The Creationist Explanaton

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What if an asteroid strikes earth, stirs up dust, and lowers the temperature 50 degrees for a couple of decades?

... What the heck does that have to do with what I wrote?!

 

[Speedwell]

Who are IDer's?

IDer's are those who support the concept that intelligent design is demonstrable in living things. They have no well-formulated theory or any evidence of this, and confine themselves to attempting to show that evolution by random variation and selection is incompetent to account for the variety of living creatures we see around us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody believes that.

That's none of my business.

But if those nobodies say this:

And yet you've never given a single shred of evidence that shows that you don't hate science,

... I'll correct them.

 

[dreadnought]

... What the heck does that have to do with what I wrote?!

It shows that evolution isn't automatic.

 

[dreadnought]

IDer's are those who support the concept that intelligent design is demonstrable in living things. They have no well-formulated theory or any evidence of this, and confine themselves to attempting to show that evolution by random variation and selection is incompetent to account for the variety of living creatures we see around us.

I suppose it's difficult to prove that they are wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It shows that evolution isn't automatic.

I never said it was.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I suppose it's difficult to prove that they are wrong.

Not really.

 

[dreadnought]

Not really.

You would have difficulty convincing me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You would have difficulty convincing me.

I don't doubt that. So I'll end that particular bit and we can focus on the other one.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you satisfied with an answer described purely in terms of anatomy and function thereof?

If so, we'll leave it at that. (Although, I'm not sure how this is explicitly a 'creationist' explanation since arguably one could make the same explanation regardless of dolphin/shark origins.)

I'm satisfied with being correct on the point you choose to pretend miss, you not being truthful in your arguments. But clearly, you get it now.

 

[sfs]

Replication and change do not account for the creation of new information.

Sure they do. Or rather, replication with change combined with a selection process creates new information all the time. In fact, you'd be dead if replication with change followed by selection didn't create new information.

 

[pitabread]

I'm satisfied with being correct on the point you choose to pretend miss, you not being truthful in your arguments. But clearly, you get it now.

What I "get" from this thread is that creationism is limited to describing observable anatomy and function thereof, but not much else.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What I "get" from this thread is that creationism is limited to describing observable anatomy and function thereof, but not much else.

Yeah, I think I'd avoid the subject too if I were you. lol

 

[pitabread]

Yeah, I think I'd avoid the subject too if I were you. lol

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

"Honestly"? Now that's a good one.

All can recommend is you reread if you lost track.

 

[pitabread]

"Honestly"? Now that's a good one.

All can recommend is you reread if you lost track.

You claimed that the creationist explanation involves a dolphin using its tail to communicate via slapping (presumably requiring a horizontal tail to do so). And that sharks don't engage in this type of communication.

To which my response is that the creationist explanation then seems to be in regards to describing differences in function between the respective anatomical designs.

Is there anything further you have to add to this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure they do. Or rather, replication with change combined with a selection process creates new information all the time. In fact, you'd be dead if replication with change followed by selection didn't create new information.

There's no real question the the code can be altered to the benefit of the host and ultimately to populations at large. Common ancestry and natural selection is a viable, sometimes even obvious explanation, just not an explanation for natural history going all the way back to a single common ancestor. That assumption is an impossible burden of proof. If your convinced of natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions that go with it nessacarily you should own that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You claimed that the creationist explanation involves a dolphin using its tail to communicate via slapping (presumably requiring a horizontal tail to do so). And that sharks don't engage in this type of communication.

To which my response is that the creationist explanation then seems to be in regards to describing differences in function between the respective anatomical designs.

Is there anything further you have to add to this?

You didn't read back far enough.

 

[sfs]

There's no real question the the code can be altered to the benefit of the host and ultimately to populations at large. Common ancestry and natural selection is a viable, sometimes even obvious explanation, just not an explanation for natural history going all the way back to a single common ancestor. That assumption is an impossible burden of proof. If your convinced of natural selection and the naturalistic assumptions that go with it nessacarily you should own that.

I stated my views on the matter earlier in this thread: here

 

[pitabread]

You didn't read back far enough.

Either post what you are talking about or don't. I'm not combing through 24 pages of posts just to find whatever it is you are alluding to.