstrating its source is intelligent in nature. Especially since we already known mechanisms by which DNA replicates and changes.

An inference, not an assertion.

It's not a demonstrable inference. And consequently, it's a poor one.

It is demonstrated

No it hasn't. Look, I've spent quite a number of years pouring over ID literature. In fact, I find the very concept of ID to be quite fascinating. The idea that life on Earth may have had some other intelligent source at hand in shaping it is a powerful idea. And given we know of human technology (e.g. genetic engineering and space flight), not completely outside the realm of possibility.

The problem is that ID hasn't come up with any sort of reliable or demonstrable methodology for identifying "design" within DNA or anything else for that matter. Part of the problem is the lack of a designer and a known methodology for effecting such a design. The fact religious politics has become infused in the issue and in many cases is the driving motivation for promoting ID hasn't helped matters either. This is especially evident when reading ID literature by people with radically different beliefs (e.g. acceptance of common descent versus those who believe species were independently created). ID is all of the map in that regard.

Even your own continual references to "atheists" betray your own agenda based on religious politics, not science.

On top of all of that, we already have known mechanisms by which DNA replicates and changes over time. Patterns within DNA allow for identification of those mechanisms having shaped the DNA we observe in modern organisms.

Garbage. it is all fiction and overstatements by cultists. No more valid than the overblown claims of moonies. Assuming they have them.

You can stick your head in the sand and deny the theory of evolution's place in modern biology. But that's just the fact of the way things currently are. Denial isn't going to change it, nor is whining about it.

Jimmy D · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
Garbage. it is all fiction and overstatements by cultists. No more valid than the overblown claims of moonies. Assuming they have them.

Lol. I’d have to question whether you’re looking at the topic objectively.

HitchSlap · Jun 2, 2018

dmmesdale said:
Right...
Show how naturedidit.

Already have, it’s called Theory of Evolution.

pitabread · Jun 2, 2018

Jimmy D said:
Lol. I’d have to question whether you’re looking at the topic objectively.

I just don't understand how anyone can deny evolution's current place in biological science.

It would be like denying the usage of mathematics within physics. Completely nonsensical.

The Creationist Explanaton

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency